Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Brilliant, valuable analysis from Jatw, as always. If I understand correctly, you are saying that IFRS accounting puts a more simplistic emphasis on asset values and liablities, compared to Solvency II capital ratio, which is concerned with the relationship between the two. The discounting aspect means SCR takes a more long term view, arguably a more realistic view of M&G's true position, whereas IFRS is more hard nosed, nailing down what the business is worth if sold right now, in order to make it comparable with all businesses everywhere, regardless of their particular niche.

I respect your opinion Feeks, and your valuable contribution to the board. It is highly likely you are correct, but I have been consistent since the start in arguing that Samsung's defence is weak and not sensible. Their approach has boxed themselves further and further into a corner. That doesn't seem to be intelligent or commercially logical. They have continued gambling with a bad hand while the stakes have risen inexorably, and the longer they leave it, the less intelligent they appear, imo. Their lawyers have been utterly unsuccessful so far in attempting to defend the indefensible, so I don't agree they have put up a good argument, it has been unconvincing and rejected at every turn, so far. To date, they have failed miserably.

In the Kaist case Samsung could have settled at the beginning for just $10m, and it ended up costing them exponentially more, plus the legal bills. It was a stupid gamble which all the other companies involved in that case sensibly declined. They seem to be going down the same path again, which is doubly stupid.

Whether it is a legal term or not, Samsung are guilty of infringing the patents. There are obviously many kinds of guilt which don't constitute a crime, but can still be accurately described as such. For instance, Nigwitty is guilty of insisting he is right, despite multiple examples from diverse sources being provided to him which prove the contrary.

Yet again, the Samsung strategy seems weak, unintelligent and risky. It is hard to believe they really thought they could overturn the Markman ruling at all, let alone with such feeble reasoning, they really do just think the legal system is for gaming, and they seem determined to gamble until the bitter end, as some of us suspected from the start. Anyhow, great news, the walls are closing in on them and their ugly dishonesty. Thanks to all posters for useful insights and breaking news.

I think you're probably right Blubay, the market did seem to be anticipating outstanding results. We've seen these sudden drops before followed by fairly swift recoveries. If the management statement is anything to go by, they have done well DESPITE relatively challenging conditions, so potentially there is even better to come if things improve. There also seem to be multifarious opportunities to expand both the customer base and the range of services they use. The improved profitability, improved balance sheet and demonstration of rapid growth ought to be enough for a re-rating, imo.

Great points jatw,
It's probably good for the SP that M&G are getting recognised in these superficial dividend-focused articles, rather than being overlooked like they were a couple of years ago. Understanding the real story, as you point out, requires deeper analysis

This list puts M&G at number 2 for dividends, with LGEN not even making the cut: https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/12-stocks-dividend-investors-hunting-high-yields-ii524717?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW-DLY-ENGAGE-ii_afternoon_round_up_200722%20(1)&utm_content=newsletter&spMailingID=20433274&spUserID=MTIxNjc2Mzg5MzQ0S0&spJobID=2036489572&spReportId=MjAzNjQ4OTU3MgS2

Author Ben Hobson seems unaware that M&G were not declaring a dividend 5 years ago, since they were then part of the Pru, and also seems confused in thinking their yield is variable: the dividend has been absolutely consistent and progressive over the 3.5 years since launch. Not sure how they calculated the coverage amount, and the P/E ratio is somewhat amusing

Consistent? I'd say they are pretty spectacular Yuri - the huge EPS hike, for example? I can see the SP going higher based on these eventually, unless the market has already priced it in.

