The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Oh dear, being wrong is bad enough, but being called out on it is obviously intolerable :¬)
Anyway don't suppose they'll be bothered about Nanoco or Samsung.
It might be said that they are lucky in that regard, at least.
I agree, but of course I'm discussing luck not the cause of Afghani women, as I'm sure you recognise.
Incidentally, you never attempted to justify your 'it all evens out' remark. It doesn't, you know...
BBD - I didn't 'try to refute the idea that luck does not even out over time'. I did actually refute it. Your statement that an earlier generation of Afghan women had the good fortune to have at least a rudimentary education does not address the point of evening out. How does one good fortune balance the other? Do you think either of these cohorts would feel content that it's all 'evened out'? It's banal to state as you did that different people have different luck - I think most of us would take that as axiomatic. To prove 'evening out' you have to go much further and demonstrate some sort of balance (or justice if you prefer). Exceptional claims demand exceptional proofs, not throwaway non sequiturs.
And my response, such as it was, indicated only that I didn't want to get into what was a self-evidently futile argument.
As for 'he does not understand', do you really not understand that if it 'all evens out', it's not luck at all, it's just a machine with a predetermined outcome?
hellojello used a specific example to try to refute the idea that luck does not even out over time. I used his own example to show that luck worked both ways in his own example. His slam dunk boomeranged. His response (and others) indicates that he does not understand the point being made. Nothing to do with geopolitics, all about luck.
"Sorry other countries had a colonial past "
Sounds like an apology which many of our leaders are not willing to give.
All countries develop for better or for worse - not always determined by wealth.
lol. It was a message about the random incidence of luck not the political situation in Afghanistan. But if you guys want to take it there, feel free. Not much else going on here at the moment.
This is a board about Nanoco and not Afghanistan or Afghan girls.
However I will add my two pence here: It really is up to the Afghan people to make Afghanistan work - for all Afghans. Instead we have tribal conflicts, widespread corruption and now absolutely backward leadership. The Afghan people had a chance (and billions of dollars from the west) but blew it.
Sorry other countries had a colonial past but developed after the British left so colonialism is now a poor excuse.
But the Afghan girls are just back to where they were before. A whole generation of them were fortunate to get an education thanks to some ageing idiot in the White House?
Before buying Nanoco, I doubt many thought of IP theft as a significant risk, or of apparent success going sour, twice. Perhaps we should distinguish between bad investment decisions due to bad judgement, those ruined by criminality, and the peculiar ones caused by a series of unfortunate events?
Nigwitty - 'If you believe in good luck then you have to believe in bad luck and it evens itself out in the long run.’ I believe in luck pure and simple, and if you think it all evens out in the end, I suggest you try explaining that theory to the Afghan girls who will miss out on an education because some aging idiot in the White House decided to quit Afghanistan without proper preparation in order to improve his poll numbers. That's a lack that will blight their entire lives, and those of their children, with little to no chance of redress.
I'm afraid there is no great wheel of karma in the sky - luck, good and bad, is dispensed randomly. All we can do is try to prepare for it.
Jones - do you seriously think you're so important Samsung would waste money posting stuff on this board? It would be better if, instead of making nonsense posts about me, you concentrated and told us what you think will happen if and when a settlement is reached.
Have a read of this. Morgan Housel is a brilliant writer and I hadn’t really considered the concept of luck until I read this (this blog is amazing by the way and well worth a read)
Have a read of this. Housel is a brilliant writer and this sums it up perfectly:
https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/ironies-of-luck/
It is not about luck at all. I completely refute that notion and (to use the words of Cmdr Jo Galloway) strenuously object!
It is instead a combination of risk and hazard and defining this is quite complicated and often misunderstood or interpreted differently by different functions or organisations.
In simple terms risk is likelihood of something happening (LOW MED HIGH) x severity (SLIGHT MODERATE EXTREME)
A hazard is the potential harm caused if not controlled. An example could be an activity like a parking manoeuvre or driving at speed....plus many others which could be unknown until they happen)
The goal is to reduce both risk and hazard to as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP) (either don't drive [or invest] and if you do make sure you do so at 5 mph whilst wearing a seatbelt, helmet and wrap your car in bubble wrap and only drive on closed roads with someone there to guide you plus SWIR anti collision detector systems on your car.......)
The same may apply to investing in shares.
Ask yourselves this question.....is the risk of Nanoco's novel technology having disruptions in it adoption in emerging technologies low, medium or high and what are the implications if a DOW or Apple or STM pull out occurs on your finances if you are heavily invested...?
What are the hazards? Price, IP theft, too early to adopt, poor performance, competition, alternative methods
Another question, if STM were introducing the same tech is the risk the same? (likely less as they have more established customer and routes to push into the market for adoption) but that doesnt guarantee adoption. X what is the severity if the tech isn't adopted -less because they have multiple revenue streams.
In relation to Hazards they are likely similar but I'd conclude STM is the lower risk company (this is nothing to do with CFQD's) if a choice between the two based on an ALARP approach to investing. But the returns could be lower too for the same reasons. Or the returns would be higher, or rather the losses less if Nanoco fails again then it's likely a bust and back to being an IP shell.
So we have all taken a view, a gamble perhaps based on odds that are in reality not much different to a hazard/risk identification exercise and then confused the pure luck of gambling on roulette with risk, but even then you can reduce your risk on roulette by covering more numbers.....but the hazard goes up if the one you didn't cover comes in.
So in summary it's all to do with luck.
I would class the Apple retraction as equal to the Dow one - both paid for factories to be built then left them unused - is that some king of record for bad luck? Should we go for the hat-trick?
Amazes me that some posters here dismiss luck when thinking about this company. Who would have bet against Nano when that Dow agreement was signed?! You could’ve researched this company within an inch of its life and it would be screaming buy. What unfolded is nothing short of a miraculous catastrophe. That wasn’t a calculated risk that would’ve factored into any sane investors calculations. That was rotten luck.
Hopefully something we will get justice for. But any Nano investor trying to dismiss luck needs to have a word with themselves.
If you're lucky !
IF you want to discuss 'luck' then you can call it luck at which point you buy shares and just how close it'll be to good news. but, as far as the outcome is concerned, there is zero luck, just unqualtifiable decisions being made by Samsung as to whether they want to draw this out as an attrition, in the hope that #NANO will settle much more cheaply that they would want to.
But if you're going to make this share about 'luck' then every investment is luck, too.