Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"I haven't done anything but state the facts." Could you also clear up the other part of your "learn" where you mentioned a " fierce takeover battle". Do you have named sources confirming competing bidders?

Yes I see. So the point of the analogy was not the one you made, but is in fact to do with unlikeliness. Yes I agree that a bid from Apple is unlikely.

Brokers Deutsche seem to have reiterated their "buy" recommendation today with a new target of 2000. Nice round figure, and possibly what sent the price up. They now agree with Goldman Sachs (buy), but Morgan Stanley (overweight) top that with 2095. Maybe they all considered it, but decided it would look silly to go with 2017? Brokers not jokers.

Surprisingly big fall on what is being described as a "disappointing" update. Doesn't look that bad to me, more or less to plan. Market must have been expecting something spectacular? https://www.investegate.co.uk/sage-group-plc--sge-/rns/trading-update/201707251700030671M/

"Learn = do not believe unnamed sources especially when in fierce takeover battle" You've drawn an analogy between two scenarios in order to highlight their common point of being "unlikely", but then "learn" something quite different which only applies to one scenario, and does not derive from the analogy. Presumably your point is "unlikely things sometimes happen", rather than "don't trust unnamed sources", otherwise why use the analogy? In any case, this isn't akin to the cricket match. England wanted the unlikely event to occur. Apple have a large cash pile and could have bought uncontested if they wanted to. They decided not to last year. They have deliberately created this situation of where they can only bid competitively, and where they'd have to justify their contrary behaviour to their own shareholders and to regulators. If England didn't turn up for the match and said they'd rather play by themselves, I'd question their desire to win.

It's sent the price up but pretty ambiguous news - we were already expecting interest from China, albeit not necessarily this specific source. ARM have ruled themselves out as a bidder now, along with Apple, and Chinese bids may hit some resistance from the UK "government" (as they have in The United States, Germany, and Australia according to this article: http://fortune.com/2016/11/28/chinese-government-canyon-bridge-chip-maker/) Can't fathom what speculation of £2+ is based on - the article doesn't even know which part(s) of the business is being discussed, let alone the price. If the Chinese government is backing Canyon Bridge Capital Partners, won't that intimidate any other potential Chinese bidders? Isn't it rather 'interesting' that Tsinghua Unigroup, who took a 3% stake in May 2016, are also backed by the Chinese state?

Yes, you over-egged the 5- a- side "complex" a bit too, didn't you? We're talking about 1.7m that was already overdue in January, and we don't know if has been paid yet. If it turns out it has now been paid, there's still a question as to why it was delayed so long. You've claimed it was because the bank had to hold it for some unclear reason, possibly multiple different reasons? Can you elaborate on that, and how it impacts on Boxhill's business generally. Are we permanently in a situation where virtually all the revenue is sequestered and unavailable? And if it still hasn't been paid, then how do Boxhill continue operating without it? Sorry if you think this is naysayers tosh. Richard's points help to illuminate the current situation a little bit, where things have been pretty dark, mysterious and full of surprises in the past. They are certainly more constructive than just hoping.

Like Richard76 said, "Is it possible to keep cash in the bank and overdue payables off the balance sheet?". When something doesn't make any sense whatsoever, it is reasonable to wonder why it is happening, and probably sensible to assume the worst. The question is surely not just "can they pay". More pertinently: when, if ever, are they going to pay, since it is long overdue, and without it BOX is an empty shell. Why is the company unnecessarily structured in this peculiar way, where it's entire existence seems dependent on the whims and timetables of another entity whose motivations and actions are opaque. There must be a reason.

Whoever was about to flush seems to have fished it out and polished it. Imagine that.

Interesting to see Pru's continuing, albeit small, interest in the tricky African market: http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareNews.asp?shareprice=PRU&code=6dofcjf8&headline=Insurer_Prudential_enters_Nigeria_via_insurance_buy_Zenith_Bank_deal

What are the chances of Apple really taking this up actually? Apple won't say what (if anything) they have invented to completely replace the function of Imagination's patents. If they have genuinely innovated, tested and proved a completely new type of GPU in secret, that is truly remarkable. Seems more likely they haven't, in which case it's difficult to understand their strategy and even harder to guess what their end game is.

I'm still fuming about ARMs unnecessary and voluntary surrender of it's valuable independence, but in Imagination's case it seems like a blessing in disguise. Talk about technology being "out of date" seems wide of the mark since IMG own multiple interesting patents they cannot, or have not, developed to commercial viability. It has always seemed like a problem of management and funding rather than technical ability, so a new, larger, owner is possibly the optimal outcome. Which Cambridge tech company will go next - Xaar maybe?