Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Those are probably the main things. They'll avoid geopolitics if they can, but it's becoming increasingly difficult. I wonder if they'll say anything about initial activities as an independent entity on the Chinese mainland.

"Time the market were woken up to what a great job CF is doing here."

Share price has already trebled during this calendar year, so market caffeine levels seem adequate. What is great for LTHs is seeing the walk as well as the talk. Unlike many 'promising' companies, the potential is being actively harnessed and released at a brisk pace. Good management is everything, and CF is all over it.

Just noticed the director selling was more extensive and significant than I realised, totalling £10.6 million - quite a chunk of the MCAP (£856M). They've certainly cashed in on their success, and why not. That amount of freed up equity may increase volatility slightly. Meanwhile, brokers Berenburg have hiked their price target from 4150 to 4980: they seem to have got it about right last time.

At the end of the day, we'll all hopefully be quids in, but moniman will still be moaning.

He'll moan on the beaches, he'll moan on the landing grounds, he'll moan in the air, he'll nevva stop moaning.

Nevva, in the field of human investment, have so many been moaned at by such a one.

Moniman: hero of this board, indomitable whiner, spitting fire and moaning the SP up since February.

Hi chestermikeb.
The company produced an insightful video with the interim results: https://www.xppowerplc.com
Richard Beddard is my main source, he has been following the company for a long time and writes quite comprehensive periodic updates: https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/xp-power-one-my-favourite-companies-ii511791

I hesitate to say what a good dip would be, I tend to buy once and hold. I suppose under 4000 is an obvious round number, but before Monday it had never gone that high, so maybe you should be aiming lower. The upcoming US election might offer some opportunities if Trump uses trade wars as a distraction - the SP is sensitive to news over tariffs, despite being substantially insulated from them. Another possibility is COVID-19 outbreaks in Vietnam. More likely, imo, the price will continue rising steadily: management stated that costs were high in H1 due to inflated air freight costs which have now normalised - this suggests the final results might be even better than these spectacular interims. Despite the sharp rise on results, the current price is (was) arguably depressed by largely irrelevant Director selling (Approx. £1M). The reinstated dividend is another attraction which would logically tend to buoy the SP.

Don't forget to consider the downside before investing, to have a good idea of the level and type of risk as well as the potential upside. Good luck!

I would have thought the IR contracts with Apple alone counted as significant development and progress, both in terms of products, revenue and deal-making. I don't think ME can be blamed entirely for Nanoco's relentless disappointments. many of them are largely unexplained, imo, but I do think he has failed enough times to justify being replaced.

You must have chips on your shoulder Capital? Take their spelling with a pinch of salt, they mustard made a misteak?

Actually AllAtSea, I believe LO closed their position a few weeks ago, and LSE is displaying out-of-date information. The SP did briefly dip quite low during the early pandemic panic, so they may have managed to reduce some of their losses, and if I'm right, they can at least be happy they got out before the long underlying upward trend resumed!

Latest update is even better than expected - management have positioned the company exceptionally well to cope with the conditions, with perfect timing of software and website improvements, and diversified manufacturing giving superb flexibility and commercial advantage over the competition. They have also been ruthless with closing down older facilities to contain costs and seem to have a strong grasp of the reality of their markets. Early restoration of the dividend is an unexpected bonus, and as suspected, the previous cancelled one was merely used to pay down debt and improve the balance sheet even further.

In view of the companies outstanding performance over the last year, and what seem like exceptional prospects, it's a shame there's no-one here! ( :

"no doubt your question was considered thoroughly by the legal advisers and also as part of several DD processes"

The fact that Hansol were not named suggests that both sides recognize their true status: seemingly a company with little knowledge or experience of QDs, whose main purpose seems to be to obscure Samsung's real activities. If Hansol were a genuinely independent organisation, then as manufacturers they would logically be the company infringing Nanocos patented processs, and their evidence would surely be essential to the case.

Nano originally included two other Samsung companies in the complaint, who have both now been removed from it by mutual agreement. It may well be that Hansol have a similar status and any relevant documents about them can be supplied directly by Samsung, thereby simplifying the case slightly and reducing costs for both sides.

Debt in a fast growing industry is justifiable in terms of seizing the opportunity and maximising eventual market share, and also makes sense when interest rates are low. Management clearly believe they are on the right long term track, but the market currently appears to judge AAF's position as overly risky and aggressive in times of heightened uncertainty. Whether you hold or sell depends on your appetite for risk - who dares wins, or safety first? AAF is somewhat underpinned by it's parent.

"Think Chinese (let alone Samsung) would love to get hold of nano and could be prepared to pay a vast amount for them. Still could end up in a bidding war."

Not much point in even dreaming about this, after Nano have just recently publicly offered themselves up for sale on a plate and absolutely no-one took even a nibble. This harks back to the unreality of multiple posters here earlier in the year who were confidently promising an inevitable bidding war with multiple eager Chinese and Korean punters. Nano management presumably suffered from a similar misapprehension at the time, otherwise they would not have initiated the sale process, but when dreams turn into 'mares, maybe it's time to wake up?

