Emma Walmsley - Chief Executive Officer Simon Dingemans - Chief Financial Officer Eric Dube - Senior Vice President & Head Global Respiratory Franchise Patrick Vallance - President, Pharmaceuticals R&D David Redfern - Chairman, HIV Business and Chief Strategy Officer Brian McNamara - Chief Executive Officer, GSK Consumer Healthcare Luke Miels - President, Global Pharmaceuticals Jack Bailey - President U.S. Pharma and Vaccines Business John Pottage - Senior Vice President, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer at ViiV Healthcare Joe Touey - Senior Vice President, Global ERP Deborah Waterhouse - Chief Executive Office ViiV Healthcare

Andrew Baum - Citi Vincent Meunier - Morgan Stanley Keyur Parekh - Goldman Sachs Mike Weston - Credit Suisse Graham Parry - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Sam Fazel - Bloomberg Intelligence Kerry Holford - Exane BNP Paribas Richard Parkes - Deutsche Bank Timothy Minton Anderson - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC Michael Leuchten - UBS James Gordon - JPMorgan Steve Scala - Cowen

So welcome and good afternoon to everybody here, and good morning to those of you who either watching or listening in from the U.S. Today we have announced our Q2 results. And I am setting out the priorities that we will drive to improve our performance and our returns for the long term with the first phase focus on the next three years. Of course for the whole presentation, we start off with our cautionary statement as usual. And in terms of the agenda this afternoon, Simon and I are going to share our priorities and financial implication for the next hour a half and we'll have a short break followed by an extended one and half hour Q&A with a broader group. Of course today we have a fantastic team GSK from here, Patrick of course who leads R&D; David Redfern, Chairman of our HIV Business and also Chief Strategy Officer and Leader of the strategic fiber work; Brian and Luke are here the relatively new heads of our Consumer and Vaccines business. I also have with make Jack Bailey, President our U.S. Pharma and Vaccines business; Eric Dube, who leads our Global Respiratory business; Deb Waterhouse, the new leader in our HIV business and Head of R&D, John Pottage just landed here today directly from attending the IAS Meeting in Paris; and then to stay with our R&D team and so on some more specific questions you may have either in the later session of within the reception this evening with also another eight key R&D leaders here in the room. So I'm going to spend most of this presentation talking about our halfway to better return. So I'm going to start standing in front of you for the first time as a new CEO by sharing with…

Thank you, Emma. So before moving to the outlook for 2017 and 2020, I'm going to comment briefly on our Q2 results. As a reminder, I covered these results in detail in the video issued alongside a press release earlier today both of which you can find on our website. So I keep my Q2 commentary over the next few minutes at a relatively high level in order that we can focus time on the future and the implications of the announcements we've made today on our financial outlook. So first on our total results, these include some significant charges that reflect better prospects for the group and the implementation of our new business priorities. Specifically we have again increased the estimated valuations of our Consumer and HIV businesses as well as the level of contingent consideration we expect to pay to Shionogi and relation to the HIV business and to Novartis at the next vaccines milestone becomes more life. This is the reminder that relates to non-U.S. sales of Bexera which is clearly growing strongly. Total results this quarter also includes charges of approximately £450 million relating to our decision to withdraw support for Tanzeum over the next 12 months or so. The rest of my comments will be on our adjusted results. The results we reported today reflect another quarter of strong operational delivery as well as continued investment behind key future growth drivers in each of our businesses particularly new product support and R&D investment in pharmaceuticals. Over the last several quarters, we've stepped up pharma R&D spending as we advance our pipeline. As Emma has highlighted HIV is one of our core therapy areas. And during the second quarter, we took the decision to invest for the first time in a Priority Review Voucher to accelerate…

[Operator Instructions]

We're now moving into the Q&A session up to an hour and half or longer if you got more questions. As you can say, I'm joined by my team here on the stage and just to remind you in case that recognized them from right to left we got Simon, our SP; Patrick Vallance, Head of R&D; Dave Redfern, is Chair of our HIV Business and the Chief Strategy Officer; Deb and John who lead our HIV Business; Luke and Brian, Luke runs our global Vaccines business and Brian, Global Consumer and we have Jack who is President of our U.S. both Vaccines and Pharma business and last but not least Eric Dube who runs our Global Respiratory business. So I will be sharing the Q&A session, but obviously sharing out - the answer to your questions with them and then in the front row on both sides we have many of our R&D leaders as well. So just in terms of the basis of this session you're probably all extremely familiar with them, but for those of you that are in the room could you please raise your hands and then switch on the red button in front of you when I signal to you and ask your question and then please do switches off, so that we can and answer and then move on to the next person. And I also be taking questions that are going to come in either online and on the telephone line and via the webcast. Last request please do as usual try to restrict your questions to two to three at the time so you can get run as many people as possible. Okay, who would like to kick start? That's an encouraging sign.

Thank you. Andrew Baum, Citi. Two areas; first of all you've highlighted oncology as the potential platform attending the readout of the status. Does that preclude any significant transactions within the oncology space ahead of that time? And then the same vein could you give some further color on the divestments of the established products business in terms of the consideration you may expect to get financial consideration from the sale of those revenues, just thinking in terms of financing a bolt on transaction and strengthening what you can do with your balance sheet? And then a question for John and apologies for the predictability, in the IS data on the resistance mutation that were shown particularly the integrates resistance mutation particularly from a competitive perspective with Gilead being able to leverage that data and to shy people away from adopting it, how do you deal with that, especially in the U.S. where you attraction with KOLs with the two drug regimen is somewhat less than is not the territories in the world? Thank you.

So thank you very much. And we will come back to John and maybe Deborah also talking as in terms of commercial competitiveness question in terms of our HIV business. And Simon do you want to comment on the divestment considerations one?

That's a pretty wide range of businesses within that mix, but typically for that profile you'd expect one to two time sales something like that.

And in terms of your question on oncology, I mean you're right, we have very clearly high so that as a potential area dependent on data, and we do want to see whether we have an anchor assets for ourselves whether or not we should go move out with any of the partners and there are several other but we're already in partnership from certain clinical whether we can consider or indeed as you are aware Novartis as the right view on the asset from an asset by asset basis. So I don't think we'll be looking at any material transactions ourselves until we see more data there. So if you could get around the expected and important HIV question, John would you like to respond to that one?

Sure I will try to give a little perspective, so you're asking about the ACTG 53, 53 study that was presented yesterday. And this is a pilot study if actually followed the first pilot study that went forward for the two drug regimen of Dolutegravir plus 3TC, 3D treatment naïve patients that was the paddle study and actually at the meeting we saw the 96 week data and of those 20 initial patients really the durability has really stood up over the 96 week period. Following the first report of that the ACTG went forward with a larger study of 120 patients being treated with Dolutegravir 3TC and they reported on 24 week data at this meeting, and actually the meeting or the data that was presented was pretty spectacular because you had 90% of patients at 24 weeks with the two drug regimen being fully suppressed. Now as you know there were three patients that did have urologic failures, one of whom who the investigator described as chaotically non-adherent to paraphrasing did develop resistance or emergence of resistance and mutations to both the 3TC and also to the integrate drug - the integrates drug with kind of what we describe as a minor resistance mutation. Now I think it's notable for all the previous treatment naïve that is with Dolutegravir we have not had a patient development. We have had reports of patients who are treatment naïve develop integrates resistance mutation, but that's been a very rare event, and as I said not been association with clinical trials. This is a pilot study and I think the real telling of a tale here will be looking at the results of that GEMINI study which will be over 1200 patients being studied with this, if obviously always disappointing to us to see patient develop that, but clearly someone who's not adherence is not that unexpected, and it's something we take. And really look to see the larger body of evidence as develops going forward. I do think you really have to come back to the overall performance of the regimen compared to that really before you really can assess at how it stacks up against other regimens along the line, because development of resistance that occurs with all regimens and so I think that we'll just have to see the data as it plays out, but I think that the overall the data there is really encouraging and pretty exciting to us.

