Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Lombard act both as asset managers and as wealth managers for wealthy clients, so we shouldn't necessarily expect overall consistency in their dealings, they could conceivably be selling and buying at the same time due to ring-fences between different departments?

Note that the docketbird text refers to the "Korean" holiday of Chuseok. They fail to distinguish between the South Korean 3 day festival and the North Korean 1 day holiday. Therefore I submit, your honor, that their request is too vague to consider.

Tricky, you haven't used the construction "pros & cons" though, you've specifically described a fraud, and you've repeatedly used "con" as a noun, i.e "it's a con". If you type "define con" into Google, you'll see the definition as "an instance of deceiving or tricking someone", with a synonym being "fraud". It's good that you have backed down from your earlier accusations, because there is nothing to support them, but pretending you were using the word "con" in a different sense is not being honest, is it, it's actually a bit of a ... con?

We've got them in a harvest festival headlock, they'll just have to settle now! Rice rice baby

Very interesting, Nanonano. It is possible these people were 'let go' due to streamlining which might arguably be attributed to Samsung's failure to cough up for a license. Alongside the patents there is expertise, and Samsung's delays seem to have allowed that to dissipate.

Hi LordWM. I think many people have managed to do what is described in the article, in the lab. The difference with Nanoco's IP is that they solved the problem of how to manafacture cad-free dots on an industrial scale, and they did it when Samsung were taking baby steps in this area. The article serves to illustrate, once again, how Samsung do really know the science, and they were just dissembling to the PTAB as we suspected from the start. I fully expect them to continue with this sort of embarrassing nonsense in court, despite having absolutely zero success with it for obvious reasons.

Bharti Airtel have launched a virtual cinema in a virtual "metaverse", basically a kind of Indian Netflix with multiple "screens" in multiple languages. Expect them to offer something like this is Africa before long, and it looks like another big moneyspinner. https://gadgets360.com/cryptocurrency/news/airtel-metaverse-multiplex-partynite-3066291

So you are now rescinding your idea that the sellers buy the shares back at a lower price under a different name, in collusion with the bookbuilders Tricky? It's now just a quaint perception of laxness in regulation, not a "con" at all, and your fraud insinuations never happened?

Absolutely brilliant. New 5 year targets for the digital division, they smashed the last one. Last year we got the special dividend, this year the base one is up 24%. Congrats to all holders, we're doing OK in a muted market.

"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.