Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Very interesting chat on CNBC (scroll down a bit to find the link on this Pru page): http://www.prudential.co.uk/investors/results-centre Timescale seems to be about 2 years, perhaps completing late 2019, early 2020. Contrary to my speculation, he explicitly states no change to dividend policy, which is reassuring, in that the policy is progressive, but confusing in that it implies the separate companies won't have separate policies? Encouraging notes about the potential in Africa: "Africa is profitable now". Good question about whether the US really fits with Asia, and should it not also be spun off, and to my mind a less than convincing answer.

I calculate the p/e ratio is now 13.3 (based on the new annual earnings per share of 145.2p). Perhaps I'm fooling myself, but doesn't a business of this quality justify a considerably higher rating?

lol Alphaking, I wonder if you are talking about M&G, because I heard Australians making comments like that decades ago! It would be amusing if M&G, having been taken over by the Pru way back, are now regaining some form of independence, even retaining their somewhat peculiar name, without ever actually being properly woken up. It was all a dream... With yet another superb set of results, an 8% dividend increase, an improved capital position, and the imminence of dynamic positive change, I find it quite amazing that this is STILL below �20, now way below fair value, imo.

I suspect a lot of the big investors who pushed for the split might be disappointed in that, but retaining the capital probably makes sense while they sort out the details, and costs. The announcement has come much earlier than anyone expected, it gives the impression of dynamic and responsive management, and the creation of two new companies gives plenty of opportunities for change, and hopefully improvement. When the dust settles, we could potentially see any spare capital being released in the form of revised dividend policies, or alternatively, they may be considering acquisitions.

How does relative growth of different regions make this bad? I'd say the exact opposite - investors remain exposed to both, but with separate, more focused managements, and if you don't like one of them you can easily sell it while retaining the other, since both companies are likely to be listed in the FTSE100. Furthermore, they are making a huge �12B divestment in the slower growing region, so if you are really concerned about growth, why ignore that massively positive fact?

exiting partnerships - that's a scary typo NanuNanu! Wll wee should be getting some clues in the interims in approximately three weeks ... of course, Nanoco won't tell us exactly when, that would be giving away far too much information.

Always risky, I suppose, but even after a few days of rises, you probably got a good price relative to value. China has been told it has a new emperor, congratulations, but at least the Korea situation is on hold while they compare hairdos.

Not sure you understood the points I was making. Firstly, the patent is for absorption of light by plants, pretty much the opposite of emission, and the MIT work is not a circuited lighting system as described in the patent, it's biological. So I'm wondering how the patent is relevant to the subject of light from plants, when it is all about supplying light TO plants, by a method with no apparent similarities. Secondly, the patent proves that LED lighting for plant growth does not necessitate the use of QDs, because it refers to patents with or without QDs. You now seem to also want to co-opt glowing plants as a QD application despite the description in the MIT article. Nanoparticle carriers certainly, but why quantum dots?

Believe it or not, Revolutionary was referring to plants which actually emit light via biological means, not a circuited lighting system which helps them absorb it as described in that patent. http://news.mit.edu/2017/engineers-create-nanobionic-plants-that-glow-1213 The patent was interesting though in the sheer volume of other patents it referred to which are for LED lights without QDs, yet specifically aimed at enhancing plant growth, demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the use of an LED lighting system for plant growth does not of itself indicate the presence of QDs.

Nice detective work, but If it was Amazon, are we imagining them building some sort of assembly plant at Runcorn, because if it's just production of raw QD serum it would surely be quicker, simpler and cheaper to go via Dow and/or Merck? I take it this is one of the reasons NW thinks it's something completely different, along with the curious choice of language which, by avoiding specifically mentioning QDs, winks at a different nanomaterial.

"The majority of the job descriptions refer specifically either to quantum dots, resin or film production and not to novel nano-particles" As I've said before, Quantum Dots are a type of nanoparticle, so distinguishing between them as if they are mutually exclusive terms makes no sense. Nanoparticle is a general term relating to size, QD is a subset with specific attributes. That's why I contend that we can't assume the new deal is not for some sort of QD, and Nanoco's vague language, as usual, is wide open to interpretation. What the word "novel" means in this context is equally unclear - possibly just "new", or perhaps referring to the new properties discovered in the nanomaterial compared to the bulk material it is derived from?

Hi Tom, hope you didn't forget the milk. No, I got extremely angry and threw my invisible TV out of the window, at least, I THINK I did.

Is the question mark on your keyboard stuck Tom? Sorry for being imprecise, you are right: it is the company which has never made a profit not the share, which has occasionally spiked during it's long downward drift.

Sense of humour failure? I am both.

Why would the market be interested in a share that serially disappoints and has never made any money? It's only cranks and dreamers who would give it the time of day.

Is everyone keeping two eyes on the title of this thread?

Why do Hansol keep being referred to as if Samsung may have acquired influence over them? They are a spin-off from Samsung, and are run by members of the same family. There's absolutely no point speculating about their allegiance when they are effectively a division of Samsung.

Thanks Laughton. Edison reiterating that 2016 was "atypical", yet even comparing against that spectacular year, the growth figures look good. The company is playing all the right notes, and in the right order. Critics may seize on Edison's slightly reduced forecast of �3.7m for the current year (down from �4.1m) as vindication of previous worries over profitability, but holders can take encouragement from the recent sales acceleration, which seems to indicate a potential for upside surprise, especially since the forecast for this year is far less demanding than last. Bottom line, Edison reckon it's undervalued by about 10% at the current price.

You claim to be the "first to be skeptical when there are good reasons", so given that SLs perfectly reasonable question met with such an evasive answer, it's odd that you are not at the front of the queue pointing out that this is a less than positive response. In fact, you go out of your way to discredit the people actually being skeptical, even when they have given you a cast iron reason. Maybe "first to be skeptical" was a bit of an exagerration? Perhaps you need a bit more persuading than most that evasive answers tend to be given by people who have something to hide.

No-one going to argue with my contentious, click-baiting headline? I knew I should have included the B word. OK, I'll have to do it myself: What I claimed, with my ill-researched, naive, simplistic assessment, was not fully thought through and was not supported by any real evidence. The sensible rules imposed by the EU are for the protection not only of the insurance companies, but also their clients, and are the result of proven dangers highlighted during the financial crisis. If these rules were really too onerous then the PRA, which I falsely maligned, would have acted, but their role is to do what is right, not to pander to the greedy and self-serving demands of companies who put profit above prudent risk management. I ought to be ashamed of myself for propagating a shallow and meritless argument, we can only hope that no-one was misled by it. I'd like to respond to myself by claiming that I was only paraphrasing an existing story, and supplied the link so anyone could read it in full for themselves. I'm hurt and saddened that I would accuse myself of misleading people, when it is obvious that no-one else is here. Next time I might not bother posting.