Okay John comment on the competitiveness. You know that the failure that John just talked about will be kind of that graft by our competitors. But I also believe that GEMINI is a very, very important study and that is where you will really see the strength of Dolutegravir 3TC from my perspective we've got a pipeline of two drug regimen projects with Dolutegravir coming out first followed on Dolutegravir 3TC and then move into the long acting area with cabotegravir. So I think we got a very strong proposition GEMINI will be key with obviously already got sold one and two which we shared it at CROI. For me we have a very competitive offering in the U.S. and globally and I think we have very much prepared to match our competitor share voice wise with our sales force in the marketing space with our medical sales forces which are the same size if not and if the places even larger than our competitors. So I think with repository very, very competitive both in the U.S. and beyond see the CROI yesterday both from Europe and the U.S. is that very excited about the two drug regimen portfolio. We've got, but that very much waiting for GEMINI, and I think GEMINI now becomes a much more important milestone from a data perspective for us to judge you know just how successful we will be with Dolutegravir 3TC.

Yeah, thank you, Vincent Meunier from Morgan Stanley. So the first question is follow up on oncology, I mean how do you think you can become a top oncology company in the context of you restarting investing in that area after the divestments quite recently to Novartis. And quite very competitive landscape with many big companies investing in new technologies for several years, so how - what is your value proposition here? The second question is on the dividend, can you explain us how does it work I mean should we consider that 80 pence for 2018 is the days maybe a floor should we expect at some point maybe a dividend cuts at the end of the decade if you do not cover the dividend or if you for instance make it big acquisition, and then the free cash flow is impacted? Thank you.

Okay thank you very for the questions. I'll respond on the dividend, we also have a question on line from Mark, I'll give you an outlook on the dividend of 2018, so I should combine in those two together. And I'll give a quick read oncology and I ask Patrick as well to pick up on that. So on the dividend we know it matches, we're expecting 80 pence in 2017 and we expected in 2018, because we know that was a key question, so today we wanted to give visibility on it. We also wants to give visibility by announcing a policy we based with - where distribution we based of free cash with a target cover of 1.25 to 1.5, so we get clarity that we're working towards rebuilding that cover before increasing the dividend. So it's really a very important message that we want to have understood but if you want to keep investing in the business first future growth. And our intention is to be rebuilding that cover off an 2018 based, that says I'm not going to understand here and say the dividend will never be cut as some circumstances have decided that is required and appropriate, but that would be a bold decision at the time and our intense is absolutely to be rebuilding the coverage as I said from that basis, and we are not going to be pronouncing on the dividend in the medium term, I mean said this we will move back 2019 into quarterly declarations, so I hope that is crystal clear for everybody. And then on oncology question, I just - we in the deal with Novartis which we all feel was a fantastic way to get value for the commercialized oncology assets that we had and build up to really world leading scale business in vaccines and consumer is important to say and was perhaps not sufficiently understood at the time that we absolutely retain our R&D capability in oncology with some great R&D talent and some exciting early stage assets that we think do have potentials bring real value for GSK. That said already and how we get that value is still to be concerns depending on the data set, and Patrick would you like to comment a bit more on specifically on the asset obviously Luke Miels will also have a meaningful role to play here in terms of thoughtfulness around what is possible and what is right in terms of all right to when and have the commercialization and especially area which is bit different in terms of building commercial capability. Patrick if you want to add to that?

When Novartis took place we kept our discovery effort in oncology in a very focused place which is where we thought we had deep expertise, one in epigenetics where we were early in the field and remain very deep in the science we have. And the second in immuno oncology based on a very strong immunology presence for GSK and the immuno oncology expertise as leader of that area. So those two areas we're not trying to be an all-encompassing oncology play we're pursuing largely those two areas and we want to comment on any of the recent things, because our pipeline is now beginning to declare itself in terms of where we are in our clinical readouts and indeed in terms of the combinations that we have, which are unique or the forefront of the next where you go some of these areas do you want to comment and making specific.

That our pipeline is entirely based on innovation. We have delivered a lot of value in a relatively short period of time if you think about the way this deal was structured with Novartis there was only discovery asset left in the oncology pipeline, post Novartis. We now two and half years later, we have 11 assets in the clinic, we have seven of those that carry a lot of promise and the lead asset is actually just revealing itself to have a level of efficacy that you could call potentially blockbuster efficacy, so with a 60% approximately 60% response rate in refractory multiple myeloma without BCMA antibody drug you get. We already double what there are two more map that shown at the same stage of development and there are two map has become a blockbuster asset. And if you compared with other combination work pomalidomide, dexametasona and tumomab together achieve about the same level of response rate that we have as the monotherapy. So if this continues which is what we're expecting then once we enter combinations, I think we will have a strong stance for multiple myeloma patients. So having said that that's the leader asset in the portfolio, where we clearly have efficacy data now that is meaningful and the other assets pushing to produce additional value where as Emma says, we still have to wait more leaders.

Thank you. In the phone line Tim from Bernstein. Can you ask your question please? Maybe not. Okay, there's one question on line that Simon I'm going to walk you to pick up question and whether the slowdown and consumer makes us things that probability that Novartis will put to us next year was about probabilities increased, probably a question for Joe, but if so how we comfortable we can fund this as well as returning flexibilities for other M&A in consumer?

Thanks Emma, I've been clearly the first part of the question is the question for Novartis and they've made that position pretty clear in their own recent earnings call, but they will have to decide when they want to exercise that puts it in there, put or not our call. We've been very clear we would like to acquire the rest of the business as and when they decide to exercise, and we're very comfortable we can fund it exactly how we choose to fund it I mean it's very premature to get into that discussion as clearly that put could be some way and way.

Question from the room.

It's Keyur Parekh from Goldman. I had a follow up, congratulations and thank you for Frank on assessment of GSK's execution over the last few years, well done on that. Useful two questions, the first when you spoke a lot about what you're were changing, my question is in on what you're not changing and that is your financial target for 2020 kind of a lot has gone in your favor since you force issued those targets, you're now in billion dollar incremental cost savings program today, and yet what we are seeing is unchanged EPS expectations. So just something are you running faster just to standstill or is that in heading conservatism and what you're laying down today? That's question number one. And then question number two, apologies the dividend thing is to not crystal clear do lot of bust so I'm going to come back to that. The press release says over building dividend cover overtime, I would like to understand what overtime actually means in kind of your mind and inherently there has given on the fact that it want looks that you define free cash flow for 2016 the dividend cover was 0.8 times free cash flow. To take it to 1.25 times on consensus number just unlikely to get there by 2020, so is that an appropriate context to think about overtime or should we be thinking about a longer term cycle than that? Thank you.

Thank you very much Keyur, and again I reiterate part of an assessment of where we are came to listening to a lot of very transparent shareholders and lead analysts, so I should thank you for that and request that from an ongoing basis. [indiscernible] is new I'm confident that for the long term. So I'm going to ask Simon has come back on the definition of overtime, but just to give me my headlines on the 2020 guidance, I think it's very important and he did have in his slide on the puts and takes that make up landing on the same outlet, just remind us since 2015 we will be taken out £900 million of turnover and divestment versus what the base was in 2015 of which £500 million is still to come I think £400 million which is within fall in terms to go. We are talking about investing more in R&D with the big focus agenda in R&D, but whether you look at Q2 and you know the assets and we've taken that into account the assets we think we want to bet on that will be continuously invested in slight pressure on the tax rate and some slowdowns and pressures whether that's an adjustments in consumer both for environmental and one off or also the pricing pressure, which is near term still very real particularly and held respiratory. So we are making some important and quite aggressive changes to make sure that we can still provide a reasonably competitive outlook for 2022 when we look at it through our three individual business units not move forward on margin expectations within pharma and most importantly investing in where we create the strongest value for the long term which is delivering a pipeline that is valued and only by patients by the market. So Simon do you want to comment on the dividend overtime question?

