Advice needed for regular saving/investing

If you put it all in Gold/Silver bullion you will make a decent return over the next 4 years, guaranteed. You will beat 99% of the funds out there doing this.

If you want to be a bit more adventurous and make some really decent returns, you could stick half your investment into some high risk stocks. Junior Miners/Oil and Biotech are always good places to start.

Having said that, I would remain vigilant. I see another crash happening within 4 years. But we are in a bit of a bull market at the moment, so would definitely be a good time to starting investing.

Thanks for the reply Whippet,
I have been looking at gold, ie, buying physical gold, just a bit nervous considering it is at a 10 year high and all that what goes up must come down and have I missed the boat mentality...saying that, it remained pretty much unaffected by the last crash so I would assume that would be the case should there be another crash..does anybody know of a reputable place in the UK to purchase physical gold?

Gold/silver is v high risk to your capital particularly investing in it directly.

What happens if china suddenly think we are turning the corner and dumps a load of gold on to the Market. Supply will outstrip demand and the price of gold will get hammered.

If you think that commodities are going to go up over the next few years your better investing In a commodities ETF which is a basket of commodities spreading your risk slightly. I personally think your bonkers to try and call whether one asset class is going to go up in the next 4 years.

vintage wine is the best investment at the moment

I have been looking at gold, ie, buying physical gold, just a bit nervous considering it is at a 10 year high and all that what goes up must come down and have I missed the boat mentality..

Bonds are at 30 year lows, effective interest rates are at all time lows, unemployment is at 20 year highs even with these financial steroids, consumer leverage is in a perrilous position even with penal interest rates, same with government defecits and the outlook for government defecits thanks to demographics are horrendous. Oh yeah, there's also peak Oil on the horizon just for kicks.

Nothing is remotely safe at the moment.

Inflation Linked Gilts in the UK can't be that bad if you don't want to take any real risks.

What if China suddenly think we're turning the corner?

Are you high?

The fed is monetising America's debt and China are suffering the effects of that by exporting to America in exchange for inflated dollars which are tied to the Yuan.

China knows America is going to run the printing presses until they can pay their debts with inflated dollars. Gold and silver is a must IMO. China are buying it for a reason.

I'd spread it across some different investments. I'd include scottish & southern energy & GSk. Check the dividends they are paying & if you include them,  make sure you re-invest the dividends.

Why would anyone want to hold big pharma long term...? The business model is finished - they are now just resorting to paying inflated prices for promising patents from other companies, and then developing it themselves. This is not a good way to add shareholder value.

The future is definitely biopharma/tech, focusing on highly targeted treatments with the aid of advances in understanding of the human genome.

for a 4 year time frame
food. look for a move away from corn and grain in the first world, it will still retain value in third world and for industrial uses but exponential growth will be other areas
(alternative) energy. solar probably still the frontrunner, just a question of picking the right stock
tech. this is a win/lose game, eg cisco or apple still room for growth but the likes of microsoft and nokia you have to wonder
commodities. platinum has had a great run so hard to find value now, but still beats other precious metals in it's added industrial value
just some examples but the key is to do you due diligence and pick your own, you won't get a refund from all the analysts and random forumites so don't take advice as gospel, try to invest in something you understand well

Andrew Witty's (GSK CEO) strategy is to broaden GSK's business beyond reliance on blockbuster drugs and to ramp up investment in vaccines, and move more rapidly into the developing world, even working with generic drug firms to broaden their offering. They have a goo pipeline. They have slashed costs in the last few years to address patent expiry. They are coming out of this process now and are also paying a very decent dividend. This, together with the planned share buybacks should ensure that GSK represent an excellent long term investment.

I know all that, but you still haven't answered my question.

1. Big Pharma is now having to resort to paying over inflated prices for other companies' research, rather than doing it themselves - not a good way to add shareholder value.

2. GSK doesn't have any research capabilities anymore, so are going to get destroyed by other companies with that expertise. The future of medicine is drugs that have been designed using advances in Genome sequencing. Within 3 years there will be a $1000 sequencer available, which will significantly up the research capabilities of certain companies, leaving dinosaurs like GSK in the dust.

3. They might be expanding into the developing world, but the margin's aren't as high there. The US market used to be massive, because for some reason they were willing to pay inflated prices on everything (margins were over 30% more that side of the pond). Thanks to Obama, that is now finished, so what are they going to do?

This last point is the most crucial part. How are they ever going to get back anywhere near old revenues if the market isn't there anymore? If they can't up revenues, then the share price isn't going anywhere, simple. Having a dividend isn't reason enough to invest, because there are Oil/Mining companies which offer decent dividends, and will show decent growth over the coming years as well because the commodity prices are increasing.

Big pharma is dying a slow death, that should be obvious. I doubt very much that GSK will exist within 10 years in it's current form, and if it does, it will be a shadow of it's former self.

