The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
True enough Henry, but Intrusive is clearly asking for it, so before ending the personal attacks forever I propose that we seize the opportunity to assume a lack of aeronautical virility as the only reason he doesn't "give a flying fu*k"?
Tricky, you even restarted the thread with a new title in order to re-imagine your original accusations. Another con.
Meanwhile the SP is soaring to a new high. Maybe we should brace for the possibility of another secondary placing, or "con" as you misleadingly call them? Worth thinking about, since we haven't had one for a while.
by Richard Beddard: https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/richard-beddard-many-good-years-lie-ahead-famous-firm-ii524671
Although seeing this as a good long term investment, Beddard doesn't think the price is particularly attractive: "The shares are reasonably priced. A share price of 377p values the enterprise at about £283 million, about 21 times normalised profit."
Your link contradicts your comment Jazza - it was 1968, not 1970, and the number of worldwide excess deaths (i.e. above the normal death rate, therefore excluding other illnesses) was far, far less than COVID. Perhaps you should find another link which actually supports your position, if you can, to avoid fatally undermining your argument?
Interesting application Intrusivethought. If we can get traction for just one application of nanomaterials in sensors, it should open up a whole 'spectrum' of opportunities!
What do you mean, "if" my depiction is correct? The head of Samsung was jailed for fraud, and so was his father before him, the founder of the company. Are you disputing these facts?
You don't need to know "exactly" what went on in the Kaist case to see that the three issues you mentioned meant nothing to Samsung, that is not what their decision process was based on. Other cases may be different, but the Kaist one seems to me the most similar to Nanoco's in various ways: the outrageous nature of the theft, the likely level of damages, and the slimy, wriggling, bad faith arguments they put up.
I agree proceeding to court may well result in the best eventual outcome for Nanoco, because a jury is likely to award a much higher damages amount than any settlement, imo, and that will set the tone for any subsequent negotiations. It is possible Samsung will reluctantly admit that to themselves prior to the trial, but I doubt it, the signs are they are going the distance.
Did your research not cover the recent Kaist cases? There was clear and obvious infringement from the start: Intel were already paying for a license when Samsung simply stole the IP, it was utterly blatant. Settlement came, not after one trial, but during a second. Analysing Samsung as just a normal, logical, sensible organisation defies their history, and anyone who has done their research should have noticed the nature of the people in charge, by which I mean convicted criminals.
Well AAF have cancelled more debt than they originally hoped for, it seems lenders were eager to recoup their money, presumably because they are now able to lend it out at higher rates.
The RNS persists in referring to BAIN as a "subsidiary" of AAF, but how can it be both their holding company and a subsidiary?
" The con element here is the fact that shareholders ( the market ) have to meekly take a mugging via a process which is demonstrably not free and fair . A confidence trick that they can perpetrate with immunity "
Nice reimagining of what you actually said Tricky, but it's a con, isn't it?
Realistically Samsung still seem a long way from agreeing a settlement. The worst case scenario, surely, is that they win their appeal over the PTAB decision. It is highly unlikely, but technically possible. To reach a settlement which Nanoco could accept, I think Samsung still need to be pushed much, much further into a corner than they are already, which probably means starting the trial, at least. My best guess is that they will lose the trial and a subsequent appeal, and then attempt to negotiate down from whatever number the court has awarded - it sounds bad, but it's far from the worst case scenario!
"If Samsung don't offer what Nanoco perceive to be a fair settlement then the courtroom awaits"
With all due respect Mattyboy, that's stating the bleedin obvious, and was covered by the scenario I offered in the first post in the thread. Likewise, if Nanoco won't accept what Samsung perceive to fair, it also goes to court. However, the majority here, unlike me, have stated that they think a a settlement is the MOST likely outcome. How do they see that happening?
My fictional scenario was mainly intended to generate discussion about the difficulties the two sides might have in getting close to a settlement. This assumes that they want to, there is no actual indication yet that Samsung do, beyond common sense.
BT's statements about getting full value do not dictate the outcome of any settlement, that is a matter for negotiation and compromise. We need to think about what would be an acceptable settlement for Samsung too, not just Nanoco, because without that, there won't be one.
Nanoco: the court will likely award us $400m, so we'll settle for $300m, plus you agree to buy a 3 year license. Samsung: it's a mere possibility that the court may find in your favour, maybe $150m, so we're willing to pay you $75m as a full and final settlement. Nanoco: thank you for your interesting opinions, see you in court.
Some posters seem unaware how close we are to resolution of this matter, realistically months away at most. We have already been through a large part of the process and are arguably more than half way. Samsung's wriggle room has been reduced substantially and consistently throughout, and settlement is surely their best option. The sticking point is probably the price for settlement, with Samsung likely estimating their chances in court a lot higher than Nanoco do.
I agree to an extent kentio, but I don't think institutional investors or analysts misunderstand the company, I think it is the likes of us retail investors, because M&G don't operate like a typical business, they are mainly focused on generating capital in a largely opaque way, mostly from dormant legacy businesses. Capital generation seems like a dark art, even the practitioners seem to find it difficult to describe, so maybe this is where uncertainty creeps in and puts off professional investors?
Since launch, M&G have proved excellent at what they do, but their capacity for capital generation has limits. The management team seems excellent, but their ability to successfully generate new revenue in tough conditions is unproven. It appears that the performance of their newer initiatives is what will drive the SP, rather than the fabulous dividend
It is more accurate to say that M&G inherited all the UK and European assets on demerger, not necessarily all the "good stuff", since the Asian assets are predicted to enjoy much higher growth rates, for decades (eventually! hopefully!).
It's true that M&G have proved many people wrong by sustaining their progressive dividend policy from the start, even during the pandemic, when most companies, including FTSE100 companies, cancelled or slashed theirs. Investors from the start have already recouped a large portion of the price in dividends. Management can be trusted to continue the policy and have the ability to do so for the foreseeable future.
However, I would caution people to think about the long term future of the dividend, and how it can be paid. This concern is probably what constrains the SP at these levels, when a casual analysis might suggest it should be much higher. M&G are in transition, seeking new sources of revenue. They have made limited progress so far, so it's game on.
Sorry Mr Durex, but I don't see what that's got to do with the subject of the thread. Jakeyork was making a comparison with futura medical, apparently on the basis that, like Angle, they got FDA approval for a product. They are also described as having similar conversations on their board, so there is that. But like I said, their big hope is an erectile dysfunction cream. To me, that's not really comparable: the nature of the products is wildly different, the type and significance of the FDA approval is compellingly different, and the prospective routes to funding are radically different. Arguably there are "angles" involved for both?
So... we're comparing a cancer hunting machine with erectile dysfunction cream?
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.
So one M&G fund is putting some of it's clients money into a new business which hasn't even decided which industry they intend to operate in yet. Whether the company is a roaring success or a complete failure, it will probably only make a couple of percentage points difference to that fund, maximum, and far less to M&G as a whole. M&G invests in hundreds of companies through it's funds, don't see the significance of this particular one, it's just business as usual and of little relevance to the groups fortunes.