Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

I didn't discuss a bear case about the eventual outcome, but about the motivation of current sellers.

The reason I said the "amateurs" response seemed emotional is that it is illogical to defend something which was not under attack. The backers status was not under discussion, it was their change in strategy, and only with regard to the effect it has on sellers, not it's professionalism.

The IPR process is known to favour patent killers, that's why Samsung pushed for it, and why Nanoco initially resisted, and why sellers instinctively view it as negative. It is surprising that this fact is being undermined and disputed, since it has been discussed on this board before, and is backed by easily accessible evidence. The fact that the PTAB boards authority is under challenge has also been discussed on this board previously:

"IPRs are seen as a cheaper alternative to resolving disputes in federal court and more likely to produce results in favor of the patent challenger. For example, since its institution in September 2012 through June 2020, only 20% of patents survive completely intact when the proceeding reaches a Final Written Decision. Nearly two-thirds of all instituted petitions lead to all the corresponding patent claims invalidated through the IPR."
https://ghbintellect.com/will-iprs-be-abolished/

Some posters seem to confuse my assessment of the bear case for current sellers with some imaginary attack on the eventual outcome here. Clear eyed LTHs knew this was a bridge which had to be crossed sooner or later. Biting the bullet now will hopefully make final victory cheaper and quicker by curtailing appeals, shortening or eliminating a trial and collapsing the time-window for a possible settlement. That is the professional assessment, and as I said, I am sticking.

But that doesn't change the fact that for many, especially new investors attracted mainly by the trial, that scenario is too vague, expectations have been overturned, the timeline has been muddied, the prospect of a jury trial fades into the distance, the rug got pulled.

The PTABs reputation has been discussed on this board before Hawi, it's common knowledge, and easy to Google:

"The "patent death squad" term has since been used frequently as reference to the PTAB by those critical of the inter partes review.[6]

Opponents of the inter partes review have sought both changes in legislation through the United States Congress, as well as seeking case ruling."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_partes_review

To answer your question - no, I don't think there are complete amateurs at work here, and that's frankly a rather emotional response, when I am obviously discussing the bear case to understand it, not to advocate it. The fact that the PATB has a reputation obviously doesn't mean they kill EVERY patent, but the point is that they probably kill more than Gilstrap does, and that works as a justification for selling because they are now the first hurdle rather than second, and whoever makes the first decision is likely to influence the second one (difficult the other way round!).

When it comes to validity of the patents (rather than the bear case I was discussing) Tenner has been crystal clear from the start that PATB also has to be overcome to win, so in that sense the destination has not changed, nor the obstacles, only the route. For sellers we've stepped off the path and taken a short cut thru a dark neighbourhood.

Although the strategy change was unexpected it is focused on outcomes and has holistic logic. I'm sticking, but those selling have a good case too:
- Case now being conducted on Samsung's terms, they pushed for IPR and trial delay, so in their eyes they are winning
- IPR board has such a dodgy reputation as a graveyard of IP that it is under review itself, on the face of it the prime judgement has now shifted from Gilstrap to them, a far less congenial environment
- No longer any specific end date to anchor the timeline

They pay an Interim dividend in the autumn, and a final in the spring. The interim is roughly one third, and the final two thirds, of the total. The final is confusingly called a "second interim" for technical reasons. The last two dividends were the interim of 6p in Sept 2020 and the final of 12.23p in April 2021.

Policy is to increase the dividend progressively if funds allow. This is outlined in the original prospectus, which can be found on their website. So far they have maintained this policy, despite the shock of pandemic not long after their launch which caused many other companies to cut dividends.

Unfortunately scientists have yet to devise a clear model of "Friel time": they infer it must exist, but cannot define it. It is not even possible to state how many Friel days there are in a Friel week or month, but it is generally understood that "by the end of the year" stretches to infinity ...

Really moniman, who knew you had to spend money when running a business, very informative. You claim that the costs went on infrastructure and a challenge study - what infrastructure specifically, and how much? Do we now have all the infrastructure needed, or are more costs likely this year, if so, how much, and what will be the impact on profits? What costs are associated with the challenge study? That is surely an ongoing project, rather than a one off cost?

Why did costs balloon so much last year while CF said so little about them? "pretax loss for 2020 widened to GBP11.2 million from GBP5.8 million the year before". That means losses in H2 were £6.2m, even greater than the £5m in H1. Instead of guiding investors about this, CF concentrated almost exclusively on revenue and cash flow, saying things like "profitable in Q4", and "some people will be pleasantly surprised".

"Profit was hurt by an increase in direct project and administrative costs to GBP32.4 million from GBP8.7 million" So that's an extra £23.7m spent. Shouldn't we have had a more detailed breakdown of this, or at least some sort of guidance about why so much money was spent last year, a massive amount compared to the market cap, and surely more than most posters here expected? It is starting to look like Poolbeg was much more than the mere spinoff of minor assets it was portrayed as.

What about costs going forward - there is surely an urgent need for more transparency and confidence about this area of the business?