Yeah, I think just to pick up the point that we had earlier also about the 2019 position. What we're saying in terms of how we're trying to indicate to guide people on the dividend going forward is that from 2019 we will go back to what is normal of declaring and telling people about our dividends each quarter as we go forward that's what we used to do. We created this bridge across the Novartis transaction and now today we've announced a new policy to set the framework for declaring dividends going forward against the baseline that as Emma described were establishing for 2018 and the intent is then that we will grow into cover overtime, and I think that's probably several years rather than one year. And I'm not going to get into specific to actually how many years. But it's important to get the other priorities we've got as we said our first and foremost priorities to make sure we're investing behind future growth of the business, so that we secure that cycle of growing into the cover going forward. So I think that against that expectation you should not expect dividend to grow in the short term. Clearly none of us can say that will never ever consider a reduction in the dividend of some reason dictates that we should think that. But what we're not saying is that that is sort of in some back year in 2019 is very clear framework to guide how we go forward here on hopefully that's clear, but if not then we should go through it again just to make sure everyone is clear.

Okay, question for Patrick that come up on line with regard to our target to reduce drug development times relative to peers and looking to adjacent to be more competitive fit, can you talk about balancing these reductions with our third long term priority of trust? Patrick?

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what this question is getting at, whether the implication is that we're going to cut corners to do it or whether it's about our trust priority to actually deliver medicines, I mean clearly we're not going to cut corners. And I will talk about what we are going to try to do to reduce our development time, so we know that we do very well in Respiratory and HIV and we know a lot of the reasons we have longer time lines in other areas how to do the things like how we got our R&D commercial interface, which is being addressed head on and decision making, try and reduce the whitespace between trials. So point number one is that we're going to address the R&D commercial interface particularly when we thinking about areas where we haven't traditionally have that strong interface that we need to get right. We've got processes coming into trials which are reducing trial time, so Emma has alluded to one which is in the danarikson [ph] study we had real time data capture, which allowed us to make a decision about a year earlier than we otherwise would have done on what we thought the result was and therefore trigger the next phase of study. So expect to see more in the way of real time data capture, real time information from multiple outputs from patients and the use of digital also to do things like site selection, and the ability to time delivery of drugs substance where in one study we produce trial and times by six months. So I think when we look forward is the combination of decision making R&D accounts, R&D partnership with commercial in order to make sure we don't circle particularly in Phase II and some strong digital approaches to try and improve performance of trial delivery and times that liberates absolutely not support to reduce the stand the data we generate in the evidence we're putting together quite the opposite in fact we want to increase time.

Okay, back to room please.

Thank you, it's Mike Weston from Credit Suisse. Two quick U.S. commercial questions if I can, and then one bigger picture on R&D. A couple of the points Emma that you've made around U.S. commercial where I think an increase in investment and support and also you've talked about changing incentives. So your predecessor clearly went out on a limb with a new commercial structure in the U.S. and was confident that the industry would follow it didn't seem that they did. So could you let us know whether or not we're now seeing a change back at GSK to a more traditional incentive led sales force model in the U.S. or whether or not you're just tweaking the existing one? And then also I was surprised to hear about the Ellipta pressure across the board in 2018 one of the arguments previously on Ellipta was that doctors loved it, better for payers because you could switch patients much more efficiently and you could save cost. So I wonder Jack whether there's any real change in sense of it really just out wear and Ellipta story still holding up or is something changing? And then finally just on R&B, Emma, again you referred to a lot of focus - a lot of focus on improving output and you've talked about leadership changes in the top 200 of the business, but are you sure that you've got the right people on the ground in R&D to actually deliver all these changes or we're actually going to see some quite significant turnover of employees to really get the maximum efficiency and output out of the GSK R&D organization?

So I'll make a couple of comments and then I'm going to ask Jack to comment on the competitiveness both of the Ellipta and also our commercial policy. So quickly in terms of R&D as I said, people thought performance we all know that we've made some changes I think more will come, you wouldn't expect that those we announced ahead of time. So but where we absolutely know that we have got some fantastic scientists in the company and we undoubtedly we'll see some renewal as across many of the areas of leadership. In terms of the incentives, the incentives I was talking about actually was much more broadly across the whole company as opposed to specifically sales rep incentives, and we do plan to announce internally for net for 2018 some fairly significant adjustments to help align behind both the strategic priorities and the performance objectives that really make sure we're all pulling much more strongly to be competitive both at the market place and those definitely a big opportunity on that. What you allude to in terms of our sales force policies, and as I've said GSK has been quite proud of its patient principles to try and remove any perceived conflicts of interest. At the same time we've already evolved both policies not least under Jack's leadership to make them more competitive front simpler and easy to execute against, particularly in line behind critical launches and we will continue to do that, but the fundamental principle of divesting a value based trust based company where people can trust our science and our intention and having a very productive relationship so that absolutely critical to who GSK is and we'll continue to do. So Jack do you want to comment?

You just underscore the patient first we continue to be very values or we're going to balance it with competitive performance and so we monitor and we continued with just as we have the last two and half years on that. Speaking specifically to be Ellipta portfolio it has performed well, I think when you look at the overall portfolio over the past year nearly doubling products like Breo more than doubling. Breo was now the number one prescribed ICS/LABA with pulmonologists we had our best semester ever in Q1 and Q2 of this with Breo on our second best with our containing products. So performance is very good, the reality years both driven by market pressures, potential regulatory changes and potential legislative changes both at the federal and state level, I think that's what the industry is exposed to. We know what is exercise on a class-by-class basis and those classes that tend to be more retail oriented and tend to have multiple products in it tend to be under the most pressure. So I think that's what you've heard from Emma and Simon in his recognition of that isn't going away, but in the meantime we will drive continue to drive strong share of market performance across the entire Ellipta portfolio. Thanks

Thanks, Jack. Back to the room. Please?

Thanks. This is Graham Parry from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Just first question on the guidance, you've qualified your reiteration of the mid-term guidance and with the potential need to invest in R&D and which implies that should the right opportunities come along that guidance could potentially come down. So how should we handle the capital potential for that need and do you think current R&D spending are sufficient to achieve long term objectives if you bought an external assets with that mean the after lower guidance and how much of the £1 billion of savings you think would be allocated to offset that. And secondly and then question on R&D, GSK has made much noise in the past about R&D structures processes we had said that DPUs we've R&D investment boards, and so in your analysis of what haven't worked in R&D. Why didn't they work and can you just help us understand what's changed this time, because for those who followed the stock for a long time it feels like we're hearing some of the same messages again that we've heard on previous new key areas as they started. And then thirdly, you said you're interested in earning all of the Consumer Health including the Novartis stake and that's previously been viewed from the lens in the Novartis putting that stake to you and their latest communication seemed to be filtered more towards let GSK come to us. So could in the context of that could you help us understand your desire to see Novartis transaction rather than the other way around and give us some kind of reassurance of the value that you would get for GSK shareholders in such a transaction? Thanks

Okay. So just I think already said that's going to be rare decision. I think Patrick - he will be very best place to say about what you think is going to be meaningfully different in terms of operating changes, because we are quite deliberately not choosing to major structural reset, which we think will just cause more delays as the post improve output, and then I'll go Simon to comment on your first question, please.

