Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"So it could be but it's not but it should be but it might not be but it possibly might be"

Can you hear the twilight zone music playing in the background? You are on hold. Your shareholding is important to us.

" A low end royalty of $10-20 was once quoted in the mix, so why is $5 now thought to be a more reliable figure"

Possibly because all the quotes are from one side, whereas the offer comes from the other side, and settlement is a coming together of both? Perhaps we should be considering what Samsung's models look like too?

@HH "Just because the offer came from Samsung does not mean that BT accepted it as such and did not push for a slightly higher rate. "

I was merely asking you to put yourself in Samsung's shoes and consider if $500m is something they would be likely to offer. Not attacking your number, just exploring how reasonable it is. To be clear, BT has accepted an offer, that's why the trial has been suspended, and regardless of subsequent negotiations, it is presumably that initial offer BT referred to as "lower end of expectations". Your defensiveness, qualification, and reluctance to answer the question seems to indicate a certain lack of confidence in your number, which is understandable

I agree HH, $500m doesn't seem unreasonable, but since the offer came from Samsung, does it sound likely?

"I think the main point Nano sought to clarify was the concept of patent peace within the settlement. 70% of the RNS is dedicated to this singular point."

True, but regardless of how much it was emphasised, it was a re-iteration of previous guidance. That isn't usually a reason for issuing an RNS. New guidance is. Anyway, the two points seem to back each other up, so maybe they included one of them to strengthen the other, but neither of them seems intended to indicate that the settlement would be big.

"I place more emphasis on the other reasons the 2nd RNS had to be released regardless of the other info it did contain. For me that extra detail is pure gloss. It does not lead one to a specific amount big or small"

It's not clear what you mean here Feeks. If the offer was big, why would the 2nd RNS be necessary? It contained several items, but details like the likelihood of a one-off payment to include everything was a reminder of previous guidance, it was the "low end of expectations" that was new, and surely the main point being made? In any case BOTH seem to demonstrate an intention to dampen overenthusiasm, surely suggesting quite forcefully that we should not expect the amount to be big? Definitely no indication of a specific amount, obviously.

It's worth noting that even the "one-off" part seems to be merely a likelihood, rather than a certainty, while negotiations continue.

"Many here would probably describe the disappointing settlement update as fake news or conspiracy."

No one has done that. If you have to put words into other peoples mouths, it weakens your argument, imo, and makes you seem less than honest. Best read what others say, and respond accordingly, rather than invent things. And when you are wrong, it never hurts to admit it. Here endeth the lesson, blessed be the quantum dot makers

"It looks like LOAM are offloading a shed load more today judging by the types and volumes of transactions."
Does it? Odd, because the SP seems to be, well, flying higher. Spectator should have gone to Specsavers?

The offer is most likely to have been a total amount, and the negotiations over scope and minor adjustments. If the amount was ridiculously small they almost certainly wouldn't have accepted it, but if it was big they wouldn't have issued the second RNS. So in all likelihood it falls into the modest, but reasonable zone. Therefore, in order to find the exit point, we need to explore the perimeters of that zone ...

" a mute point"

We could do with more mute points on here, imo, but it's a moot point

"LOAM sold because they didn't like the settlement news in the 6/1 RNS and the 9/1 RNS proved them right. That's why they accelerated their selling. "

But the acceleration started straight away, before the second RNS, so it was down to the settlement itself, rather than the 'dampener'. You could therefore infer that Lombard were already selling down in anticipation of achieving a strategic goal, and merely accelerated when it occurred?

The point is that your statement was also "invented nonsense". It's what we all do here, though some are better than others (you know who you are)

"I do wonder why on the eve of a trial where Nanoco were holding all the trump cards we caved in."

Henry, you don't know that they "caved in", that's an unconfirmed assumption. They accepted an offer for a reason we don't know. Almost certainly it was in a range they found acceptable, albeit likely in the lower end . Don't be misled into certainty over the outcome based on an ambiguous RNS which can be interpreted in at least two different ways, and extrapolated from to reach wildly different numbers. Let's wait and see.

You can only claim it's a "disappointing announcement" by ignoring this part of it: "the value and terms of any final agreement are not yet certain." If you don't know something, why be disappointed? I suspect your disappointment will not be all it's hyped up to be .

"Directors will be more concerned with maintaining salaries than the share price."

Their bonuses depend on SP, whereas their salaries don't, so the opposite seems more logical, but more likely they are just focused on getting the best overall deal they can, including not just a wad of cash, but limiting the scope of the settlement so that they retain control of exploiting their patents in the marketplace.

Why achilles, I am mortified by your language, you absolute heel

"If LOAM is selling because they have inside information on the settlement then I hope they and the BOD go to fcking jail!!!"

LOAM backed the company when they were in serious trouble. You didn't, apparently, or you'd be sitting on a profit like they are. If you bought at 70p, that's on you, nobody else. They are entitled to sell if they want to, without having malicious accusations thrown around, with zero evidence, by jealous numpties.

An alternative view, Kat, is that LOAM's average purchase price is still well below these levels. We know they bought a big chunk at 18p, for example. They may be sticking to a predetermined plan to cash out in an orderly fashion once their goal of settlement was achieved.

I don't think it's the failure to "put a numerical value on expectations" which is "why the price is falling". That probably accounted only for the initial pullback, the rest is surely due to LO selling?

No, but we all have to admit that your unrequited crush on your "beloved" is tragic

Perhaps "visionaries" is more how Softbank see themselves (saw? envisioned?) rather than the reality. Anyway, it's harsh times for visionaries right now, cash is king