Haleon, the former consumer healthcare business of GSK, has raised its full-year revenue forecasts after sales were boosted by price rises.
The FTSE 100 company said revenue had risen 10.4 per cent to £5.7 billion in the six months to the end of June, with a mix of prices up 7.5 per cent and volumes rising 2.9 per cent.
Adjusted operating profit rose 8.9 per cent to £1.2 billion.
So, adjust this for inflation then. If volume’s up 3%, profits from price adjustments are up 6% (ignoring that marginal sales are likely most profitable etc) and then, well, are profits actually up in real terms or not? Depends upon hte inflation rate, right? Which is?
Innumerate journalists, as ever. If revenue is up 10.4% and volume up 2.9%, prices must be up 7.3%, not 7.5% and prices are down, relative to inflation.
If Glaxo was using capital equipment built with money borrowed at a fixed rate of interest then real profits might be up ‘cos inflation would affect depreciation *but* it isn’t – Glaxo has cash, so real profits should be after depreciation at replacement cost and Historic Cost Accounting overstates them. Glaxo’s profits are down, despite increasing volume [Tim is quite right, a lot of marginal sales value feeds through to profits] because prices have risen by a lesser percentage than costs.
Does it matter? For an investor, they just need to be able to compare it with other investments. Nominal or real is irrelevant for most people; unless you’re the manager of a defined-benefit pension scheme.
Just to be pedantic, Haleon is nothing to do with Glaxo.
Haleon was established on 18 July 2022 as a corporate spin-off from GSK.
@ Peter MacFarlane
That is not quite true since the ambulance-chasing US lawyers who are trying to sue Haleon and Glaxo over the alleged cancer risks from Zantac (which hasn’t caused a single death of which I have heard in the nearly two score years since it was launched) are suing both as jointly and severally liable for the imaginary damages.
Haleon largely comprises the consumer side of Beecham which was acquired by Smith, Kline, French before Glaxo took over Smith,Kline, Beecham. It was recently spun off but my comments on the depreciation charge relates to the borrowing (currently zero) to finance the capital expenditure on the manufacturing facilities.
So I should have said “Haleon” instead of Glaxo!! I still think of Haleon as being part of it.
Well if they”re lawyering up on a drug which (according to John77 @ 4.03) hasn’t caused a single death in 35 years, the shit will really hit the fan when (hoping it is when rather than if )they do the same to Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna and AstraZeneca.
Tut, tut Addolff. Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna and AstraZeneca don’t work so they won’t do that.
Bogan, research published some weeks ago proposes that there were three ‘tranches’ of jollop supplied to the lab rats / sheeple / mugs / honest, decent, trusting people trying their best and doing, what they have been told by their betters, the right thing.
One = high strength stuff which was injected into approx 4% of vaxinees and which was responsible for 71% of reported* adverse events (max 1 in 20).
Two = Watered down batch, adverse events around 1 in a 1000.
Three = Adverse events around the level expected from a placebo.
“Well, I had my shot and I felt fine. I subsequently got Covid though”. I wonder which tranche they were given.
*We all know 90-95% don’t get reported. I wonder what the real number is….
@Addolff: My feeling is that if there were different ‘categories’ of jabs, they were accidental rather than designed. Probably because of the rushed nature of everything to do with jab design, testing and manufacture. I did think at the time that everything was happening extremely quickly for a process that is a) immensely complex, b) requires 100% precision and accuracy, and c) is being done at a scale probably not attempted before. My guess is that the ‘hot’ jabs were ones that got far too much active ingredient (or some other toxic element was over represented), the ‘normal’ ones were ‘on spec’ (though obviously still not ‘safe and effective’) and the ‘placebos’ were ones that never got any active ingredients at all for some reason.
The whole vaccine manufacturing process was never submitted to any independent quality control on output. Governments were so desperate for the jabs that they just let the manufacturers ship the product out and started injecting people willy nilly. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that?
That would be plausible, except that it’s been recently reported that the German medicines regulator (involved because BioNTech is a German company producing the active parts for the EU) didn’t bother to test any of the “Yellow” batches of mRNA apart from the first one, and those batches are the ones with no adverse effects. It’s almost as if they knew from the start that those were placebos. Other “Blue” (hot) and “Green” (middling) batches were almost all tested.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/pfizer-vaccine-batches-in-the-eu-were-placebos-say-scientists/
and a follow-up: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/09/why-the-yellow-vaccine-batches-really-do-appear-to-be-placebos/
BiW, that was within the research I mentioned.
Jim, ‘accidental lab leak’, ‘Chuck the contingency plans we have devised based on experience and scientific evidence over the last 150 years in the bin’, ‘Mandate people to have an untested’ (in the context of the word ‘tested’ which has been in accepted parlance for decades) ‘Vaccine’ (which is outside the definition of ‘vaccine’ which has been in accepted parlance for decades), providing ‘immunisation’ (which is outside the definition of immunisation which has been…..’you get the idea).
“To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
I’m sorry, someone, somewhere engineered this. The whole farago.
Sure. My reply was to Jim, and I was highlighting the supposition that the relevant regulator knew in advance that a group of batches was in fact just a placebo.
““To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
I’m sorry, someone, somewhere engineered this. The whole farago.”
I disagree. I’d say what we got was a mostly a result of BiS’s ‘self interest’ argument.
Why did ‘the science’ immediately act to cover up the lab leak? because they knew they were up to their necks in it, having probably funded the very research that created it, in direct contravention of Obama’s ‘No GoF research’ directive. They didn’t very much fancy having a noose around their necks.
Why did we get a ‘vaccine’ and not one of the cheap and safe potential alternatives? Because the drug companies knew there was an Emperor’s Ransom awaiting a ‘solution’ to the problem, if they controlled it. The entire global public were screaming for a way out, and politicians were printing money to throw at anyone who could offer it. All drug safety and public health organisations are bought and paid for subsidiaries of Big Pharma, as is most of the medical profession, particularly the trade union bits at the top. So favours were called in, they nixed the competition by getting the public health bodies to declare them not legal to use on covid, vaccines become the only game in town. Everyone is screaming for your product, if you can manufacture the appearance of something that ‘works’ you hit the motherlode. And guess what – 2 of the most fined (for fraud and corruption) drug companies ever managed to get on the covid gravy train. Funny that. The only odd thing is Glaxo (the most fined drug company ever) didn’t manage to stick their snout in the trough.
Covid is what happens when you let Big State and Big Government loose on a problem – they all work in their own self interest and not the public’s.
I means Big Business and Big State……