I think we're actually not changing the DPU model, and we believe the output from a DPUs is being extremely good, so the discovery organization I think continue to innovate and produce really high quality output, and we've got some of the DPU has you can speak to that jump outs and for example I think is an absolutely recognized world leader in his field. I think where we haven't done as well and it was clear from some of the statistics shown, is in some of the areas of development where I think we failed to focus enough and as a result of that we had too many things progressing too slowly in the development organization, and not only have they developed too slowly, but I don't think we've had the partnership right with R&D and commercial which meant they landed in a prepared partner organization could drive them to full value. So by focusing down and it's a very significant focus down on the two areas plus two emergent I think it gives us a vertical integration all away from target selection through to commercial ability to deliver on it and which we can drive things through in a way where we've got a recipient and partner organizations. So I do think the R&D commercial interface is very much tighter in this new design. And I think obviously the arrival of Luke is going to help further with that. I think in development we also absolutely need to not to make sure that we do things off which we've talked about, but we make sure the evidence generation is aligned with what's really required. And I think by spreading more thinly and going across too many therapy areas, I think we often had quite good molecules we didn't end up getting the right evidence generation to be commercially successful, I think at narrowing of commercialization and development is a very key change that we think about things.

Thank you, Simon.

Graham, I think the answer to your question starts point earlier that in terms of looking at the outlook to 2020 keep offs of the trade obviously described as making sure we've got flexibility to provide to invest behind the newly prioritized R&D pipeline. So there is a reasonable amount of allowance in that R&D spending you've seen R&D spending coming up quite quickly over the last several quarters clearly we're going to start analyzing some of that. And so I think the way you should think about is, is that we will make specific investment decisions if the data justifies it and there's a clear evidence point to bring in front of me, and we'll just accordingly with an obvious opportunity sitting in front of us, so that I wouldn't build another adjustments at this point. I think it's all within the outlook 2020 that we've given you.

Okay. More questions from the room. Could youput your mike or some of things need to turn off maybe.

So first could you elaborate the reason why you kind of divested sirukumab, which seemed reasonably a solid asset. And now you're more dependent on a few late stage assets after the choices. So do include some buying in licensing of late stage assets in addition to the effort you're making internally in R&D?

And so I think we very brief on that. I will focus on R&D is really going to be on early stage stuff, but should through what we are planning to revitalize the R&D fairly meaningfully and should the scans that we did just early stage assets as well as looking at then we will, but our priorities on early stage strengthening. And in terms of sirukumab is simply a question of with our allocation of resources what do we think, we are the best commercial leaders in terms of being most competitive think that we are capable of executing against and our judgment was that was not to be the case and we're still supporting very strong partners Janssen in terms of what that lives ahead we think that's the right decision so others do want to add anything, Patrick on that?

Right. And it's just about off putting bringing our resources where we can make the most successful.

Okay. Next question, please.

[indiscernible]. Thanks for taking the questions. I'm sorry to go back to the dividend as I'm sure you were very important to the current valuation, and if it's going to take a number of years to go into the dividend and free cash flow is going to have to grow by that 50% to get within the dividend target range. Is it fair to - and would you agree that you're over distributing and do you think that current situation sustainable for a number of years to come? And then secondly on R&D would be fair to assume that your return on R&D is full and since you last updated us on the IRR, I know you're going to update this on the IRR, but you have the same direction where that's gone. And obviously we had sales performance being somewhat disappointing and some late stage failures offset by better the performance. And if so can you help us understand how you came to the capital allocation since you got to with vaccines and from R&D obviously your choice that you face it? Thanks.

Okay. So Simon I'd like to comment on IRR in the capital allocation choices. Just on the halfway distributed ahead, yes, I think I said that in my opening comments we did distribute ahead, but we are really focused as Simon said several times on rebuilding our cash flow and I'll cover, and I'm going to reiterate again the principles that we're working towards, but some we do want to get a balance sheet back into a stronger position and we are quite focused on the A1/P1 rating as the same time concurrently, so Simon do you want to discuss?

I think just to be clear. We're not saying there's no cover for several years. We're saying we don't get to comfortably into the range that we set out and that now is going to take some time and then clearly we have to move so along the way make sure, we're funding the investments we were just talking about in terms of R&D pipeline, managing our balance sheet, strengthening our credit profile as we have flexibility by those things come along. And I think trying to balance those follows are maintaining something that shareholders have said to us is very important, I think is why you get the picture that you get, but there's no cover for the next several years. And I think in that context when you look at the capital allocation framework, we want to look at the R&D for each of the businesses within an integrated return for each of Vaccines, Consumer and Pharma because they will look quite different. The relative returns on Pharma and Vaccines R&D compared to the numbers we previously published are not coming down as new products came into that mix clearly as we go through the next set of way posts the upcoming launch as we've got of dual Shingrix and the Closed Triple and you might expect to see it there, but that again is why we want to look at it in the context of the business as how and Vaccines and Pharma from a return point of view over the medium term got relatively similar. Clearly today, vaccines is still dealing with some quite big investments behind relatively new products which we're putting a lot of capacity behind and we inherited a significantly loss making business from the losses, so it didn't stop in 2015 in a very good place, but it's moving pretty quickly through that and that's why we think it's right to allocate capital because fundamental as we can sell pretty much every day as we can make.

Yeah. Please?

Thank you very much. It's Sam Fazel from Bloomberg Intelligence. I have three questions if I may, knowing that you said two. First one from Consumer, in terms of what drives the put value, we've had it quarter - you've had a quarter which wasn't particularly strong. And you've got this generic that's come along where I don't know, but you were aware of it before or not, but is it going to the growth profile. How does this lead to still and up valuation for the production? Second one is would your guidance be different if there was a second and third generic Advair, because I think you've said you're assuming a generic Advair launch in the guidance or maybe at least a generic of the launch but just?

Yeah. That will be a better correction on that one.

Okay. And thirdly, on Tanzeum, what do you think was done wrongly or whatever what happened there in terms of the process of developing it and taking it to market, where I think most observers were probably viewing the product not as the strongest product in this class?

Correct.

Which has been something that you've learnt from taking forward? Thank you.

Okay. So I will take that on two key questions, just on the put and some can also about in more detail, the revaluation is related FX from the smaller occurrences and also the kind of valuations of consumer companies have moved up a little bit, and I don't know if Simon whether you would add anything more in terms of that?

It's the valuations based on forecast of the business, not just for the next 12 months, but kind of medium term forecasts. And we've seen obviously a big swing in the main trading currencies last year are saying more benefit than we previously planned for from a lot of the smaller currencies that we done a bit of catch up in this quarter as well as a big shift actually in the comparable multiples. So that's what we've seen a significant move this quarter.

And on your question Sam, I'm going to ask Patrick to pick that up, because it's a really important one and to the earlier point about what's going to be different now, we actually did quite a detailed review of where we haven't necessarily got this right. And Tanzeum would be a good one in terms of having a truly competitive asset where the right kind of full alignment of what winning looks like between the developers and the commercial executers and so we just spend some time looking into those, so would you want to comment a bit more or less in Tanzeum.

Yeah, I mean Tanzeum went through rather interesting different development path in GSK, which is set up with a different vehicle, which I think we won't do again, so I think that was a specific way of doing it which was outside lots of the normal governance process. But I think the simple answer to your question Sam is that, it wasn't cold early enough when the data told us that it wasn't going to be commercially successful in our hands, and I think we should have called it much earlier, I think that it was evident after some of the early trail readouts and I think at that point we should have called and stop them.

Okay. Back to room, from the back.