This piece by Ben Hobson of Stockopedia lists a top 10 speculative "high flyers" including G4M. In his estimation they rank fourth on quality and momentum, but since their momentum (in terms of price strength over the last 6 months) is lower than all the stocks above them, presumably the quality is higher! Pretty encouraging, and much more credibility than Walletinvestor, imo.

https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/10-speculative-high-flying-stocks-beating-market-ii520565?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW-DLY-ENGAGE-ii_afternoon_round_up_170621%20(1)&utm_content=newsletter&spMailingID=13952602&spUserID=MTIxNjc2Mzg5MzQ0S0&spJobID=1774524998&spReportId=MTc3NDUyNDk5OAS2

"H1 2021 will be more important from a current valuation perspective. With say £50m rev and say £10m EBITDA for 2021 full year i think a £300m valuation for core OO is not unreasonable "

I appreciate it is just an estimate, but what's your reasoning for £10m EBITDA Shandy? We are near the end of H1 now, and didn't someone say yesterday that there were doubts that they were even profitable in H1 due to rising costs, as evidenced by the fairly sharp reduction in cash? Although there are plenty of grounds for optimism, some of them are based on CF promises about large contracts and timescales for other things, presumbly mostly in H2. We've been down that road before, and CFs guidance led to most people being somewhat surprised by the results (and some were more surprised than others, eh Bronx?).

It was amusing when CF directly contradicted some of the most prominent and vitriolic posters on here when he pointed out the obvious fact that spinoffs will cause a commensurate market adjustment in the ORPH SP. No surprises there for intelligent investors.

Don't be silly Moanie, it's a discussion board, you aren't going to stop people talking about relevant issues by calling them names. You wrongly claimed the results were just history, deflecting from the important point Ricky was making about current trading. Whatever the costs of demerger are, they are part of the business and affect profitability, which affects all shareholders including yourself. A reduced cashpile is big, unexpected news - the opposite of repeated guidance - what do you think about it. Baaaaaa

Name already taken mate, and well deserved. "Stop bleating on this board" - correcting your misguided inaccuracies is hardly bleating, we're helping you out, old boy

"Profitable from Q4 2021" - what so from next September Moanie? This was supposed to be profitable from Q4 2020, that was said repeatedly, yet cash has gone down over the last 5 months, as Ricky observed. Clearly there is more spin happening here, and you have to look properly to glean the truth, not just take CF at his word.

Yes, terrific news about a successful use of the device when other options were unusable - very very good news, for the patient and for the inventors - looks like a winner.

Welcome Brava2021, I think your timing is good here because revenue is starting to flow after a long period of outflows for R&D, regulatory hurdles and sales force building. Looks very promising post-pandemic - good luck!

https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/bloomsbury-publishing-qa-chiefs-explain-lockdown-books-boom-ii520512?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW-DLY-ENGAGE-ii_afternoon_round_up_150621%20(1)&utm_content=newsletter&spMailingID=13916863&spUserID=MTIxNjc2Mzg5MzQ0S0&spJobID=1773942224&spReportId=MTc3Mzk0MjIyNAS2

If Ricky is right, -£3.5m represents a huge turnaround of two loss making companies, with the prospect of big and growing profits, for the first time, going forward. You don't need to be hyper-optimistic about the results to see value at the current price.

Still not clear what your estimate is Bronx. Seems like you are relying entirely on CF saying £19m revenue in second half, but with much higher costs? How does that translate into annual profit or loss, in your opinion?

It's unclear what you mean Bronx, but I'm guessing you are claiming £19m revenue in Q4, presumably cost free, since you haven't mentioned any? So that would give a full year profit of around £12m, in your estimation?

Sounds reasonable Ricky, giving full year results of about -£3.5m. I think that's more or less what the market expects, and anything better would be a bonus. Jasonsax is absolutely correct - only profitable in the last quarter, surprised all holders aren't aware of that. CF said, a while ago, that some people might be "pleasantly surprised", which could just be his usual optimism, but if true suggests a very strong fourth quarter reducing the loss a bit more. Anyone looking for a profit must interpret "profitable in Q4" as meaning a sudden dramatic turnaround which reverses 9 months of losses in a single quarter - not impossible, but hardly realistic.

It's the political instability which lies behind the Twitter row which really spooks the market - young Nigerians used Twitter to protest loudly against heavy handed police violence, banning it takes away their voice and will surely force them to express their justified anger in other ways. Bad politics is bad for business, and Buhari seems inept: a control freak in a country of freedom lovers. When you get praised by Poisoner Putin, you are obviously doing something badly wrong. Bottom line is that, although a Twitter ban doesn't really curtail AAF activities in any significant way, a political crisis in their biggest market would.

Never heard of MAS before- apparently it's the Singapore regulators. From the details below, it seems like a bit of a slap on the wrist?

"A reprimand is considered a serious warning by the regulators and is usually issued when a regulatory breach by a financial institution does not lead to any direct monetary harm to its customers.

Such reprimands are taken into account when regulators take enforcement action against future violations by the reprimanded financial institutions."

"At Prudential, three individuals referred to as Master Group Agency Manager (MGAM) Leaders and a consultant appointed by the firm had acted as supervisors.

However, Prudential failed to review and assess the performance of the MGAM Leaders and the consultant, assign BSC grades to them, as well as determine and pay their remuneration in accordance with the BSC.

Prudential also breached the RM Guidelines as it failed to put in place adequate risk mitigation procedures and compliance arrangements to monitor the activities of the MGAM Leaders and consultant."

Some of that may have happened 'cos Aviva poached a lot of staff? ( :

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/mas-reprimands-insurers-for-breaching-rules-on-risk-management-commission-payments