TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:scrumpyjack wrote:TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Hi G,
Always the inquisitive, that leaves me remaining with wondering why the NewGSK would wish to hold onto 20 or so% ownership of Healthcare. I can't see that it makes much difference to us existing shareholders. Perhaps it because some of the BUs have related internal teams and/or projects, so it was very difficult, hence not profitable to cleanly split.
Matt
Because it leaves the continuing GSK with a marketable asset they can turn into cash as and when they want to. The same is happening with Prudential and its demerger of Jackson Financial. They will have a holding of just under 20% of the quoted Jackson Financial and can sell some of those shares whenever they want to.
Always convenient for directors to have such a marketable asset to hand!
Thanks. Strictly speaking they are our shares, not the GSK directors'.
Matt
I think you have a very basic misunderstanding. Nobody is claiming that they are the GSK Director's shares. The shares will belong to that corporate body known as GlaxeSmithKline plc Like all other companies it has directors whose responsibility it is to run the company in the best interest of the shareholders in accordance with the various Companies Acts. Inter alia they have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to administer these assets in the best interests of the shareholders. It is true that they have pretty much carte blanche within a set of parameters but some things have got to be put to the shareholders, although I doubt that a decision to sell some of the 20% or so of these shares would be one of them. So strictly speaking they are not our shares. They are the property of and will be held in the name of GSK or one of its subsidiaries.
Dod