Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

BTB, I think you've misinterpreted what Tenner said a little. He said the PTAB appeals process COULD last 18 months, and the trial appeals COULD be 3-4 years. Samsung's previous cases have been drawn out, but all of them settled within fairly reasonable timeframes, certainly not waiting for patent expiry. Is there any reason to expect a more pessimistic outcome in this case? Even if the appeals process is extended, the Nano SP will probably rise substantially on a positive decision from the PTAB in two weeks time. Delay by Samsung has consequences for them, it creates uncertainty which hangs over their SP and potentially brings long term negative publicity - they may make legitimate appeals, but frivolous ones hold danger for them.

Not like you to complain, moany, having a bad ... decade?

Article seems inflamed by cheap lithium firestarters, rather than cool batteries

The economic impact will obviously be bad, as it will be across most countries worldwide, and across most industries apart from defense. Mitigating this, Nigeria might see higher revenue from Oil. Perhaps people will eat more rice and less wheat. I doubt they will stop using phones or mobile money though.

If we are in the 80s on Thursday, will Boris wear a dress and pretend to be Thatcher?

CEO sold 1.7 million shares for £12m (at £7.30) to institutions in December.
He's better at selling shares than gear at the moment

Does anyone remember the character Lampwick from Pinnochio? He's the one who turns into a donkey and keeps braying, braying, braying

https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/richard-beddard-court-case-clouds-confidence-star-stock-ii523488

"Despite the court case, XP Power has a coherent strategy that addresses the risks it faces. I do not believe the verdict undermines the company’s past achievements. The strategy has been successful.

However, the court case raises questions about the company’s ethics and culture that I cannot answer with confidence."

Beddard suggests the market is wary of the implications of the case, which are uncertain with regard to future development of the disputed technology. Major personnel changes at the top add to the edginess. Could do with some good news here!

Yes wholly owned (see Intrusivethought's post on Friday).
Patents for Nanoco 2D: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/nanoco-2d-materials-limited

Oops sorry, missed the £ sign. Thanks for the corrections and advice: sterling work. Slightly more significant then, but still pretty difficult to get excited about. How about the costs associated with running this a separate business though, couldn't it have been done more efficiently in house as a normal part of hVivo work?

Surprised there is not more comment on this major East Coast Bongo Flava news - Joti AND Diamond working TOGETHER!? Dinesh is clearly a big fan, you can tell from the picture he's itching to breakdance once the speeches are over...

5.9p * 1.6 million shares = £94.4K. If that's the level POLB are operating on, it's hard to really care about one way or the other, and hard to understand why they are better off as an individual company, because members of staff are probably paid more than that.

Agreed, Samsung could drag things out considerably, but if the PTAB decision goes in Nanoco's favour, it's hard to see any appeals process (or trial) doing anything other than delay the inevitable: the argument then would be largely over the amount to be paid, not the outcome. A settlement remains a possibility too.

Didn't Samsung once agree not to contest certain things if Nanoco won at the PTAB?

Thanks Phimx and superzero8 for bringing the excitement!

Interesting that all the action is in the East, because the pressure in Europe for alternative energy supplies must be enormous right now. Hopefully the dam bursts, because the time seems right for this technology, and it is surely now commercially proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, unlike lithium batteries, it's definitely not "on fire"

Todays rise seems to demonstrate how the regulatory changes are actually positive for AAF - they reduce unofficial access to services and theoretically deepen the moat against new rivals. AAF claim to provide a better service than other large operators, so this clampdown may also offer them an opportunity to grab more market share from people affected by the changes.

Management are supposedly pursuing partnerships as well as acquisitions, but the market clearly lacks confidence in the strategy.

The latest trading statement said "Revenue from the Company's core Creo product portfolio is growing and is in-line with management's cumulative revenue forecasts at the time of IPO in December 2016." That sounds convoluted. It comes across as if they are having to aggregate 6 years worth of revenue in order to find something positive to say? I can't find any such forecast so it is not clear what this statement actually means (if anything). IIRC last years revenue from core products was the first ever anyway, so "growth" from such a small base is meaningless until they put actual numbers on it. In all likelihood it's going to be modest.

True , it could have some negative impact on revenue IF it was introduced into countries in which AAF operates. They withdrew from Ghana in November. The tax could potentially suppress mobile money activity if it were introduced in Nigeria, but a modest tax surely wouldn't offset the advantages of what is effectively a bank account for people who have never had one before. In a rapidly growing market its initial effect would likely be virtually undetectable. The danger Royga is (presumably) highlighting is that greedy or desperate governments may seek to take an increasing slice of the cake over time.

True machiismo. With revenue ahead of targets and a marked SP spike, it looked like the tide had turned, but two months later that now looks like a blip. The long decline started more than a year ago and the SP has more than halved.

Although revenue is rising, it doesn't seem to be fast enough for the market, with losses still forecast for the foreseeable future. The products look like winners, eventually, but investors have already waited 'long term' to glimpse breakeven. The company dutifully talks about commercialisation, and has taken significant steps to achieve that, but investors want to see more visibility on the likely proximity of a breakeven point. At present it is opaque, and there may be a suspicion that management still seem far more interested in the technology than financial health?

Optimists might view the most recent numbers as indicating the mere foothills of a steep revenue hike which is likely to continue for years, coupled with an increasingly attractive entry point, but they probably need a couple more outstanding sets of results to convince the market it is finally happening.

Jesus sold? He's probably more interested in a "savings" account now that interest rates are rising? Thanks for that valuable insight Porsche, so useful.

Mike Wells leaves on Thursday, having presided over a remarkably difficult seven years. Whether he has been good or bad for the company is probably unresolved due to fairly extreme external factors, but right now the company does not seem to be reaping much benefit from the radical surgery undertaken during his leadership. Mark FitzPatrick is interim CEO while they look for a permanent replacement. James Turner, steps up from CRO to CFO.

A lot of misunderstanding on this thread. This has happened several times before. As someone said earlier, it's a normal institutional business activity. The temporary SP drop is normal too, depending on the sale price. This is highly likely to happen again, probably several times, so if anyone finds it unsettling, maybe this isn't the stock for you.

Worth noting that the Bharti family hold the majority of the shares, so 1.6% of the remaining shares represents a relatively bigger proportion of the shares actively traded and therefore probably has an outsize effect. There are no new shares "placed" and no real increase in the free float, it's simply a rapid institutional sale of a large block, probably to other institutions. What these actions amount to is the retail price temporarily moving close to a notional institutional price: nothing to worry about, because they inevitably recover in line with retail activity over a few weeks. Ascribing it to nefarious practises or "manipulation" is a misunderstanding of the nature of these transactions, and how the market works, imo.