Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"DO NOT BELIEVE that Bloomberg runs an unbiased newspaper."
They don't run a newspaper at all do they? It's certainly not their main distribution channel. Those journalists were not suppressing the facts out of bias, as you seem to imply, they appear to be simply unaware of them. Bloomberg have been reporting on the Lee case extensively. For example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-01-19/what-s-ahead-for-samsung-after-sentencing-of-jay-y-lee-video

While there is some truth in what you say amerloque, I expect better from Bloomberg. If Mark Zuckerberg was in jail for corruption they wouldn't fail to notice. Samsung, by their own reporting, is one of the biggest, most important technology companies in the world, so surely they should be aware of this major flashing neon red flag over it's leader. They are technology specialists after all, not just tabloid entertainers.

Isn't it truly astonishing that two journalists can completely ignore the fact that Jay Y. Lee is in prison? They talk about him as some kind of visionary rather than a convicted criminal. The world is generally ignorant about Samsung's real character, rotten from the very top, but you'd think a journalist would check basic facts.

"HSBC INITIATES XP POWER WITH 'BUY' - TARGET 6,100 PENCE"

When a company's SP has risen as far and as rapidly as XPPs it's natural to think about the exit point. Whatever XPPs future prospects, they are not as underrated as they used to be. However, when the likes of HSBC have just noticed them, and their initial evaluation is a target so high, it makes you think that there is maybe quite a bit more to come here, and maybe the sharp management are even capable of stepping up to another level altogether on the back of massive stimulus in the US and simultaneous world recovery via vaccines. XPP certainly seem ready for it.

Market cap is now £1 billion

Don't think it's been announced, but there may be a trading update the end of next week - last year there was one on 30th Jan

I think the exact wording suggests that the formal sale process did not end because the offers were too low, it ended because there were NO offers. From the RNS 4th March 2020: "Nanoco confirms that it has not to date received any firm proposals that, in light of the current market environment, it believes would lead to an offer for the Company".

I suspect that the reason none of the interested parties got near to bidding was because they knew (or suspected, guessed, or were frankly told) that Samsung had appropriated the technology, and they were wary of the uncertainty, expense and complication involved with that situation, given Snagsum's track record.

Scoop! Mr Ha came through, after all. Thanks Aquae: board hero

O Deathfromfinance, where is thy sting? Sage advice may not be your forte.
These results were just average though. On track for good results in a years time.

"MRHA are a probably a bunch of lefty/liberals that like the sound of their own job titles."

Very interesting. Have you noticed, every time Moany man posts one of his bizarre Qanon theories, the MRHA decide to delay their approval a bit longer, a lot of people are saying, so I've heard, and who is this mysterious Mr Ha anyway, a secret Chinese batman infiltrating the NHS?

Markman is definitely the main focus, but Eccles' 'lost in' translations surely indicate the possibility of a moral panic at Samsung as their top management festers in chokey. If Lee can be ousted, which is probably still a long shot, despite everything, maybe someone more reasonable will grab the reins and change their legal strategy.

in the Telegraph (summarised in The Week):
"Samsung specialises in memory chips - increasingly hard to make and requiring extensive R&D - and is gaining market share in flexible phone screens and organic light emitting diodes (Oled). Cash generative and undervalued. Buy, $1,907"

What a pity memory chips are such hard work for them, if only there was another way of acquiring the IP

Good work ddubya. No doubt Samsung were on the look out for clues wherever they could find them, and as you have identified, they had various potential opportunities, so it's possible ME is off the hook! But as you said, probably not the main issue for the court, where they seem to be arguing that the unique, patented cad-free method was somehow in the public domain, so gleaning it by malicious subterfuge was a legitimate 'tactic' (and also implying, somewhat implausibly, that Nanoco's whole business has been pointless from the start).

By the way, the comments under that article are very naive: they clearly think Samsung is a normal, reputable company who get attacked with fraudulent claims. If they were aware, as we now are, of the criminal records of both it's founder and current leader, for things like bribery and fraud, they might take a different view. The Kaist case, where they stole from a university in their own country, shows the depths to which they will stoop, and their contempt for the courts.

Thanks Feeks, blimey, their headline says it all: again and again and again! There are surely grounds for an intervention at international level, because they are blatantly fleecing innovators and inventors from around the world, as an integral part of their business model. Maybe this is more widespread than we realise, but if so Samsung are the most obvious perpetrators. Courts can attempt to redress the harm when victims can afford it, but that seems inadequate to the problem.

A number of brokers have lowered their target prices for Sage, but many still rate it a buy at these levels. My impression is that their credentials as a growth company are under question, with the pandemic putting many of their clients under severe pressure. The trading update might shed some light on the situation, but I think it's understandable that there are stark opposing views about Sage's short term prospects. Long term, and historically, they look cheap, imo. Describing the stock as a "dog" seems like hyperbolic claptrap: there are horrendous hounds, wolves and rabid mongrels on the market: this isn't one of them, it's a relatively good boy.

In the second sentence

This recent article, while positive, suggests some uncertainty over whether the trials are going ahead. With only a couple of weeks left in January, the expected starting point, we're still waiting for the green light:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/08/human-challenge-trials-of-covid-19-vaccines-still-have-much-to-teach-us/

In case anyone is interested, the most reliable source of shorting information is probably the regulators themselves:
https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-and-disclosure-net-short-positions
I believe other sites derive their information from there, and some do it quite badly, LSE included!

It's a little unwieldy though - you have to click on the link marked "public short positions disclosed to us - daily update (XLSX)." which downloads a spreadsheet to your computer containing public shorting disclosures for the whole market, which you then have to search for the company you are interested in. The first sheet shows new daily disclosures, the second sheet shows historic ones.

It is a newly reported short of 0.63% yesterday, so yes, an increase, but they only have to disclose when it goes above 0.1%. It's a fairly minor amount of shorting, and really just business as usual for GMT. By coincidence they did briefly hold an identical position on 16th January last year, but have been up and down since then.

Good spot. They've been shorting on and off since 2013, so probably made money here before. Presumably this time they are gambling on an early SP collapse caused by good (i.e. bad) news from the Markman hearing. Brave bet, probably emboldened by previous success, but surprised Samsung's terrible record and generally unconvincing approach to this specific case doesn't spook them.

Surprised the market hasn't reacted more, Samsung's defence looking increasingly weak and ineffective, and likely timescales narrowing significantly.