Thanks. It's Kerry Holford from Exane BNP Paribas. And three questions please, first can we just go back to the incremental price pressure, so this has been a reason to trend the guidance for 2017, but I'm keen to better understand what's got incrementally more difficult since the beginning of the year you've referenced visibility a number of times that generic Advair coming through next year now, so what's called more tough this year and in context of that could you just talk to little bit about debating in HIV specifically today and how that looks out into 2018? Secondly, the question for Simon on pharma margins, the mid sale margins guidance is that now been around the low 30s and now is based on 2015 FX rates if I understand correctly, so your reference to growth the earnings grades over that period if you're just currency on few models with same for your expectations on the margins on today's currency in 2020? And then early a question for Patrick on the pipeline we focus, I guess it makes sense given your historical strength HIV and visibility to continue to focus here. But I might argue those two to these categories are relatively well so, by medicines on the market today. So where is the room for disruptive therapies in the 2018?

Okay. We'll come back to Simon and Patrick in your second and third questions. And just on the updates to this year's guidance just a slight correction, the adjustments for this year's guidance is related to the investments in the PRV and the associated costs with launching that for pulling forward a better launch behind the dual therapy. We have referred the pricing pressures several times that are very real, and we now have a bit more visibility on 2018 contracting as well, but I'll let Jack and then Deb will comment on the first of all involvement.

In terms of the pricing pressures we talked about earlier it's really multi-factorial, I think the environment is this dynamic as we were perceiving it 25 years in this industry to see the competitive landscape in the market driven pricing pressures with ongoing peer consolidation et cetera, as I said regulatory just as recently as the last few days obviously CMS is put out its own proposed rule as it relates to 340 and then legislatively we've got over 30 states that have are trying to enact legislation on drug price either transparency of procurement loss. So it really is multi-factorial it will continue to be intense given everything from state budgets to the federal deficit to the ongoing market structure in terms of consolidated payers and some of the actions of competitors. So that's what we're continuing to see going forward especially in some of the classes as Emma mentioned like retail, inhaled respiratory.

Deb?

In the different marketplace a therapy area where what medicine each patient received is extremely individualized? In terms of how the market is split trust so you've got 6% patients in government funded schemes and then 40% sticking with the commercial insurers. So contracting pressure is completely different and the commercial insurance and the government funded space at the moment we're obviously watching what's happening in the emerging American healthcare environment, potentially it could be pressure on Medicaid. But I'm sure many of you know if there is a pressure on Medicaid expansion of Medicaid in some States is robust. People don't fall out of care, they get into the right safety net program. So what you see is a commercial space which is that currently not contracted, and then you will say government space where there is some uncertainty due to the healthcare environment within the U.S. and maybe some pressure in Medicaid, but due to the safety net system that we have patients will still say to medicine, and I think it's very important that we understand the difference in this particular disease area not only about the individualized choices that positions need to make for patient, but also had a very active patient groups that we say who are very active in not being across well particularly in the U.S. and not something that payers have been reluctant to U.S. In terms of a paradigm shift in HIV from a treatment perspective, John what I'll let you handle that one.

Yeah, I would just comment on you might say yes that the market HIV patients well served. But there's actually two dynamics that one really worries down so as an infectious disease physician I'm always worried we're up against a very tough replicates very rapidly, very sloppily and develops resistance. So we're always worried that there's emergence of resistance and we don't want to be behind the part so to speak with have. So we're always worrying about that so the need for developing new drugs to treat that development of resistance that comes forward. The second thing though is that we've turned this disease going from debt no one was being able to be treated and survive to one where people live many, many decades, 60 years as often talked about now if someone gets infected say and there are late teens or early 20's. So it's a different population if they live longer you're now having to deal with all the co-morbidities of aging, diabetes, hypertension and other diseases that actually require other medicines, and so we also have a real need to develop medicines that have no interactions or don't have facts going forward with that. So I think it's really - it's a dynamic disease and I really and I'm always worry that people go large into yeah everything we've done here let's go look at something else because this is something that will move forward, and I think that's really what drives us as we try to produce better and better medicine.

Patrick do you have anything in terms of paradigm shift?

Well, I mean first of all it precisely why discovery is broader than development, because new areas come from discovery for 15 years' time, so that we retain that order discovery. In terms of respiratory I think it's true that there are many areas of COPD where it needs are met there are many areas that are still on. So subcategories like severe asthma not driven by eosinophil remains an unmet need such as the need for oral treatments to simplify treatment regimens in that met. So I think there all categories of both asthma and COPD whether still quite significant need and particularly in smaller patient groups, where I think there's an opportunity for areas where there won't be the same pricing pressure. And in respiratory, we're looking very carefully outside those two areas as well. So we recognize that there is an increasing number of medicines coming through in asthma and COPD and pulmonary fibrosis is an area that we've very interested in same growing in the respiratory field as well as keep lung injury. Just to add on HIV, I mean long acting is clearly making a difference, there's clearly the possibility of things like broadly neutralizing antibodies coming along and ultimately people are working on something which may be very, very difficult to change which is obviously whether you can get a very long term remission cures so there are still areas to go after and as Emma said we're including in HIV also the broadening into other infectious disease areas and hepatitis B is one of them like that.

And Simon?

Okay. On the margin it's slightly depends on how the mix of the business plays our between now and 2020, but if you assume similar mix to what we have today and you take the quarter end rates at the end of Q2 you'll back to 2.5% on top of the margin guidance that I gave somewhere between 2 and 3.

Okay. More questions.

I'm Richard Parkes from Deutsche Bank. First I just have to push a little bit more on the capital allocation dividend policy and if you look at the framework that you gave a fair to consumer option came that was prioritized ahead of dividends obviously that all set a known potential cost you said that you can fund that through your current balance sheet, but what it be your intention to fund that for your current balance sheet and maintain the dividends? That's the first question. And the second question just on R&D productivity maybe for Patrick, there's been a lot of kind of discussion about streamlining your focus and improving decision making, but maybe the bigger challenges in improving the scientific leadership and fall leadership within R&D in pharma would then cut back, so is that just improving that just a function of increasing the investment beyond your core areas of focus or is that something that you can also improve through business development and then licensing acquisitions.

So Patrick and Simon?

So on the consumer put, it's clearly on the chart of the capital priority when it's going to arrive, but we've anticipated it might arrive from the spring of next year and so we've anticipated it also in terms of thinking about funding structure going forward and the outlook for the dividend that we've described. So I think while it's a little early to say precisely how we're going to fund it we wouldn't expected to have any impact on the dividend profile that we've just already described you. Now, we have over time an expectation of building balancing capacity to fund the different things that we talked about today. So when it happened when it arrives is obviously a key part of exactly how we choose to implement it.

I think that's true, that scientific leadership is a key part of R&D, I think we've got some outstanding scientists and some of them area you can speak to them afterwards, where we've got real world leadership positions, you've got some other areas where we need to bring in new scientists and what we've already indicated one such high Tony Wood is coming in, I think he's an outstanding medicinal chemist and leader in his field in the area of product development in terms of CMC and so on. And we know that we've got very broad connectivity across certain areas in academia that we're going to build on in terms of accessing new science accessing new science whether it's through BD which we've already alluded to we're going to revamp our BD organization in terms of connectivity whether it's through the sort of deals we've got with venture capital firms where we're limited partners and saying access to new things started the academic links we've got and models we've got which are leading to I think significant inflow of new ideas, all the leaders in our own DPUs, I think continually refreshing all science is an absolutely key thing. And I think we've got strong leadership positions in some places I've said, and some areas where we do need to look and make sure that we've got cutting edge science and that's always going to be the case and we will refresh and continue to refresh the leadership.

