Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"If Samsung don't offer what Nanoco perceive to be a fair settlement then the courtroom awaits"
With all due respect Mattyboy, that's stating the bleedin obvious, and was covered by the scenario I offered in the first post in the thread. Likewise, if Nanoco won't accept what Samsung perceive to fair, it also goes to court. However, the majority here, unlike me, have stated that they think a a settlement is the MOST likely outcome. How do they see that happening?

My fictional scenario was mainly intended to generate discussion about the difficulties the two sides might have in getting close to a settlement. This assumes that they want to, there is no actual indication yet that Samsung do, beyond common sense.

BT's statements about getting full value do not dictate the outcome of any settlement, that is a matter for negotiation and compromise. We need to think about what would be an acceptable settlement for Samsung too, not just Nanoco, because without that, there won't be one.

Nanoco: the court will likely award us $400m, so we'll settle for $300m, plus you agree to buy a 3 year license. Samsung: it's a mere possibility that the court may find in your favour, maybe $150m, so we're willing to pay you $75m as a full and final settlement. Nanoco: thank you for your interesting opinions, see you in court.

Some posters seem unaware how close we are to resolution of this matter, realistically months away at most. We have already been through a large part of the process and are arguably more than half way. Samsung's wriggle room has been reduced substantially and consistently throughout, and settlement is surely their best option. The sticking point is probably the price for settlement, with Samsung likely estimating their chances in court a lot higher than Nanoco do.

I agree to an extent kentio, but I don't think institutional investors or analysts misunderstand the company, I think it is the likes of us retail investors, because M&G don't operate like a typical business, they are mainly focused on generating capital in a largely opaque way, mostly from dormant legacy businesses. Capital generation seems like a dark art, even the practitioners seem to find it difficult to describe, so maybe this is where uncertainty creeps in and puts off professional investors?

Since launch, M&G have proved excellent at what they do, but their capacity for capital generation has limits. The management team seems excellent, but their ability to successfully generate new revenue in tough conditions is unproven. It appears that the performance of their newer initiatives is what will drive the SP, rather than the fabulous dividend

It is more accurate to say that M&G inherited all the UK and European assets on demerger, not necessarily all the "good stuff", since the Asian assets are predicted to enjoy much higher growth rates, for decades (eventually! hopefully!).

It's true that M&G have proved many people wrong by sustaining their progressive dividend policy from the start, even during the pandemic, when most companies, including FTSE100 companies, cancelled or slashed theirs. Investors from the start have already recouped a large portion of the price in dividends. Management can be trusted to continue the policy and have the ability to do so for the foreseeable future.

However, I would caution people to think about the long term future of the dividend, and how it can be paid. This concern is probably what constrains the SP at these levels, when a casual analysis might suggest it should be much higher. M&G are in transition, seeking new sources of revenue. They have made limited progress so far, so it's game on.

Sorry Mr Durex, but I don't see what that's got to do with the subject of the thread. Jakeyork was making a comparison with futura medical, apparently on the basis that, like Angle, they got FDA approval for a product. They are also described as having similar conversations on their board, so there is that. But like I said, their big hope is an erectile dysfunction cream. To me, that's not really comparable: the nature of the products is wildly different, the type and significance of the FDA approval is compellingly different, and the prospective routes to funding are radically different. Arguably there are "angles" involved for both?

So... we're comparing a cancer hunting machine with erectile dysfunction cream?

hellojello used a specific example to try to refute the idea that luck does not even out over time. I used his own example to show that luck worked both ways in his own example. His slam dunk boomeranged. His response (and others) indicates that he does not understand the point being made. Nothing to do with geopolitics, all about luck.

So one M&G fund is putting some of it's clients money into a new business which hasn't even decided which industry they intend to operate in yet. Whether the company is a roaring success or a complete failure, it will probably only make a couple of percentage points difference to that fund, maximum, and far less to M&G as a whole. M&G invests in hundreds of companies through it's funds, don't see the significance of this particular one, it's just business as usual and of little relevance to the groups fortunes.

But the Afghan girls are just back to where they were before. A whole generation of them were fortunate to get an education thanks to some ageing idiot in the White House?

Before buying Nanoco, I doubt many thought of IP theft as a significant risk, or of apparent success going sour, twice. Perhaps we should distinguish between bad investment decisions due to bad judgement, those ruined by criminality, and the peculiar ones caused by a series of unfortunate events?

I would class the Apple retraction as equal to the Dow one - both paid for factories to be built then left them unused - is that some king of record for bad luck? Should we go for the hat-trick?

Can't find that judges article Feeks, but this one might be interesting to some. It gives a critical insight into
developments at the PTAB which seems quite balanced. I was surprised at the Republican politician crediting Trump, because he had no policy on the PTAB, it was Clinton who was pushing reforms, but it seems he did, by accident or design, appoint an effective head of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Andrei Iancu, who seems to have improved things. The latest bipartisan reform efforts seem mixed, but at least they are trying. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/09/19/kinder-gentler-death-squad-ten-years-despite-reforms-uspto-still-killing-u-s-patents/id=137765/

"institutions in the know get together and arbitrarily knock 10% off the market cap to suit their own devices ? Some posters here seem to think that the quaintly named "secondary share placing " is normal and acceptable I believe it is just a con ."

When you made that allegation, tricky, you appeared to be using the word "con" to describe price manipulation? Wouldn't you agree that there really are no "pros and cons" there? In fact, price manipulation is a type of fraud, wouldn't you say?

While using cash to cancel debt may prettify the balance sheet, it is hard to comprehend the rationale for it, given the notes have a relatively low coupon and short dates. If they needed new debt, for example, it would be more expensive, given rising rates. Presumably they have so much cash they don't see any need for new debt for the foreseeable future?

There appears to be an error in the RNS when it describes BAIN as being a subsidiary of AAF. It is actually the subsidiary of Bharti Airtel, and the holding company of AAF. The hierarchy of companies is Bharti Airtel > Bharti Airtel International (Netherlands) > Airtel Africa

Make you r mind up tricky, you are now using the word con for fraud again. Stick to one argument.

So over the last month we've been from 98 > 156 > 93 and now up again. In that time we've had two pieces of good news. Never accuse the market of being rational!

Thanks Troajan. The most exciting part of that one, imo, is @9:33 where NN discusses the acquisition of ABC-CLIO and the access to the vast American market it represents.

Market conditions pushed us back down below £4, but it "feels" like an artificial low, not really justified by results or likely prospects. SP action is quite jerky, does that suggest maybe big operators are in the market for the relatively small number of available shares?

A big covid deal seems like "the one that got away". We're down below 8000 deaths a week now, and hopefully the worst is over. Surprising that we haven't really had many COVID related deals at all, despite all the action in the wider industry