The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo has just been released. Listen here.
"wolves" and "olive branches", are you working on a fantasy novel Trotsky? Everyone has their own individual entry point, get over it. Discussing them causes no harm, and it's an obvious point of interest to ANY new investor, no need to get frightened or hostile.
Seems like manu was right, people are resentful at the idea that new entrants might get a better price than them. Let's try to be grown ups, even if we really aren't. Who knows, maybe the price will suddenly shoot up, then they'll all be sorry, eh?
Hi Gary, it's a good time to have some spare cash, because even companies doing well are getting marked down at the moment, as if a recession is coming. Bloomsbury, for example, today announced record results, revenues up 24% and dividend hiked by the same amount, yet their SP is lower than last week and well off it's highs.
The trouble with entry targets is that when they are met it is tempting to lower (or raise) them! At 180 the yield would be fantastic, but it would still be excellent even at around 250, so the FOMO is muted, you can probably take your time. Anyway, welcome and good luck.
True ggrantsu but there are a lot of shares looking cheap now, even ones which have had excellent news (e.g. AGL). This one has attractions because it has demonstrated a tendency to race much higher, very quickly, more than once. Economic outlook seems the grimmest it's been for a long time, analysts obviously see very difficult times ahead. Everyone feels more comfortable having cash in reserve, which just adds to the sell off and exaggerates SP movements. 180 has been the floor here a few times over the last few years, but it's dipping below that now, which shows the angst of the market. I'd be surprised if this is the bottom, but historically it seems likes a good time to buy.
"the very essence of what turns AN on"
Apart from a few words in ONE interview, where on earth does anyone get that impression? Even in that isolated interview he told you he has a highly successful career in FINANCE not medicine. He sold a technology company to ARM, for instance. This isn't someone who doesn't understand what makes a company work financially. Anyone looking at this sensibly should surely conclude that he has far more expertise and instinct for finance than for philanthropy, and he has demonstrably picked winners.
Surprised there was no response to my point about the KAIST case. KAIST is the Korean university which sued Samsung over finfet technology used in phones. They won the case and it was ruled willful. They were awarded $400m by a Texas jury. The university is located in Seoul, but interestingly they have a branch called KAIST IP which is located in... Texas! Although I gave it as an example of a case continuing even after the court's decision, the details are not entirely clear. It is now reported that the second case was brought because they were continuing to infringe on the technology without a license, as if the first case never happened. Samsung claimed the technology was different, but they came to an undisclosed settlement. It isn't clear whether the award from the first trial was ever paid, or included in an overall settlement. Anyway, it shows how long it can take to get Samsung to do the right thing. The funny thing is that Samsung sponsor a whole department of KAIST, fund scholarships and recruit there.
The other issue is that aspects of the case linger on, with KAIST currently involved in a dispute with their litigation funders. You would think that contracts in this area would leave absolutely no room for doubt about division of winnings, but this shows it is not always true.
Hopefully Nanoco can avoid both these challenges KAIST has faced, but it would be foolish to rule them out as possibilities. On the other hand, KAIST proves you can beat Samsung, and that they are equal-opportunity thieves, happy to steal from anyone.
Sammy88, thanks for your interesting contributions. I tend to agree with Nigwitty's effort to downplay outliers and best-case scenarios, to concentrate on a more balanced idea of possible settlements. I'm intrigued at your absolute certainty that Samsung would never risk enforcement proceedings in the event of losing in court. Surely that is what happened in the Kaist case? Maybe it is not legally described that way, but they failed to pay the court award and subsequently faced another court case. Incidentally, my understanding is that Kaist are now in court fighting their litigation funders for withholding winnings, which may also be worth discussing here! I assume the thread title should be year end, not dead end!
Hi BOTAK, dividend cover is down because it is based on earnings, which were down, but that metric probably isn't fit for purpose in M&Gs case, a better one might be based around capital generation, or a combination of the two.
jatw once posted that M&G needs to reorient it's business towards earnings before the market really warms to it (if I understood correctly), but it seems to have considerable ability to pay dividends through capital generation alone. I think HSBC once calculated that M&Gs ability to generate capital would peak next year, which may be worth considering, but management have shown a strong determination and ability to sustain the dividend, and share buybacks might be partly aimed at helping with that.
I didn't mention the (South) Koreans, at least not in this thread. I was thinking more about shifting awareness amongst Samsung customers worldwide of who they are buying from, and British awareness of what amounts to an attack on our industry and economy, albeit a minor one in this specific case. But even in Korea, there ought to be concerns, because Samsung is far bigger there than any British company is here. The context is different too, because they are notorious there for bribing the Korean govt. and they are headed up by a convicted criminal, so analogies with large British firms seems wide of the mark.
Your doubts are well founded however, few seem interested thus far, but apart from the serious points, there is a great story to tell here, with twists, turns, depth, drama, and a compelling baddie. I'd settle for a Netflix series, featuring ominous shots of that sinister paper factory ( :
"the fact that Nanoco was unable to carry out further research due to financial restrictions and was thus slowed down in development"
That's the part that really sticks in the craw for any investor here, not just restrictions on R&D, but in development of the business generally, to the point of existential crisis. It is only the intervention of third parties like LO and the litigation investor that has stopped Samsung killing the company off completely. It may be difficult to convey in court the importance of punishing Samsung for this, but it would be very satisfying if the issue gets picked up as a media story and damages their reputation. It should be of interest to anyone who cares about British industry or science in particular, but also anyone around the world who values technological progress. That's another reason to hope for a HUGE award in court, it would help generate publicity.
