dingaling and jessie you are both wrong on this, i think.the...

dingaling and jessie you are both wrong on this, i think.

the suggestion that "let's crush em like ants" was a possible commercial strategy might make sense in the event that GSK was competing against ACL. But it's not. It is competing against Dr Reddy's.

Dr Reddy's is big enough not to be crushable. . . .certainly not by taking a loss-making approach to a single product line.

GSK must have formed the view that having two of the products competing in the market is the profit-maximising position for them. That could well make good commercial sense.

However, to now start arguing that the winner here is going to be the party with the lowest cost of production seems unlikely to me. That would make sense in a market with perfect competition. . . . .but we do not have that. we have a market with two suppliers spread across three different brands.

if you are arguing - as jessie seems to be - that this is heading for a situation of perfectly competitive returns on capital employed. . . . with the lowest cost producer the last man standing. . . then we should all sell our ACL shares today as there is minimal money in this for anyone.

Any i am also confused by Jessie's implied assertion that demand may increase substantially as price falls. I don't know quite enough about product substitution between different anticoagulants. . . . but surely the potential for growth of the fonda market due to this effect is pretty limited??