Thank you. And so we've got Tim I think back on the phone unmated, Tim would you like to ask your questions please.

Yeah. Thank you. You talked about ongoing price pressure at various points some companies give us price volume foreign exchange information may report results like Luis did yesterday. Can you say or quantify what pricing was for Glaxo across your whole book of business in Q2 and in first half? Second question is on late stage pipeline opportunities with Closed Triple and Zoster vaccine it would be great at Glaxo look at kind of put a stake in the ground give us a rough indication of how big you think those product opportunities could be it seems especially tricky with the Closed Triple given the pricing pressures and generic entrants coming in respiratory. And then last question, on Slide 20 in your deck has one mention about new emerging market operations I'm not sure what that means, when I think about for level of the disclosure like Glaxo on emerging markets it's gone down I think some at the start of 2016, and I'm wondering kind of what's going on in that part of the business, what's going to change going forward you can start to disclose more granularity so we can track performance? Thank you.

Okay. So I'm going to ask Eric in a minute to comment on the Closed Triple sort of competitiveness and probably also and Luke on Shingrix, but just to say that we don't forecast the value sales for our assets. We have said that Shigrix will be a contributor around the third of our growth and we do believe that could be a big effect thing right by that we'll hear from both of them on those assets. Simon could maybe give you the net price and volume numbers?

Across the phone the modest one in terms of net price, we have indicated that in the most recent quarters, Tim so we expect us to keep giving you some guidance on that, but obviously it's an aggregate level.

And as I coming back on the emerging market point, and as I said and in my opening words just continues to be an important business for us, but it is and it has contributed to growth although in certain countries as you well know, we've had some difficult times in recent years. But we expect it to continue to contribute to growth for the company it's around the quarter of the business. But we needed to do so more profitably without removing in any sense the access to medicines that you we know it's part of our responsibility and purpose we just need to have a much more fit for purpose, but particularly from a cost structure point of view operation that because 90% of the business is still in branded generics. That we haven't been as good as we should have been at launching some of our innovations, so I want to be rolling out innovation. But have cost structures and topology and all the types markets with appropriate structures around them, so we are going to be making some meaningful shift there as well as running on that basically an integrated P&L with supply chain. This is an area where frankly our supply chain both in terms of service levels and probably flow a number a factor has not been worse where it should be, so we're going to be doing a lot of work on that and as Luke appoints his leadership, we should see ongoing contributions that more profitable growth from that part of the world. And say maybe I can ask Eric to comment on flows.

Thank you for the question. We're very excited about the close triple opportunity. If we look at a lot of the emerging evidence within COPD it addresses one of the major challenges that we have which is these patients continue to progress and remain symptomatic continue to have a high rate of exacerbations. We believe that the future just as many experts reiterate the future treatment of COPD is dual therapy the LAMA/LABA class as well as the triple therapy. And we have seen an incredible profile begin to emerge with our close triple from our FULFIL study and we eagerly await a landmark study the impact study later this year to be able to further reinforce that profile. If we just look at how patients are treated today about a third of patients are on triple therapy now, and so we believe that that is a strong base of business to be able to shift to close triple however when we look more broadly at patients that are on ICS/LABA, which we now has been demonstrated inferior to close triple as well as LAMA/LABA that's a base of business in a big segment of the market that is still symptomatic and can benefit from either LAMA/LABAs or the close triples. So with the efficacy profile as well as the challenge of complexity that these patients face, many patients that are on open triple today are on two different devices oftentimes one once a day one twice a day, it's a real challenge and we believe that this meet a very significant need that both physicians and patients have expressed for us. I don't know Jack if you want to talk a bit about the pressures on pricing that you would expect and how we can address.

Actually I'd like to just build on the close triple in our excitement in the U.S. affiliate for it, this is the last piece if you will in terms of our inhaled portfolio. We will be the only company to be able to run the breadth and gambit in terms these products all on the same Ellipta platform certainly when we look back at Breo launch versus this launch, first of all will be first to market with this one versus the fourth ICS to market. Second we will experience on much stronger installed base of a Ellipta users one in four patients in this country is now started who needs an ICS/LABA is started on Breo. As I said Breo is not the number one pulmonologist prescribed ICS/LABA one in three patients who need in a dual is started on a GSK Ellipta products, so you've got this very much more installed base of Ellipta users which makes the jump up to close triple in the same device on the same device platform much easier and much more attractive. So certainly from a logistics standpoint we won't get into the details, but we will be fully resourced to make sure we are highly competitive from a share of voice standpoint and the last thing is because of the FDA changing guidance we have engaged payers much earlier than we did with our earlier Ellipta products, because of the new guidance, and so that's enabled us to really get a good beat from a payer perspective, and there's a lot of excitement there just like the physicians number one term we hear from physicians and market research is finally, finally they have a close triple option.

Thank you. And Luke if you want to comment?

As you said we not share any specific forecast, but let's give you a bit of a perspective of the potential here. We've said that we'll deliver a one third of our growth from 2015 to 2020 and we well on track on delivering this mid to high single digit growth with the Vaccines business overall. If you know that today with the current used products vaccine in the U.S. only they make $780 million a year and only 30% of the potential population is covered with that. And as I said 80% of that is U.S. only whereas we will do a first in the U.S. launch, but then a global launch of Shingrix, and it's really response to Emma laid out as the criteria for the real innovation, it's a highly efficacious, sustained efficacy of 90% across all ages, and highly differentiated for us what it is today. So it really has the potential to set a new standard and if you have seen old press release around to June ASIP where we shared our revaccination data and telling you that we're on track actually on every single milestone has to work towards launch that should give you the confidence that gives us the confidence that this is indeed a potential of a big vaccine.

Thank you. Please?

Thank you. It's Michael Leuchten from UBS. Just going back to your cost consciousness slide, you've mentioned at the moment only consumer has its own P&L, does that means these does not and then for the businesses that don't have their own P&L at the moment, what systems are required to make that happen and how long will it take?

Good question indeed. Simon, do you want to answer that?

You're absolutely right, that we does have our own P&L not least as to other shareholders sitting in there. So it was more question about thinking that think about the integrated Pharma and Vaccines businesses which we have not pulled together in that way before, we don't need any systems upgrades to do that we are using the model that we developed for consumer now to have that capability in place and will have implement at the end of year. So you know we're ready to go.

Please.

[inaudible] so enthusiastic about the asset that you would wanted early as possible and the reason for the question is really about the CEO of Novartis have stated publicly that the company is no hurry to put as long as the business is going well. So presumably for a small fee you could actually move back the first time that they can put by quite a bit and thereby a lot of flexibility for that period when you might not have idea dividend cover and that would then enable you to actually commit to a progressive dividend, which is very much the norm in the industry and actually the reason why a lot of investors invest in this industry as oppose to just having to live with that risk of a potential dividend cut. And second question just quickly on cost cutting, I mean it does sound like you're finally getting to the stage where you might be taking some risks with regards to the business, so for example cuts to regulatory or on cuts to you on sort of changes to the manufacturing of commercial drugs to reduce the cogs. So is that the correct perception that you feel that you need to take some risks to prop up the margin or is that a misperception and how do you generally mitigate that risk. And if I could just a very quick follow up on R&D where really, really appreciate your candor, I just want to make sure they understand correctly you don't think there's any issues with the science itself, so all of the problems were upstream and you think that the R&D engines actually broad enough to deliver a continuing flow into the pipeline. I'm just asking because listening to some of your competitors speak it does sound like they have a lot more technologies, the lot more internal databases whereas listening to GSK it always sounds very focused around specific areas of expertise like epigenetics, but maybe that's just a communication issue, so any clarity there would be great? Thank you.

