Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

I haven't "poo-pooed" the idea of wearables marketability Markshares, merely questioned the hyped up connection with OO's databases, which seems to be based on relatively limited interest reported so far. The description of the fitbit device tends to support that view: they don't even attempt to address COVID-19 specific data, their device just gives a vague warning something may be wrong based on data gleaned entirely from the wearer, using significant changes from a baseline. It is entirely possible that other devices may be more ambitious and require other data sources, especially if the market takes off, but it's unclear why or how they would do this. Rather than making sinister accusations of an "agenda", why not address the issue and try to make a convincing case why OO databases add value here. Happy to be proved wrong, unhappy to be accused of skullduggery merely for questioning hype.

CF was guiding us not to expect too much from the interims - the substantial progress in H1 justifies the spectacular rise in the SP so far, but "operational" profitability is not expected until Q3, and to move the SP into a higher range would probably need something big, beyond the already impressive turnaround story. There are reasonable grounds to hope that may be forthcoming over the next few months, but some here seem a tad overconfident, overenthusiastic, or perhaps just impatient, imo. Fortunately OO senior staff seem to be sharp realists with a flair for solid business building.

Very interesting to see what the FDA says about this. An impressive array of sensors and "machine learning", and some big claims about it's effectiveness from Fitbit. Personally I tend to know when my body gets hot, but definitely a market for this type of gadgetry. Seems to somehow function without a single piece of data from OO, however.

Off topic, but tangentially interesting - ARM, Britain's most successful tech company, has been sold by Softbank (of Japan) to Nvidia (US) for £31Bn. Theresa May's naive so-called protections proved worthless, not even lasting 5 years, and yet again a key British invention is lost to be exploited elsewhere. Herman Hauser (co-founder) says is it an "absolute disaster for Cambridge, the UK, and Europe". The deal remains subject to regulatory approval and Nvidia has promised to retain the Cambridge base, but such promises are unenforceable.

Good find Father Ted. Profits from genetic data seem small, but they are really just far away? Ah go on.

Reading between the lines, the wearables data sale doesn't seem to have progressed - CF still apparently doesn't know if it was "one" or "two" companies who approached him? (@: The main attraction of this data to this one (or two) companies seems to be that it is in a format suitable for apps, or close to such a format. If it was just a casual approach from a single company, then there must be a possibility that there may not be any bidders, and maybe they were just enquiring about the precise nature of the data, to assess if it was suitable for their purposes.

More positively, this interesting sideline is effectively a bonus: there is no real downside if this prospective business fails to materialise. If it does come off, it will be the first financial fruits of the original genesis project of OO: data aggregation and mining.

These highly paid lawyers seem to have taken an extraordinary amount of time to decide which companies they actually have a case against. Only two left out of the original six now? Amazing that they came to a different conclusion when analysing for the previous dismissal, and only now decide that they have another one to drop. Presumably the newly appointed specialist lawyers took a different view to previous ones.

Added an E but shaved off the I? Balderdash. Wrong for a Brazilian reasons.

Does it Zeb? What data do we have that can enable the baffled algorithm to work? I suggest you need to develop and prove a scientific theory from the data, not just assume one is automatically there. No-one anywhere has announced such a breakthrough algorithm for any disease yet, afaik, and additionally the wearable data isn't accurate enough to predict anything, as an earlier wired article pointed out. Hope I'm wrong, but I find the woolly optimism unconvincing. Will be interesting to see if CF quietly drops the idea, or runs with it and adds more detail, though. It is certainly possible that a lucrative but effectively useless system could be developed and marketed.

"UK equity funds suffered the worst-ever three months of investor withdrawals between June and August"
"This is down to investors “punishing” UK funds in the face of a potential no-deal Brexit, and the government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, which has seen the UK sink to the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economic league for its performance during lockdown."
"In contrast, all non-UK equity funds posted unusually strong inflows over the same period."

https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/record-investor-exodus-uk-funds-ii513412?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ii_Afternoon_round_up_newsletter_090920&utm_content=newsletter&spMailingID=10477971&spUserID=MTIxNjc2Mzg5MzQ0S0&spJobID=1590884745&spReportId=MTU5MDg4NDc0NQS2

Only a small delay, but you'd think they could just meet the deadline: did the dog eat their homework? Perhaps they just found out something new they need time to add.

I think Ivyspivey is right - mAbxience are Spanish, part of the Insud group. Notably, they are partnering with Astrazeneca to manufacture the Oxford vaccine at their facility in Argentina for Latin American distribution.

Hi Nige_W
some people might question your coming to the Sage board to promote HBs at a time when you were actively selling them, you can see how that looks, and they might even be skeptical at your belated mention of GGP, but I think we should give you the benefit of the doubt and thank you for making full disclosure, if a little late.

If HBs are now well prepared for a slump, presumably because they are already so low, that's slightly different from seeing value in them. It's interesting that you do actually still disapprove of the Sage buy back program, and it seems that however low the price goes as a result of COVID-19 (they were around £6 when this thread started), you would still see it as too expensive and a bad way of using resources. Despite this, you see no specific reason for that high rating to change, which seems contradictory. If the share price is not likely to be derated lower in the future, then how can price be an objection to the value of the buy back program? If earnings increase, today's price might be seen as cheap with hindsight, and more earnings spread over the resulting fewer shares would lower the PER. In such a scenario the price is likely to go up again, at which point you would be put off by the still high PER. You would probably never invest.

I think we can agree that comparisons over PER are interesting, but can only be taken so far. Good luck with GGP, they've had a golden year so far!

I'd guess it's the pandemic resurgence, worldwide economic meltdown, and the ongoing ruination of HK which might be causing Pru to splutter over her tea and biscuits? Barr and Pompeo's naughty misinformation campaign, fibbing that China is a bigger threat than Russia to the US election, also disquiets her afternoon nap somewhat.

General SP trend has actually been slightly upwards since March though, presumably on hopes of a vaccine allowing Prudence to come out and play.

I would hope Nanoco's reps prove a lot tougher than Kaist's. Given the existential threat posed to Nanoco's business, I would have thought there is potential for widespread public shaming of Samsung in this case, even if they win: you should not be stealing IP from collaborators based on a technicality. The absence of Hansol from the case remains intriguing too, and they surely deserve a degree of ridicule?

There's a list of institutional shareholders here: https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=AAF:LSE
Most shares, I believe, are retained by organisations controlled by the Bharti family, who run the parent company in India.

That Morningstar "more than 100%" figure is surely dodgy too Jab1tt? Sounds like a football manager.

I've been disappointed with the SP performance but not the underlying business. I can only assume this is seen as a risky or "exotic" investment for the average punter, but the growth opportunity here is compelling: not only the phone market itself, but also the general population is growing faster than anywhere in the world.

"Samsung not even denying they are using nano QDots"
Nige-W reminds us of that astonishing fact. They really did shift the goalposts on our speculations, and it "coincided" with ME's exit. It also appears to have determined the choice of lawyers. If Nano were not patent-protected, they wouldn't have a business at all, so it either makes you question everything, or makes you snort at the audacity of the counter claim.

Hi Nige_W,
that's quite a revelation that you actually saw real value in GGP, rather than your stated HBs, and for reasons other than PER.
Your argument against value in the Sage buy back program now seems to have shifted to the idea that the whole market is likely to decline. Wouldn't you agree that that is the most opportune time to have a buyback program in place?

"Don't get too excited"
Such a thriller I spat out my Russian tea. Seriously though, good luck to Alex J Mann with his Wednesday presentation: a good sign of an informed and engaged organisation. Represent. I mean, break a lung, or something?