They still do their own research & development as well as having external partnerships . I suspect some of their ca 99,000 employees worldwide may be doing some R&D! They are working on Respiratory, Metabolic pathways, Infectious diseases, biopharm, cancer, vaccines .....
The fact is, an increasing proportion of the drugs that have made it to late phase development over the last 10 years have been licensed in. They have a very good product pipeline. Darapladib is certainly a drug to keep an eye on! I can't post the detail I know about this product.
Witty's idea is to diversify & become less dependant on blockbuster drugs, so you would expect cuts to allow involvement in other areas. He wants to de-risk the business.

The market will always be there. People suffer more ill health as they get older.
I expect GSK will be there in 100 years time, though of course with less dependence on pharmaceuticals. I'd expect more acquisitions will be on the horizon. They are a big cash generator.

You still haven't told me anything I don't already know, and haven't answered any of my points as of yet. You have yet to provide a decent reason why GSK is a good investment at this moment in time.

A dividend is not a good reason - there are mining/oil companies that offer dividends and will see considerably more growth than GSK will because the the underlying margins are increasing, rather than shrinking in the case of pharma.

A buy and hold strategy with GSK over the last decade would have given you a pitiful return, unless you were lucky enough to buy shares in 1999/2000, or you were in their BOGOF employee share scheme, which it seems likely you were.

There are hundreds of shares out there to pick from, yet you would choose above anything the company you work for, despite their prospects not being particularly brilliant?

I do not work for GSK. I have owned shares in Glaxo, now GSK since ca 1988. I have answered lots of your points, yet you choose to ignore the answers that you do not wish to read. You should invest in what you know and I know a great deal about this company and have a lot of faith in them.

In this time, I have bought shares at a low of ca £5 and seen the shares split twice. So by my estimation, they have gone up around 9 times in 23 years since I bought the original ones, excluding significant dividends, which contribute very significantly to the overall growth. (> 60% of share growth is thought to come from re-invested dividends). I agree, that along with other big pharmaceutical companies, they have not performed well in recent times. I suppose it depends on how you see the markets going. I would always recommend people have their investments diversified.

@ Stow : reading someone's post is not a prerequisite for attempting to trash it on this forum. Wipeout and Mr Bean have made an art of it, so get use to it.

@ wipeout: anger issues?

So your recommending GSK to invest in is entirely down to blind faith in Andrew Witty? I also know a lot about GSK, more than you might think, and have given you plenty of reasons why big pharma isn't a good investment right now, the main point being that margins are decreasing. As for GSK's pipeline, ok, they may be able to effectively replace medicines that are coming/ have come off patent, but that still doesn't mean there is going to be any revenue growth, because of the loss in margins.

What makes big pharma such a good investment, when you could invest in other sectors where the margins are actually increasing? (oil/mining)

Whilst you have undoubtedly done well from GSK shares, that is only because you got in at a good time. If you had first bought anywhere from 2000-now you would have hardly made anything, in fact you could have lost money.

Just blind faith in Witty eh?

1) Witty’s strategy
- broaden GSK's business beyond reliance on blockbuster drugs
-  ramp up investment in vaccines
-  ramp up investment in vaccines, and move more rapidly into the developing world, even working with generic drug firms to broaden their offering

2) They have a good pipeline
3) They have slashed costs in the last few years to address patent expiry
4) They are  emerging from patent expiry now and are also paying a very decent dividend
5) They announced planned share buybacks
6) They are working on biopharm & you suggest that the “The future is definitely biopharma/tech”
7) > 60% of share growth is thought to come from re-invested dividends

I gave seven reasons

You appear not to be able to read, or count.
It would appear that there is little point in discussing anything further with you.

The crucial point you seem to be missing is why GSK over any other of the hundreds of shares you could pick from?

Big pharma is finished, but for some reason you can't see it. All the points above don't really mean a lot, because it is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

You can't argue with the fact that margins for pharma companies are decreasing. It is all very well having a good pipeline, but what good does it do if you can't sell your products for as much? This is the crucial point you seem to have missed.

Please refute this point:

Why would you pick a pharma company over an oil/mining company? The dividends are just as good, if not better, and these companies are likely to see considerable growth over the coming years as the price of commodities increase, compared to big pharma which is likely to stagnate at current levels.

Stow taking wipeout to school

Refute it ??? Easy.....if you wrote it, it's trash.....no need to spend brain cells refuting it. Other than that, you know I you.

Look at a diversified investment trust, something like the Personal Assest one. It has physical gold holdings as well as a lot of blue chips. It should be fairly stable, pays a dividend, and will probably outperform cash over a 4 year timeframe. Other ones to look at would be something like the Edinburgh Trust, or Finsbury Growth and Income.