Will Donald Trump Be Good Or Bad For The Pharmaceutical Industry?


Under Obama we had US Attorney General – Eric Holder– and his revolving door syndrome with GlaxoSmithKline Lawyers – Covington and Burling– and the US department of Justice.

This was arguably a blatant example of a dodgy quid pro quo- conflict of interest.

Trump is more of a wild-card it seems, and considering his stance on vaccines and drug prices, nobody knows for sure what his influence will be on the pharmaceutical industry.

Will it be good or bad?

In the case of GlaxoSmithKline, as an investment, the investor from the article below- seems to think it will bode well.

However perhaps he hasn’t factored in Trump’s negative stance on vaccines.

GSK makes a vaccine called Infanrix, and Infanrix has been embroiled in controversy in recent times due to its alleged dangers (links to Autism etc).


“….Like the U.S., Italy has a national vaccine injury compensation program to give some financial support to those people who are injured by compulsory and recommended vaccinations. The Italian infant plaintiff received three doses of GlaxoSmithKline’s Infanrix Hexa, a hexavalent vaccine administered in the first year of life.  These doses occurred from March to October 2006. The vaccine is to protect children from polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, pertussis and Haemophilus influenza type B.  In addition to these antigens, however, the vaccine then contained thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative, aluminum, an adjuvant, as well as other toxic ingredients.  The child regressed into autism shortly after receiving the three doses.  When the parents presented their claim for compensation first to the Ministry of Health, as they were required to do, the Ministry rejected it.  Therefore, the family sued the Ministry in a court of general jurisdiction, an option which does not exist in the same form in the U.S…”

I’d like to think that Trump’s US attorney general will be a lot tougher, and a lot less friendly, to the the Pharmaceutical industry, than Obama’s was..


GlaxoSmithKline has appeal after Trump victory

By 11 November 2016
5 mins. to read
GlaxoSmithKline has appeal after Trump victory

The reaction to Donald Trump’s election victory has been surprising. First, stock markets sank. Then they rose. Now at the time of writing they are falling once more. Clearly, the only thing that investors can be certain of is that uncertainty will be high over the short to medium term.

Part of the reason for this is that Trump is a known unknown. He has no long-term track record in politics and it is impossible to know exactly what policies he will pursue. In fact, there is a good chance that even he does not yet know exactly how he will seek to improve the US economy. That’s why in my view it’s a good idea to own companies which have a relatively low positive correlation with the economy. One example of this is GlaxoSmithKline (LON:GSK), which I believe will outperform a volatile wider index over the medium term.

Old Trump Vs New Trump

Perhaps the most striking part of election night was Trump’s victory speech. It was a complete contrast to the gung-ho, pumped up and bullish tone which he had struck throughout the election campaign. Trump instead talked about uniting America and being a President for all Americans, words which at the time of writing at least, seem to have placated the markets somewhat.

However, one speech does not instantly erase the policies which Trump has been shouting about in the last couple of years. His desire to protect American jobs and make trading agreements less favourable to other countries mean that the world could take a step back from an era of increasing globalisation. Similarly, his apparent admiration for Vladimir Putin could cause uncertainty in the Middle East and even in Europe, while a tougher stance on China could lead to worsening relations between the two countries.

Volatility looks here to stay

Of course, many commentators are now claiming that Trump may govern with different policies to those on which he campaigned. Whether that proves to be correct or not, in my opinion Trump’s Presidency will include significant change on taxation, spending and foreign policy. Therefore, I believe that the uncertainty seen in stock markets since the election is just the beginning of a period of highly volatile share price movements.

In the current ‘lame duck’ period, uncertainty may not rise beyond the levels seen since the election. Barack Obama is keen to ensure a smooth handover of power and Donald Trump is unlikely to make any controversial comments regarding his plan of action. After all, he can’t do anything in terms of policy-change until he becomes President in 2017.

However, beyond the point at which Donald Trump becomes President, I believe that volatility will increase significantly. His plan to reduce taxes on businesses and on individuals while at the same time increase infrastructure spending may bring rewards in terms of job creation and GDP growth. But it also means higher risk, since debt levels are likely to rise in order to fill the hole created by higher spending and lower tax receipts. This could lead to higher uncertainty regarding the US economy’s future and cause share prices to become more volatile.

A stable solution

In such volatile times, companies which offer a consistent, stable and robust outlook could become more popular among investors. That’s why I’m optimistic about GlaxoSmithKline’s future share price performance versus the wider index. Its sales and profitability are less dependent upon the performance of the wider economy than is the case for most companies. This provides GlaxoSmithKline with defensive characteristics which are further enhanced by its diverse business model.

