GSK oncology is clueless

Quote
It's clear that the way to sustained growth is acquisition of assets from smaller R&D entities. The days have long passed of creating product in our own labs with the exception of vaccines.
 






anonymous said:
It's clear that the way to sustained growth is acquisition of assets from smaller R&D entities. The days have long passed of creating product in our own labs with the exception of vaccines.
Click to expand...

Agree. When another casing pipe was twisted, a single-piece spring centralizer with retaining rings slipped onto a hydraulic tong.
 












anonymous said:
It's clear that the way to sustained growth is acquisition of assets from smaller R&D entities. The days have long passed of creating product in our own labs with the exception of vaccines.
Click to expand...

You are not wrong; the remaining problem is that GSK lacks the track record of developing acquired oncology assets into successful commercial entities. In a word, they suck.
So any company with a real high potential asset is going to be looking for players who will deliver max ROI.
The exception is small companies who are in decline and must have immediate cash. However, even in that scenario, GSK’s lack of commitment to oncology and “other” focus means they will be out bid on most all potential blockbuster assets. They are sorely lacking in leadership and vision for oncology.

I look for GSK to divest oncology assets in 18 months and shift entirely to vaccines, respiratory, and infectious diseases. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it would be best for the organization.
 






Ridiculous. The whole unit. Look at the managers in the east alone. Lazy grifters that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They are great at bullshit which is a great skill to have at GSK. Look at the massive turnover in the past few years. As usual the good ones see the ship sinking and jump. If a manager is still there, go check their calls and interactions, I’d put money down they are jumping on with those reps or they are straight faking it. Fuckingnlosers.
 






anonymous said:
You are not wrong; the remaining problem is that GSK lacks the track record of developing acquired oncology assets into successful commercial entities. In a word, they suck.
So any company with a real high potential asset is going to be looking for players who will deliver max ROI.
The exception is small companies who are in decline and must have immediate cash. However, even in that scenario, GSK’s lack of commitment to oncology and “other” focus means they will be out bid on most all potential blockbuster assets. They are sorely lacking in leadership and vision for oncology.

I look for GSK to divest oncology assets in 18 months and shift entirely to vaccines, respiratory, and infectious diseases. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it would be best for the organization.
Click to expand...
 






















































Top Bottom
Back
Quote