focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Because no-one was interested Velo, yourself included: hardly a prolific contributor here, are you? Your alarmist views on the share are more misleading than illuminating, imo, and you seem to have gone out of your way to disparage and exaggerate the situation. It is amusing that you make condescending "you lot" remarks, because if you had bothered to look even slightly, you would quickly notice that hardly anyone ever comments here. So welcome to the board!
Court has now confirmed it's decision. XP still denies stealing the tech, but it couldn't convince the court. As Beddard said "the court case raises questions about the company’s ethics and culture " and the continued denial seems to demonstrate a culture which has not changed. The $40m hit can and is being absorbed, but the underlying problem seems to remain?
So 16 days past the expected trial date, and no settlement. Those who claimed settlement was logically inevitable, confidently quoting court statistics as evidence, will presumably have had to revise their opinions sharply in the light of events. Isn't a settlement now less likely, as all the drivers for it have essentially been exhausted? It looks like yet another buying opportunity may be developing ahead of trial date confirmation.
It is a shame some naughty commenters have made disrespectful references to our honorable new PM with flimsy justification. At least nobody has stooped to observing that she looks like Margaret Thatcher in the process of morphing into M-M-Max Headroom: that would be truly deplorable, and quite possibly worthy of a ban.
Thanks Intrusive, that's a well balanced analysis. The figures really hammer home the effect of the theft on Nano's business. If Samsung had simply bought a license honestly, the company's activities, across the board, would be on a far grander scale by now. Hopefully any award or settlement can go some way to recovering some of the lost ground. If investors are gambling on a settlement, as many seem to be, I wonder if there will be a dip when the trial starts, as people perceive an escalation in risk. Of course, it's quite possible a settlement could be reached DURING the trial, or even after it (and yes, OK, before too!).
It seems that Mr McCombie won't invest in Nanoco until something like an operating profit or "sustained revenue gains" give him more confidence. A trial win in itself doesn't fit the bill for him, because in his opinion it would probably be frivolously reinvested in the business, rather than doled out as cash to shareholders, as he seems to prefer. The possibility of sustainable increased revenue stemming directly from the trial, in the form of a license, does not seem to have occurred to him. He points to Nanoco's past failures, but fails to recognise that a positive trial outcome would demonstrate conclusively that these were largely a result of IP theft. Similarly, success at trial would immediately elevate Nanoco's IP from an interesting idea to an existing, successful commercial product.
Perhaps he should look somewhere other than "best performing stocks this year" for his ideas, given his risk aversion? Still, once Nanoco have won at trial, sold a few licenses, and branched out into other industries, we can be sure Mr McCombie will then have enough confidence to lay down his money, at a SP of about £10?
Just down the corridor from room 101 - Samsung's worst nightmare?
"Samsung Display will almost certainly have been cited as a defendant"
Why is that Intrusive? Is their corporate structure different in Germany? Is it important which particular SEC (Samsung) company is the defendant?
"@BBD: Please leave Trump out of these discussions."
Why? It's relevant, because there is a similarity in the discrepancy between valuations. The difference is that Samsung have understated the value twice. Once, when placing an unacceptably low bid for the entire company, and then presumably an even lower valuation presented to this court.
The fact that no-one else bid for Nanoco might be brought up, as a justification, reasoning that their 'bid' valuation was arguably too high, but the discrepancy tells against them, like it did against Weisellman?
This places Samsung in Trump world, where the stated value of assets varies wildly, depending on the context.
Frankly, it beggars belief that anyone is able to find anything negative in that RNS. Expectations are higher than they were before, is the only real takeaway, and that applies to CFQDs, not just sensors. The only way you could view that as worrying is if your personal expectations were already dramatically higher than the consensus
I want whatever crisplex was drinking
No Hawi, I cannot explain that to you, and I don't really see it's relevance to the level of settlement or award (if any), which was the point being warned about. Nobody knows what that level will be, but Samsung's attitude is obviously very different to ours and hard to understand - NGR gave a convincing insight into their point of view, a rare and useful thing on this board, imo. As to Gilstrap, he may guide towards an unusually high award, every case should be judged on it's merits, but Samsung probably see it as unlikely, and something they are willing to gamble on. Stats may be on your side, but I have never thought Samsung are interested in settling, despite the obvious logic and justness of it. I have seen absolutely nothing from them to change my mind about that, quite the opposite, but again, nobody knows, it's possible.
Brilliant post by NGR1616, giving an instructive corrective to anyone getting ahead of themselves. I hope Gilstrap seeks to discourage Samsung's cynical outlook by making the consequences of their actions more punitive, but that is probably not realistic or likely.
How about a quadruple whammy Katastrophicforcats? Samsung forced to pay gargantuan wonga, also forced to take a license at Nanoco's chosen rates, EU finally enforces cadmium ban nudging a few of Samsung's rivals to also take out licenses, then ST Micro go live with sensor production. Too much to ask?
I agree Nanonano, Toshiba almost certainly using cadmium. Their new models could challenge Samsung, they seem to make basic QD technology mainstream by making it affordable to a much broader market. I hope this puts more pressure on the EU to enforce it's cadmium ban, because the thin excuses which were being made about it have surely evaporated into nothing over recent months.
When you say "have been able" to find the supplier of Toshiba QD panels, did you mean "haven't" Ecclescake? The article doesn't seem to mention it. Their Q5AD model seems to be creating waves:
https://www.techadvisor.com/article/920790/toshiba-qled-tv-you-can-actually-afford.html
" it sometimes seems as if face (I nearly said honour, but that word would be out of place) determines their course."
I've thought that since the start of the case Barbon, although I have characterised it as a gambling mentality, but there certainly seems to be more than just commercial logic at play, despite what some posters assume.
I've been here since 2016, I don't want an award, I just want the jury to award Nanoco an unfeasibly large amount of dollars, and Samsung management to receive a "Theiving Gits of the decade" award.
What 'opinion' is the market currently expressing through the share price level? Perhaps it's anticipating a probable win, but a relatively low award or settlement, say about $250m? Mr market is pretty shrewd, but often completely wrong.
"My guess is cadmium based on the prices. Frustrated with the EU if that's the case."
Wasn't it 2018 when the ban on cadmium was originally supposed to kick in? Surprising the EU STILL allows it's citizens to be poisoned when an alternative is not only available, it's being used commercially