Okay, sorry perhaps, someone respond on the third question.

It's a great question on Novartis, but you might imagine if we want something then they're going to react, okay so we have to make it clear that it's an important capital allocation priority for us that we would like to own the whole business. So you set up then a public dynamic, which probably not very helpful to trying to resolve it sensibly for both sides to continue to debate in the open. At the right point they will be ready to sell and we will be ready to buy, and we need to buy at the most effective price for all shareholders and vice versa. So I'm not sure we can really go backwards and forwards very much more on this and make it clear that we're very happy with how it sits today that very good partners, we don't need to do something tomorrow, but if they want to exit we're very happy to buy it.

So I would like to correct with undertaking risk with regulatory or quality and manufacturing that is absolutely not our intent. In fact, when you look back over the last few years of history where we've had some thoughts on other than and history have suffered as a major supply issues which frankly are extremely expensive much more than any benefit you get by kind of cutting short sight delay and often being because it was under invested in these fundamentals, so please do not walk away with just the thought of us taking risk on quality or safety or regulated. But we are trying to do is get more competitive around our cost around working capital and around the productivity of our factories and around an end to end view of our supply chain and that's not for me about risk taking that's about understanding what good looks like and holding that bar in the right place for us and we have very mobilized supply chain organization looking in a lot of detail in that. That said I have alluded few times that I'd like us to be a bit more of a courageous company and some of the placing some of the bad fully and most of this area in that it's going to be in R&D. So coming back to your question R&D I'll ask Patrick to overlay, we have been and we are really focused on other development prices, because the reality is the area that until 2020 I would like you to be able to have a renewed confidence and valuation of our pipeline for the next ways so as a reminder that doesn't need to come through until the mid 20s great if it does and we would like to advance things as much as much as possible not be part of the work. So we're all very focused on development, Patrick has mentioned the renewal and ongoing crash for renewal of scientific expertise whether it's internally or not connectivity externally. We've also alluded to a few areas just in terms of platform technologies in a more fundamental level that we think we are competitive, and you might like to comment on those whether that going after targeting much more efficiently in terms of genetic evidence or whether that's in our additional chemistry or in fact in some of our more advanced manufacturing technologies. So you want to comment a bit on the expertise some of discovery point as well.

Yeah, I do and I think - I think you're right, we haven't spoken about as much as we should have done. And I want to pick up on a few things there, so for pick up on chemistry with the first company to get encoded live technology working for screening, which I think has made a big difference to screening. We have very advanced in terms of the pro type technology which allows you to pull out pro teams in sell chemically which is a hot area in medicinal chemistry. We have I think the world leading mix organization in our cell zone part of the organization in Heidelberg, which I think is well recognized as being able to do things in terms of looking at pretty interactions with molecules that isn't available elsewhere, and they had as many other part of GSK have multiple publications in nature covering that. In terms of genetics and genomics we've got undoubtedly the biggest collaboration, which we stimulated with the European born dramatic sanga [ph] center around genetics which is led together with what we're doing with UK buyer bank to deal where we general joined us to do the screening thing. And I think the general now seen as leaders in that. So I think in terms of the science infrastructure, we've got actually very leading platforms across chemistry in particular, less good in some of the antibody technologies, but we're definitely competitive, we just I wouldn't claim we're absolutely out front on those cell and gene therapy I think we're at the cutting edge of what's being done there with the first product approved in some quite interesting approaches to make them. And I would bring that through also to some of the approaches in big data from things like the start but more importantly two years ago we appointed a lead for data across R&D from another industrial sector completely who has moved us from being able to access 20% roughly a lot internal data to now over 95% of our internal structured data in a way that scientists can access it through one place. I think if you ask around I don't think anyone of managed to achieve that yet that's a huge data resource in terms of scientific input. So we are very focused we clearly haven't spoken about that in terms of the discovery platforms we have with I think some really cutting edge science.

Please?

Thanks. James Gordon from JPMorgan. Three short questions please. First of all with commercial just about China cannot return to being a big growth driver, and if so what's the plan there? The second question with our tablets we've got the first table approval coming up quite soon, but what does that do to the profitability within pharma and I see is it fair to assume they're going be significantly lower priced and then you're going to have a significant pay away to change as well, and the more the growth is going to come from x-U.S. from Europe. So how we're going to see significant margin pressure there and other ways you can offset that? And then just the third question is about the divestment today you talked about roughly every in terms of revenues that would be very high probability, so does that created a free cash flow gap and is this that the - this is the streamlining done or could it be an ongoing part of GSK for the next few years or more streamlining?

Okay, thanks very much James for the brief questions. Simon could you pick up the divestment please and then I'll come over to Deb on the doublet.

Generally below average profitability, and also in the disposal we're making we are divesting more capital intensive businesses than the average. So we're saving also on CapEx going forward so there should be net-net material contributions to cash generation.

You want to pick on that?

I think the asset that we've got coming through the pipeline, so there is an impacts on the margin overall. But actually what we will be doing is driving a great volume of doing business that we're really focused on our top line sales member and really driving that from a share perspective we can and what I would say is versus where we are today in terms of dolutegravir share when you add in dolutegravir plus rilpivirine and then you add in dolutegravir plus 3TC we aim to have a higher overall share the dolutegravir after those three - those two assets launch on top of Tivicay and Triumeq where we will still have significant business. So is a real share volume sales play which ultimately will drop positively to the bottom line with the margin that take a little bit of a hit.

And just in terms with your question on China obviously we took a big hit in China absolutely we delighted the board continue to support investments in the market for obvious reasons it's important that we participate not just commercially but from a manufacturing point of view and also some of that R&D point of view in China with China, for China I think we have to be patient in terms of saying materiality of the contribution, but we're still very much supporting our progress there. Back to them for any more questions, anyone back online. Okay so online we have a couple and so first one for Simon repeat question from Asset Management. And what is your view on large M&A and the rating commitment more focused on both fronts I think.

So I think as we made clear in the presentation the focus is very much on bolt on partnership type deals, and we think we can accommodate the larky flow within the current balance sheet capacity. You have big scale, you would never rule out, but you know we've talked before about the disruptive nature of those and so the bar is very high for those and that's something that's on the immediate agenda.

Okay and then Steve Scala from Cowen, can we get question from you please.

Sure, yeah thank you very much. In this first quarterly release in July of 2008 Andrew laid out a strategy of growing a diversified global business delivering more products of value and simplifying GSKs operating model you also focused on improving shareholder value and focusing on new strategic priorities to adjust the changing healthcare environment. Today you mentioned the DPU strategy is not changing, how is the big picture strategy you are providing today different than that it nearly a decade ago or are you saying that the strategy is the same, but execution needs to improve? And then the second question is what initiatives would GSK put in place to blunt in Advair generic such as multi-year contracting and or authorized generic? Thank you.

Okay. So I'll come back your very important first question and I'll ask Jack to pick up on the Advair generic question please who is leading the U.S. business.

I appreciate the question. Simon have referenced in multiple meetings right there's still uncertainty around when the generic Advair will come with certainly especially with the Mylan complete response orders both the acceptance of the Sandoz ANDA so at some point it will arrive we do have a whole array of different tactics that we will employ leading up to in through the presence of any generic Advair when and if it does come, so feel like we've got the whole tool kit at our disposal.