"The mention of fraud is yours not mine yet another distortion and lie."
Really? On 30th May, for example, you said:
"Some posters here seem to think that the quaintly named "secondary share placing " is normal and acceptable I believe it is just a con ." Did you change your mind?
Actually Evanescent, the lock up from the last secondary placement applies to the seller (Singapore Telecom International Pte Ltd) not the bookbuilder (JP Morgan). The seller had a 3.9% holding remaining after that last sale (of 1.6%). The 90 day lock up started on settlement date, 29th March, so they are free to sell again on June 27th by my calculation. Other sellers are free to sell at any time, of course, so the date has limited significance beyond 3.9% being back in play.
"Why would Samsung not be open to settling?"
In the past, they haven't always behaved reasonably. A Korean (S) university sued them and others for infringing a patent. The other two companies (Apple, Qualcom) settled early in the court case for something like $10m each (the inventor wasn't greedy). Samsung lost in court, lost on appeal, had a massive award against them. They didn't pay it so were taken to court again. They settled early in the second court case. So they are "open" to settlement, it is just their timing and logic which is difficult to predict.
My understanding is that indoor farms now use cost efficient LED lights, NGR1616, not sure there is any market left there for Nanoco. Jones Food Company, the farmers in that article, use a specialist lighting firm called Current, who deploy light in three spectrums usind LEDs: https://www.gecurrent.com/inspiration/illuminating-the-farm-of-the-future-jones-food-company-partners-with-current-powered-by-for-next-generation-food-production
More info on the Congo tax invoices: https://www.reuters.com/article/congo-telecoms/telecom-operators-in-congo-face-180-million-tax-hit-idUSL8N2XV3XM
Bad timing for AAF having just invested in more bandwidth in the country, but just turbulence in the grand scheme of things.
Apologies for my annoying lack of precision, blitzed, it never even occurred to me that anyone here might not know which Korea was being referred to. Likewise, I'm contrite at my utter failure to clarify that the article I posted was NOT purporting to represent the views of the entire Korean people (either one).
Let me elucidate. The reason for the post was to highlight the apparent lack of traction in the mainstream media in Korea (both), the issue doesn't appear to be discussed there. When a major company is losing badly in a damaging lawsuit, it is somewhat surprising that it is of no interest to the public. Samsung isn't just a major company in Korea (S), it is THE major company. One reason for posting was to provoke interest in discovering other Korean news sources and gaining a more comprehensive view, because it might give some insight into the attitudes there, and the likelihood of a settlement.
I hope this revised version of the post demonstrates sufficient breadth of thinking, and please feel free to correct any remaining narrowness.
It is quaint how Koreans show virtually no interest or engagement in this case. Their premier national company, which dominates their stock market, is losing a case where they are accused of stealing property, in bad faith, from another country. They report it with next to no curiosity or concern, as if this is an everyday occurrence.
https://www.sammyfans.com/2022/06/02/samsungs-qled-tv-could-face-a-big-challenge-dispute-with-nanoco/
The fact that the full potential of the product stretches out for decades is a positive. That suggests multiple stages of increasing revenue, it doesn't imply nothing right now. He stated there are already increasing inquiries about pharma services as a direct result of the approval and also pointed to three separate avenues of possible corporate investment for the next stages. It seems like some have allowed a short term SP dip to affect their hearing?
"it's fixing the odds". True Feeks, and from a criminal point of view, that may seem rational, but they have gambled on not getting caught, and lost. Then done it again. Crime, punishment, repeat: that is the observable pattern. Their nepotistic management has somehow survived intact despite many losses in court and embarrassing imprisonments, so perhaps there is some sort of messianic 'unbreakable' survivors rationale to their actions.
You are correct that there is no automatic right to settlement, and that the price tag on any settlement has become a designer label following recent developments. Settlement decisions don't just involve the two parties either, Nanoco's backers are likely to play extreme hard ball, and will presumably be experts in extracting the maximum possible. I certainly don't rule out a settlement, but my best guess is that they will keep rolling the dice as long as possible, and despite our justified confidence, let's not forget they haven't officially lost yet.
"no one should be fooled into thinking S behaves irrationally"
Why not? Was bribing the South Korean government rational? Is regularly stealing IP rational, or illegal union busting? The people in charge of the company are extreme high-risk gamblers, and who knows how they evaluate the stakes here.
Excellent summary by Hawi. I still don't think Samsung will settle. Applying commercial logic makes sense to everyone else, but their past behaviour shows a different mentality, imo. I think we are facing trial and appeal, and only then a forced negotiation starting from the position of whatever the jury awards. That might actually result in the most lucrative outcome for Nanoco, and the worst for Samsung, so it makes little sense, but I don't think their strategy is entirely rational. Anyway, just an opinion, it's getting interesting, very interesting!