Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Brilliant analysis, but your casual acronyms are sometimes unfamiliar Jatw. I looked up NCCF: Net Client Cash Flow, of course!
Lots of points of interest in M&Gs first full results, hoping they come out fighting.

Well, they beat the consensus, and even increased operating profit, pretty impressive given the restrictions. Dividend as expected - roughly 8p in real money, making a 12p-ish total: peanuts! Pointedly still a "second interim", I thought they'd revert to "final" dividend this year? Other than that, looks pretty much business as usual.

Amusing that RBC have apparently only just noticed the Jackson split, first announced many months ago and predicted long before that. What was their previous target based on, the 1990s? Their observation about different valuation measurements has some logic, but it depends to some extent on the notion that international businesses are rated according to whims of their geographical home base rather than hard universal business metrics. UK based companies do always seem to lag on lower multiples though. The RBC explanation could even be used to sell the fundraising as merely a strategy for obtaining better quality shareholders, ones who are perhaps less concerned about China and more focused on EV! Another justification for a higher target is equally plausible: without Jackson Pru becomes a clear growth company with far more compelling Y-O-Y results, in theory.

Surprised at your response Scamp. To be clear: I'd expect the price to go to a lower range than ever before if we lost the case because it would wipe out a huge chunk of our addressable market and also cast doubt on the rest of our IP. It could kill the company altogether. As for Samsung's reputation - it should be in tatters: the founder, current boss, and a slew of top managers are currently in jail or have been previously. The average person thinks like you do about them, because the media has so far failed to inform people of their true nature. It is not just Samsung, as has just been pointed out, but Samsung are really in a league of their own. No executives from Intel are in jail, for example.

Thanks Londonwolfie, that explains it. So we're currently just below £15 compared with that £17 high.
Like Jatw said, "close" - only a couple of quid to go ( :

If you go back 30 pages on this board, you can see the SP came close to £20 in March 2018 - the highest I could find was £19.495. It's been a tough three years since those buoyant days, and we're not really back to those levels yet. Not sure why websites show much lower historical prices for Pru at the time, have they been adjusted in some way?

No one knows for certain Scamp, but yes, the price would almost certainly crash into single figures, imo, perhaps deeply. The impact would be devastating, potentially existential, although the company is apparently covered in terms of legal fees. It is quite possible the business would survive in a diminished form though, even if these patents are cancelled, as it has another potential revenue stream from the sensor materials market.

Hi Jab1tt, lovely to hear from you. Although there is no obvious relationship between the companies, AllAtSea opined that they have "quite similar prospects", hence the discussion. The conclusion drawn was that, although XPP has passed the significant £1Bn market cap size, it is still relatively small. Strange to bring this up on results day. What did you think of the results?

Aha, so that's the reason the IPO was pulled - Jackson needs the capital - it's as easy as 1-2-3.
Well well Wells

An even more hilarious target price 'adjustment', this time from the Royal Bank of Canada: https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/PRUDENTIAL-PLC-9590193/news/PRUDENTIAL-nbsp-From-Neutral-to-Buy-by-RBC-32574965/
They even jumped off the fence to say "buy"

Stunning set of results. Debt down, margins up, Q4 dividend slightly higher than expected at 36p, prospects looking outstanding with disciplined R&D spending focusing on expanding the addressable market, RF power, and green products, and cash available for growth through acquisitions.

My understanding is that the Markman is about more than just deciding the validity of the patents:
"A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, because the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. " (Wikipedia)
I wouldn't expect Samsung to settle based on the judge's advice, given their record, but you never know.

Terrific work from Wondergoals, quite a feast of information.
Progress could come suddenly from several sources, but we should also bear in mind the all-important results near the end of June and even more interesting Interims late Sept/Oct. Results should see reduced losses considering CF has guided us towards being "pleasantly surprised". There was a £6M loss last year and we were down about £5M at half time, so I suppose something between -£5M and -£3M is reasonable, given Q4 was profitable? The interims will be for Jan->June, which are also guided to be profitable quarters, so we can look forward confidently to a strong swing into the blue purely from core business.

Bronx, surely it's relevant that neither Sinopharm nor Sinovax have even published full phase 3 results yet, let alone had them peer reviewed. Let's keep our fingers crossed for the countries which have approved them for use, and hope nothing goes wrong with them, because it could affect the whole industry. Meanwhile, back on the point: China ideally should be able to do their own CHIMs, eventually, but in the meantime they possibly need ORPHs' help.

I think you missed the point toastal, it's not a matter of attitude, but of capability. If they are so good at replicating, why are Pfizer, AZ, Moderna vaccines used rather than theirs? Also, no need to suspect they carry out unethical trials on soldiers and hospital workers - we already know they have done that.

Comprehensive overview from John Harrington at PI indicates this business is booming and poised for more growth:
http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/941250/bloomsbury-publishing-flourishing-with-formats-old-and-new-941250.html

Seems like something has shifted to get the SP back to where it was before the pandemic. The Times tipped Pru the other day at 1271p citing growth prospects, and today JP Morgan have raised their price target from 1182 to 1437. Despite this sudden dramatic hike of over 20%, they retain a neutral stance, the namby-pamby fence-sitters, and they look suspiciously like they are just retrofitting their targets to the actual SP rather than doing the sums? ( :

One big difference between XPP and AHT/OCDO, apart from their markets, is the MCAP - they are both about sixteen times bigger. I've been speculating about how XPPs growth prospects are naturally less compelling than when they were tiny, but I suppose there is no logical reason why they cannot eventually become as big as those two. OCDOs performance has been a bit sluggish since you posted AAS, but AHT seem to be keeping up.

Final results are due on Tuesday (2 March), good luck all!

Looks like the MMs are on to you Feeks, exploiting the spread shamelessly. Heads they win, tails you lose!
Surely they can't keep this up till the end of March though?

My understanding is that Nanoco's response to the PTAB was opposing Samsung's request for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) on the grounds of precedent, timing, and Samsung's failure to adequately justify it. There is an interesting discussion about IPRs on wikipedia which states that big companies favour it. On the face of it, IPRs provide a cheaper alternative to legal proceedings, but some opponents describe it as a "patent death squad", with many patents cancelled on review by effectively the same organisation which granted them. It makes perfect sense to request one, from Samsung's viewpoint, but it appears to have backfired somewhat, as it has allowed Nanoco an early opportunity to highlight big holes in their defence. All this is as expected, I suppose, but as Hawi said, it shows a high level of competence and confidence in the Nano camp. Thanks Hawi for the source, quite possibly the most revealing document we've ever seen about Nanoco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_partes_review