Enteleon highlights the complexity (thanks E!), and the most fascinating thing about Nano is that there are obviously important missing pieces of information needed to explain what has happened and why. Litigation offers a rare possibility of significant revelation, and drama with a lurid and tricksy central character: it's a step up from mere dreaming.

Hi Nige-W
My comment about value in Sage was made on 18 March this year, and referred specifically to the period up to January next year, i.e. the length of the buy-back program. Comparing over a different time period is shifting the ground, an intelligent military strategy if you can get away with it.

The fact that there was value in Sage, due to the fortunate availability of large funds when the SP was relatively low, didn't imply that there is necessarily more value than elsewhere, but AFAIK the builders do not have such an extensive buyback program in place? I didn't claim that builders ARE cyclical, only that the market seems to value them as if they are, and hence the perpetually low PERS. Perhaps you are suggesting that that is changing, and therefore you expect builders PERs to rise over time purely due to a change in perceptions? If so, why, and why now?

It is true that Sage have historically been relatively slow growing, and for much longer than your selective comparison period, but they also haven't suffered massive contractions like builders have, which your period seems to accidentally avoid. Those contractions are the reason their PERs stay low of course, because no-one knows when the next one will come, but arguably COVID-19, Brexit and government anti-corruption initiatives make one more likely. Sage have a radically altered business model, strategy and new management over your chosen time period, so that past performance is probably a poor guide to future value, but in the period between March 18th this year and January next year, their share buyback program has, and will, buoy up the share price and is the equivalent of a hidden dividend.

Surely Pru must be revisiting their decision to base in HK and reconsidering Singapore as an alternative? Last week's Economist talked about the overbearing influence business has in the region, acting as a lever for the CCP against ordinary people and pushing property prices ever higher. It also points out the malign presence of Luo Huining, who is both the head of the CCP "liason office", yet also secretly the owner of extensive business interests including over 300 properties and even the largest bookseller and publisher - a typically self-serving, dishonest and corrupt Chinese Communist Party set-up.

"Mr Luo is one of China's most powerful men. Carrie Lam, the chief executive, is fast becoming just another small town mayor." With arbitration lawyers apparently defecting to Singapore, because their clients no longer trust HK as impartial, Pru should surely be making contingency plans? The advantages of HK may arguably still be stronger than the negatives, but the ground is shifting, with Xi's Stalinist agenda now unmistakable.

Hi Nige_W, it's a shame you missed the rise here, but hopefully you found even better value elsewhere.

PER is one way of measuring value, but the market seems to weight stocks differently, especially with what are deemed to be "cyclical" stocks - housebuilders seem to be permanently at tempting PERs, for example, in good times and bad, so they always look cheap, and their relative value by that measurement needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Similarly, growth shares like Sage tend to have persistently high PERs. The value I suggested was the sustained power of share buybacks over a long period, starting at relatively depressed prices (by Sage's historical standards) due to the lockdown, and continuing right through to January next year. So far, so good.

Bonus shares in lieu of dividend confirmed by vote at the AGM:

"To authorise the Directors to settle the intended final dividend for the year ended 29 February 2020 of 6.89 pence per share by way of a bonus issue of new Ordinary Shares."

SP is lower than a year ago, so arguably a good deal for long term holders who get a cheap top-up with reasonable expectations of a much higher future SP.

The 70% drop in India is explained as due to the lockdown, but many other territories had lockdowns.
A more logical explanation might be a failure of digital services provision in the country? If it really was just down to lockdown restrictions, maybe pent up demand will result in catch-up revenue later as restrictions ease.

Academic and professional division only up 4%, so most of the upswing was due to consumers. I think they are right to say the outlook is uncertain, as these conditions are obviously unsustainable, but it is pleasing that their strategy is holding up so well in difficult times.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/financial-reporting/article/83902-led-by-u-s-bloomsbury-has-surprising-start-to-fiscal-2021.html

Brake cable huh Andinio? Not in top gear, balanced on two wheels, Mungo Jerry In The Summertime? Disappointing. (@:

They haven't announced any afaik, Elegance, but last year there was an update with the AGM in late August.

No trades at all today in G4M: not very rock and roll, maybe they should smash up a guitar and strut about a bit

I have heard tell that they drink it in the Congo, but it's Nanocola for me and my dawg.

This recent analysis featured M&G in a list of companies trading at a discount to their book value:

https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/bargain-ftse-stocks-trading-below-their-book-value-ii512271?utm_source=IBMW&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ii_Afternoon_round_up_newsletter_100720&utm_content=&spMailingID=9915047&spUserID=MTIxNjc2Mzg5MzQ0S0&spJobID=1551693097&spReportId=MTU1MTY5MzA5NwS2