Essentially, GlaxoSmithKline is three businesses in one. It has a consumer goods division which sells products such as Horlicks and therefore benefits from a significant amount of customer loyalty. GlaxoSmithKline also has a pharmaceuticals division and a vaccines division. It is therefore more dependent on the patent cycle than the business cycle. When combined with its consumer division’s customer loyalty, this makes GlaxoSmithKline a robust and reliable performer which could be seen as a means of diversifying away from an uncertain economic outlook.

Future potential

GlaxoSmithKline is much more than just a defensive stock. Its drug pipeline holds significant promise in my view. For example, it spent £3.1 billion on R&D in 2015 and expects to generate a 13% internal rate of return (IRR) on this investment. Over the course of 2016/17, GlaxoSmithKline expects up to 20 Phase II starts and up to 10 Phase III starts. Looking further ahead, it has the potential to file up to 20 assets by 2020, which indicates that its sales could rise substantially over the medium term.

This should help to boost GlaxoSmithKline’s dividend payments. They are being frozen for the next couple of years as GlaxoSmithKline seeks to improve its cash position. Even without dividend growth in the near term, GlaxoSmithKline still has income appeal. It currently yields 5.1% versus 3.7% for the FTSE 100. This will help GlaxoSmithKline to record a positive total return should capital gains be difficult to achieve in a potentially uncertain period for global stock markets.


The US and global economies face a highly uncertain future. Although the next few weeks may prove to be a smooth transition, in 2017 I believe that the changes Donald Trump will seek to make to the US will cause share prices to become increasingly volatile. Although he may adopt a more conciliatory approach than he did during the campaign, Trump is likely to implement more radical policies than have been undertaken for a number of years. Even if they are successful in the long run, they are likely to cause investors to become increasingly risk-off in the short to medium term.

In such a situation, GlaxoSmithKline could gain in appeal. It has a well-diversified, stable business model which is not closely tied to the performance of the economy. It also has growth potential via its pipeline and offers a high yield which could appeal to defensive-minded investors. Therefore, in my opinion GlaxoSmithKline is an appealing investment following Trump’s unexpected election victory.



  1. Evie

    I have a good impression of Jeff Sessions based on what he said about the hideous, ongoing foreclosure fraud crime spree in the US. Unfortunately, I can’t find the page anymore, but he took the side of the homeowner, not the fully criminal bank executives, in something he wrote or said about the barrage of illegal foreclosures.

    Millions of home seizures have been done with forged paperwork by loan servicers who have no legitimate paper trail proving their authority to evict a family and take title to their house. In countless cases, an employee of the loan servicer poses as an employee of the Mortgage Registration Electronic Records Service (MERS) and assigns the deed of trust to his new employer. Many US states allow non-judicial foreclosures, including California, so there is no need for court approval of a foreclosure. The loan servicer just decides to do it, and the sheriff will obey the lock-out order without checking anything.

    Absolutely no one at Holder’s DOJ showed any interest in what has been called the largest financial crime in history.

    If Sessions can call the banksters on their B.S., I think he can handle pharma. Fingers crossed, anyway.

  2. Evie

    I found some interesting data about my and my sister’s vaccinations, as children. My mother kept good records of our early years in then-popular specialized scrapbooks that are usually called “Baby Books.” There were places to record all the minutiae of raising a baby, and store documents. In our books, my mother kept track of doctor visits, illnesses, and vaccinations, among other things. Our few notable illnesses were, it immediately after a doctor visit that included vaccinations. After the Salk vaccine, my poor sister had some kind of herpes-related (but not HSV I or II) infection of her mouth and throat that sounds ghastly. You don’t have to believe vaccines cause health problems to see the pattern. (It could be that doctors’ offices are especially germy, though.)

    However, a few vaccine-sickness pairings do not prove anything. It would be great to get data like ours from other people’s baby books, if they can find them after all these decades.

    As David Healy has pointed out, there’s nothing magical about vaccines that suggests they should have no unwanted side effects. They’re just another product of the pharmaceutical industry, which has many deadly gaffes on its record, so why the religious fervor in favor of deeming them absolutely safe and wonderful?

    • truthman30

      It’s ideological. The ‘medical establishment’ has decided that the casualties of vaccines are ‘acceptable collateral damage’ because vaccines are symbolic of the ‘miracles of medicine’. Their image must not be tarnished…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s