Okay. And so on your first question, I think you're right there's a key part of that that is execution based and particularly near term we need to be very competitive in our execution focus with the three launches that we've talked about and an ongoing shifting environment. But I think I would probably highlight the two most important shift, the first one is putting innovation first and innovation within pharma first. And never right coming up with the leaders structures, but when we talk about more products of value there was quite a strong push around the volume agenda across the full diversified business and we want to make sure that we're really focusing on what building growth to volume and value that is driven through innovation. We want to put R&D and science absolutely front and center of GSK for its next period and that is going to be visible in our capital allocation and focus on going that business to competitive performance, and that's the second big shift I think which is bringing more edge to the culture and the performance focus of the company through more focus choices particularly in the portfolio through the people that we put in place and the changes that we want to make with the cultures. So the portfolio of therapy areas set and market, and ashamedly putting the U.S. front and center was putting in a fit for purpose operating model for the emerging markets to drive the access that we have the responsibility to deliver. Any more questions in the room? Thank you.

Thanks. Follow up from Graham Parry from Bank of America. And just a couple of product questions and probably stand and that fits in the new strategy does it fit in any of your core areas if you do get a positive outcomes data readouts on that, is that something you'd be looking to partner out on that data would you look to rebuild a new franchise around that product? And secondly in Bexsero you previously is firm alluded to that as the potential multi-billion dollar vaccine it was on your list of key products? And then thirdly just going back to IAS data and the Tivicay, Triumeq competitive from Gilead bictegravir and the physician fee that was very much focused on softer issues that may be harder to detail against in the commercial markets so patient reported CNS symptoms the tolerability of backbone CV concerns which have been I guess disproved overtime. So can you just run us through your commercial strategy for pushing back against that perception issue that's out there in the market? Thanks.

So I'm sure if any degree to which we want to run through our commercial strategy for competitive reasons that's but I'll ask Pat to come around in that moment, and but let me start - sorry on those areas it wasn't list on the product because that was just a development product, not the assets that were lifted on that chart not the assets that are currently in market absolutely key for us, and actually our meningitis portfolio we expect to contribute we set further on Shingrix we expect to come from a meningitis portfolio which is a performing extremely well and may by Luke like to add a comment on that. But let's start with Patrick on that just a great question, buy explain why we've decided that that was potentially still an asset that could bring real value to GSK?

I think we've got a very, very good molecule there, but if you look at dose it's about five milligrams most patients going to end up almost substantially lower than compared to the molecules. We know it works. We know we can dial up and down hemoglobin we in the Phase III trial, those Phase III trials recruiting faster than expected, so we're ahead of time on that. And we believe we've got a very clean molecule in terms of its own target and off target effects. For example nothing on the [indiscernible] so I think we think we've got a good molecule and readout in due course in terms of how we best commercialize that that's an ongoing discussion as to how we would best achieve that whether we do it alone or partnership.

Thank you. Luke do you want to comment on bictegravir and then we'll finish with that.

How it contribute to this one third of growth to the future, so it is the meningitis portfolio, so it's ACWY and meningitis B Bexsero so it's growing 30% year-to-date versus last year, and if you know that before the acquisition of Novartis we were actually only selling less than 900,000 doses year-to-date with supply already bought at 15 million doses, so every dose we make. And as Simon laid out we are investing in capacity here to make sure we can support that demand in the R&D space we are also working on the lifecycle management of providing a combination product ABCWI the full alphabet of meningitis so which is depend of avail in vaccines, so it is really a key priority for vaccines to the one third.

Thank you and then that will maybe John actually on the HIV questions.

Let me just give a couple of principles and then we can work the arguments through that. So when we talk about CNS adverse events it's really mixture symptoms whether it's insomnia, sleep disorder, depression, headaches and there's a whole list of things that often go to that list and you'll find that different companies different groups define that differently. In terms of the integrate inhibitors which we're talking about dolutegravir and bictegravir it is a class effect and you do see with all of them at around the same percentage, so what we saw at IAS were the first two of four Phase III studies for bictegravir and so the data base that we see is a fairly small for bictegravir, now the two studies they presented were in treatment naïve patients, I think the interesting one is a more of a direct comparison of dolutegravir and bictegravir both with the same backbone which was TEF and FTC. And so when you look at the CNS adverse events and then look at the long list of them actually the two drugs were fairly similar, but it's interesting in terms of patient discontinuing therapy there was one patient in the bictegravir group who left therapy because of sleep and none in the dolutegravir group. The one that's a little more difficult to really get a handle on was the comparison of bictegravir tap and FTC against crime and so in this study they presented a patient reported outcome instrument. Now the investigator who is presenting the study didn't go into great detail, I do believe then listed a whole host of symptoms where they looked at on particular days and it almost looks like you could be cherry picking a little bit of what was going on with the patient, I think we really have to get a better handle on that and take a look at the data there to see if there's any real differences. But I think at the end of the day my opinion is I don't think you will once we see additional data coming with bictegravir we do have this huge database that we have with dolutegravir were it's really well established and again we need a see a much more detailed approach there. So I'll turn it over to Debra.

Why don't you comment on the bictegravir data generally?

Yeah, I think that obviously statistically it was not inferior to dolutegravir, but you look at these two studies and in the first one I commented on which was the more direct comparison in terms of treatment effect, dolutegravir was numerically better than what you saw with bictegravir for both the studies. And so I think it really showed really what we know very well with the dolutegravir with it being a very substantial drug for patients.

We have three minute non-competitiveness could have come up a couple of times this afternoon. So with dolutegravir we have delivered a very strong data packages in a therapy area where data is really the key driver along with guidelines as to have physicians choose to treat their patients so dolutegravir whereas got a significant Phase IIIb program which we've almost completed, five studies where we demonstrate superior to say best is competitive within the integrate class but also versus the other kind of sedation that are used so really strong data that ultimately driven to the HIV physician behavior. However if we talk about on top of that competitiveness he's now saying that the cash versus bictegravir versus dolutegravir and actually they look fairly comparable, but we're moving the market on again with the two drug regimen pipeline that we have starting with rilpivirine dolutegravir moving into dolutegravir 3TC and then moving into long acting injectables with cabotegravir and rilpivirine. So we feel that we are moving forward with our pipeline that we will move the market full well stock competitive selling the three drug regimen paradigm, now let's see how that plays out and then obviously you know in the future we've got other strong molecules in our discovery portfolio, which again we believe will continue to move things further on and we do believe it and actually is going to be phenomenally important and on that basis, I think that play a very strong performance commercially you know it's going to lead us to be winning from a market share perspective.

That's really these innovative options that we're developing more rather than more of just little incremental changes.

Thank you very much. So I'm going to take one more question from online last question coming to Simon, but of course we are all available pick up on any other further questions that you may have. So the last question is from forecast, can you please provide some color behind the revised outlook for upward pressure on the group tax rate overtime. Most changed.

So I think it is highlighted in the presentation as the mix of the business changes and particularly given the prioritization to the U.S. that Emma commented on, we are putting more of the revenues and profits streams into a higher tax jurisdiction and that obviously puts to one side whether that might be tax reform in the U.S. or not, but on the current tax rates that is creating this upward pressure. Plus in a post specs world we are seeing much more activity from tax authorities and challenges and disputes which ultimately we will seek to resolve in an appropriate way on a balanced way, but they were quite often require provisions and anticipation of quite long periods of disputes, so I think that will also be part of the track going forward is mainly about the shift the U.S.

So thank you to you all for coming here today or listening and watching. Thank you for your questions. We can obviously continue some more discussions now. But I just wanted to say a couple of very brief words on how you should expect us to be updating you on our performance going forward. You're obviously going to have but also consistently members of the leadership team at our quarterly earnings calls and we will be holding more regular meet the management sessions, so that you have the opportunity to me and get to know the board of team from different parts of the business. And lastly, obviously critically we'll be updating you as of our pipeline progress particularly around the assets that we've highlighted today, sharing any important data as it comes through and making specifically our R&D leaders available to you to for questions. So thank you very much and please do join us for some more refreshment.