The point(s) of my post, Tricky, were 1. to point out how you deliberately misrepresent what you said, to the point of changing a thread title when replying and 2. to give a heads up to anyone who wants to take advantage of your so-called "con" that it may be a good time to exploit it. hth

"they'll have to show their understanding is above mine to do so."
Remember our discussion about lighting for indoor farms, Nigwit, before you got banned from this board? You stubbornly insisted Nanoco tech was being used when it wasn't, even though I showed you evidence to prove it. I think you called me the "vortex of evil" for simply pointing out that you were mistaken. Nanoco don't talk about indoor farming any more, because advances in LED lighting have made Nanocos tech effectively redundant for that application, like I said at the time. Clearly, my somewhat limited understanding was far better than yours

Chief Financial Officer Kathryn McLeland bought about £100K worth of shares @ £1.94 three weeks ago.
Big M&G Director buys seem to be a good indicator. It's like they know the markets or sumpn

True enough Henry, but Intrusive is clearly asking for it, so before ending the personal attacks forever I propose that we seize the opportunity to assume a lack of aeronautical virility as the only reason he doesn't "give a flying fu*k"?

Tricky, you even restarted the thread with a new title in order to re-imagine your original accusations. Another con.

Meanwhile the SP is soaring to a new high. Maybe we should brace for the possibility of another secondary placing, or "con" as you misleadingly call them? Worth thinking about, since we haven't had one for a while.

by Richard Beddard: https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/richard-beddard-many-good-years-lie-ahead-famous-firm-ii524671

Although seeing this as a good long term investment, Beddard doesn't think the price is particularly attractive: "The shares are reasonably priced. A share price of 377p values the enterprise at about £283 million, about 21 times normalised profit."

Your link contradicts your comment Jazza - it was 1968, not 1970, and the number of worldwide excess deaths (i.e. above the normal death rate, therefore excluding other illnesses) was far, far less than COVID. Perhaps you should find another link which actually supports your position, if you can, to avoid fatally undermining your argument?

Interesting application Intrusivethought. If we can get traction for just one application of nanomaterials in sensors, it should open up a whole 'spectrum' of opportunities!

What do you mean, "if" my depiction is correct? The head of Samsung was jailed for fraud, and so was his father before him, the founder of the company. Are you disputing these facts?

You don't need to know "exactly" what went on in the Kaist case to see that the three issues you mentioned meant nothing to Samsung, that is not what their decision process was based on. Other cases may be different, but the Kaist one seems to me the most similar to Nanoco's in various ways: the outrageous nature of the theft, the likely level of damages, and the slimy, wriggling, bad faith arguments they put up.

I agree proceeding to court may well result in the best eventual outcome for Nanoco, because a jury is likely to award a much higher damages amount than any settlement, imo, and that will set the tone for any subsequent negotiations. It is possible Samsung will reluctantly admit that to themselves prior to the trial, but I doubt it, the signs are they are going the distance.

Did your research not cover the recent Kaist cases? There was clear and obvious infringement from the start: Intel were already paying for a license when Samsung simply stole the IP, it was utterly blatant. Settlement came, not after one trial, but during a second. Analysing Samsung as just a normal, logical, sensible organisation defies their history, and anyone who has done their research should have noticed the nature of the people in charge, by which I mean convicted criminals.

Well AAF have cancelled more debt than they originally hoped for, it seems lenders were eager to recoup their money, presumably because they are now able to lend it out at higher rates.

The RNS persists in referring to BAIN as a "subsidiary" of AAF, but how can it be both their holding company and a subsidiary?

" The con element here is the fact that shareholders ( the market ) have to meekly take a mugging via a process which is demonstrably not free and fair . A confidence trick that they can perpetrate with immunity "
Nice reimagining of what you actually said Tricky, but it's a con, isn't it?

Realistically Samsung still seem a long way from agreeing a settlement. The worst case scenario, surely, is that they win their appeal over the PTAB decision. It is highly unlikely, but technically possible. To reach a settlement which Nanoco could accept, I think Samsung still need to be pushed much, much further into a corner than they are already, which probably means starting the trial, at least. My best guess is that they will lose the trial and a subsequent appeal, and then attempt to negotiate down from whatever number the court has awarded - it sounds bad, but it's far from the worst case scenario!