Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

SP doubled this calendar year, then halved again. Has it bottomed out around 25, dya reckon?

I was thinking Poolbeg admission next Monday won't affect ORPH price, but it might, because it shows ability to swiftly and successfully spin, with promise of more to come, which could attract interest from carpetbaggers, johnny-come-latelies, and bow-legged mad-for-it spivs?

Apologies, obviously forgot about the conversion factor - thanks for the corrections, but ignorance was bliss

Yes, they've bottomed out on a valuable seam of fossilised quantum dots, carbon dated to 2017

That puts the total value for LTHs back to around 37p - pleasant surprise. It values Poolbeg highly compared to it's parent. Market still in no mans land on core business, likely due to uncertainty over profitability. The doubts will probably be about costs - hopefully now being paid close attention to, and more effort being made to keep the market informed so there are no more surprises. Revenue certainly positive and more to come, these non-COVID-specific contracts are particularly helpful.

Ming Lu, may be nu at the Pru
But changing his gender might tend ter offend "her"?

Whole industry is down, but Pru's numbers are outstandingly awful - look at number 18 in this list:
https://www.globaldata.com/uk-based-insurance-giants-reported-highest-top-line-decline-among-global-peers-2020-says-globaldata/
Have to question the leadership here again, compared to peers

Schroders made a slight disposal and a technical adjustment to take them just below the 5% disclosure threshhold. Feels like a sudden drop in temperature, but the embers are still bright here and there is real warmth from the dividends

Samsung forecasting 50% quarterly profit hike based on the global chip shortage - XP probably surfing the same wave?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57744982#:~:text=Global%20chip%20shortage%3A%20Samsung%20forecasts%2053%25%20jump%20in%20quarterly%20profit

It's "Nice to" know the source of information - in this case it's Auntie:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57744982#:~:text=Global%20chip%20shortage%3A%20Samsung%20forecasts%2053%25%20jump%20in%20quarterly%20profit,-5%20hours%20ago&text=Tech%20giant%20Samsung%20Electronics%20has,to%20the%20end%20of%20June

Chips are not really relevant to Nanoco's situation, but it's nice to know Samsung can pay their legal bills, and any settlements they may wish to agree to, ahem

10% increase in revenue doesn't sound like much, since revenue is so low, but good news nevertheless, and potentially opening more doors in the sensor corridor of uncertainty

imo the trial is relatively unimportant now - if the PTAB says the patents are valid, Samsung's case falls apart. Their decision is probably the definitive one.

Having said that, the PTAB have been FAR more willing to throw patents out than Gilstrap, so this was always going to be the real squeaky bum time, more so than the court decision. For LTH here it is scarcely believable that the company was founded on thin air, but who knows how on earth the PTAB think - they are, after all ... (whisper it) ... Americans.

Correction, I meant to say "even after they lost COMPREHENSIVELY in court" - the point being, they used the appeals process in previous cases purely, and successfully, to cause delay. Their concessions, on the face of it, appear to preclude such actions in this case, and they seem, perhaps inadvertently, to have gambled everything on the IPR, with Mintz calling their bluff.

I like your simplification argument lobo, it makes a lot of sense, but surely it has been true since the beginning of the case, or at least once details emerged?

To my mind they may have changed strategy now by focusing on the end game rather than individual battles like the court case. This may have been prompted by Samsung's concessions made when they were trying, apparently cynically, to give the judge a good reason to stay. Perhaps Samsung made a mistake there, because in other cases they have made extensive use of the appeals process to cause significant delay, even after they lost in court. If this scenario is accurate, it indicates Mintz have no doubt about ultimate victory, and are aggressively pushing for an early result

Can I have a quick word? "Rapidity". You forgot to mention the rapidly growing losses, as per published results.

Changing the name again is boring, done that one already - authors can't even be bothered to come up with an original story line. They could do a plot twist by reverting back to Boxhill next time, recycling the business cards and announcing "rapid" cost savings?

Who is paying these nefarious derampers and why? Can I sell them one for a fiver? "Open Orphan are very naughty shares, sometimes they go down and the CEO once told a whopper about auctioning off data". I could make a fortune, once I get the hang of this. "Open Orphan are closed ... for business!" Come one, that's worth a pony, surely?

What reputation? He's been entirely consistent, and rather successful. Too late to cancel the BS express now, better jump off at the next station!

Ming Lu, new at the Pru:

"Ming Lu has over 30 years’ experience of investing and developing businesses throughout the Asia Pacific region. He has been with KKR since 2006 and is currently a Partner and Head of KKR Asia Pacific, playing a leadership role in KKR Asia’s growth and expansion. He has held various operating and investing positions throughout his career, including working for eight years at CITIC, one of China’s largest businesses. Mr Lu is an independent Non-Executive Director of Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.

Shriti Vadera, Chair of Prudential plc, said: “The Board is appointing individuals with the experience and skills to guide Prudential’s transformation into a business focused exclusively on Asia and Africa. I am therefore delighted that Chua Sock Koong and Ming Lu are joining the Board. Chua Sock Koong has had a distinguished career with operational experience in many of our key markets, while Ming Lu has a long track record of investing and developing businesses throughout Asia.”

https://www.prudentialplc.com/en/news-and-insights/all-news/news-releases/2021/04-02-2021

If you are claiming that CF gave good guidance about 2020 Wonder, that seems at odds with reality. Some posters were even expecting a profit! I don't recall anyone, least of all CF, giving even a hint about losses increasing in H2, in fact his repeated talk of being profitable in Q4 suggested precisely the opposite.

Nano had the likely opportunity to press ahead with a promising trial position and head into the IPR later with their case strengthened by an influential judgement in their favour. They actively chose to take a harder route. Why? Why o why? Why on earth would they? Huh? Wait what?

The potential reduction in costs and time offered by addressing the hardest obstacle first has been PROFESSIONALLY assessed to outweigh any notional advantage from an initial trial victory. The easier, safer route is now deemed unnecessary. Concessions about appeals by Samsung and confidence in the merits of the case, as uncovered so far, now makes a more streamlined route to an earlier final conclusion possible and preferable. The dip in SP is only to do with poorly-informed speculative perceptions about timing, nothing to do with the final outcome.