Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"The HoldCo debt is substantially reduced by I assume it’s all now sitting at OpCo level…while I assume this has some benefit beyond being able to give a (potentially) misleading leverage figure for HoldCo it certainly doesn’t help the average PI assess how much debt the company actually has across all of its subsidiaries, nor indeed the cost of financing all that debt."

While some debt has been moved from the holding company to local ones, I think this is in addition to the reduction of overall debt caused by redeeming bonds, paid for out of sales of infrastructure. The strategy saves the company money, I think, by cancelling expensive US dollar debt, and by transferring OTHER debt to cheaper local interest rates.

I agree that the state of AAFs finances are somewhat difficult to assess, and many investors probably avoid them for that reason, but the underlying growth and profitability are surely clear enough.

"by far and away the worst performing stock I still hold in last 12 months."
Really? According to HL, this is up 28% over the last year. Are all your other stocks doing FAR AND AWAY better than that? Congratulations!

I think you are confusing different issues Alessandro. The finance costs are not to do with debt, but with derivatives and currency movements. If debt is your worry: "it has further derisked its balance sheet, having prepaid USD450 million in outstanding external debt to HoldCo."
https://www.lse.co.uk/news/AAF/top-news-airtel-africa-interim-profit-drops-as-finance-costs-grow-tzz9t45l1d8vkl9.html

Presumably this is aimed at Samsung's panel supply business? The backers are pulling no punches. Nano were once on the ropes, taking punishment like Ali with his rope-a-dope tactic, but they have emerged swinging, going for the knockout

Settlement discussions were entirely logical, but some seemed overly certain about things we didn't know about. Speculation is interesting if people give their reasoning, but a little humility should be mandatory. Those crowing about being right (so far) could benefit from a little too. I think Samsung bosses make decisions using a different cultural context to us, and also seem to have demonstrated criminal and gambling tendencies in some previous cases, but in reality I simply don't know why they do the things they do, and sometimes wonder if they do themselves

Correction- although the case was brought in California, Comet are a Swiss company specialising in Radio Frequency and X-ray power products. It is unclear where the employees were based.
https://www.comet-group.com/

Although the $40m court loss and associated costs are probably already reflected in the share price, uncertainty remains on any future implications wrt product offerings and development

Maybe old news to some, but this article has some extra details about the case which I haven't heard from XPP or anywhere else:
https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/03/jury-awards-semiconductor-manufacturer-40m-in-trade-secrets-case-against-rival/

It appears that XPP hired employees who brought trade secrets with them from US rivals Comet. Comet originally sued the ex-employees in 2018, but subsequently dropped that action and sued XPP instead. The jury awarded $20m compensation on 2 of 4 trade secrets. The other $20m is punitive damages.

XPP are officially "considering" their next action, but it's unclear what options are available to them.

"XP Power declared a quarterly dividend of 21.0 pence per share, unchanged from a year ago."
https://www.lse.co.uk/news/XPP/xp-power-maintains-dividend-as-revenue-and-sales-grow-in-third-quarter-cp4e5fslm6lz643.html

Personal insults Velo? What an honour, but it's against the board rules and rather tiresome, so please desist, me old fruit. I have no objection to views other than my own, didn't you notice that I welcomed yours? Perhaps you just didn't read what I wrote carefully enough: it was the condescending "you lot" that I actually objected to.

The share price may actually be close to the bottom. The economy, politics and war are part of the downturn. XPP are forecast to see an upturn next year by some analysts, due to an easing of component shortages and a strong order book. If that transpires, the change in UK government and a more sustainable economic policy could provide the basis for a turning point in the trajectory of the SP. If they can put the court case behind them and return to growth, the SP could potentially recover quickly, and it has fallen a long way.

They also need to recover faith in the management. The court case was an annoying surprise because management failed to make adequate provision for it, and seemed to think it was impossible they could lose. Perhaps there is a case for clawing back their generous bonuses, which seem based on an inaccurate calculation of "success" which involved appropriating someone elses technology?

Why is NGR1616 so proud of his "cracker" question?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O__sLviHY44

Samsung's jailbird CEO singing, Gangnam style:

"Oh, that ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Get your money for nothin', get your dots for free"

Questions based on false assumptions suggest people have not actually read the article Nanonano linked to. It mentions "lead free" QDs, there is no reference to CFQDs whatsoever. Furthermore, it says "research and development specialists can now access two of its Quantum Dot (QD) products", which is obviously not the same thing as production at scale, and therefore not comparable to Nanoco's process.

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?