Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Cathal seems far more cautious than some here: "he is very optimistic that, given the current Coronavirus outbreak, the clinic will certainly have a much higher utilisation in the weeks and months ahead." That sounds like a mere possibility of a modest increase in income.

Novacyt skyrocketed because they have produced a good testing kit for screening. That is urgent, US testing kits didn't work initially and their screening program seems to have failed at the first hurdle as they are using money-saving criteria to restrict testing, thereby potentially allowing the virus to pass unnoticed. Everyone is scrambling for kits, and Novacyt are the go-to company. Participating in stage 2 or stage 3 clinical trials on humans for one of the many vaccines currently being developed might boost ORPH a little bit, further down the line, but it doesn't sound like the same sort of moneyspinner. Still, it's not nothing, and every little helps the move towards profitability and to showcase aspects of the business for potential purchasers.

Good to see a few guesses. Hope mine is wrong, my second choice was 911 ( :
Dow Jones is historically overvalued, and can probably drop a long way on prospects of a worldwide recession, dragging the FTSE with it. People are often surprised by the severity of the swings during a crisis. The low could be deep but brief.

999p seems like a suitable number?

"Investors and analysts say the idea of selling the U.S. business, Jackson, is not revolutionary and echoes requests by long-term investors..
“Forcing through a demerger in the near term is unlikely to create much value for Prudential shareholders,” said a top-40 investor, adding that Prudential had made it clear it wanted to diversify the business before any sale.

JPMorgan analysts estimated earlier this week Jackson’s value at $10 billion, without adjusting for the holding company’s cost and debt share, although it added there were “uncertainties” around the valuation.

Reiner Kloecker, fund manager at Union Investment, a top-30 investor, said Prudential had “an incoherent structure” and a separation of its Asian and U.S businesses was in the interests of all investors.

But now was not an ideal time to bring Jackson to market.
..
Industry sources see the arrival of new chair Shriti Vadera - who is set to take up her role in January- as a catalyst for change.

Announcing her appointment, Prudential highlighted Vadera’s extensive Asian experience.

Prudential CEO Mike Wells told analysts last year that following the M&G spin-out, “nothing is off-limits”."

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-prudential-third-point-investors/prudential-investors-back-loeb-but-in-no-rush-to-execute-break-up-plan-idUKKCN20M21O

"Don't agree with your valuation"
Doesn't matter how many times you say it PP, it's not my valuation, it's still just an assessment of RGs actions.

21.4714p is the absolute highest price he has paid to date, way above his average, and he shorted at 30.0465p, so 25p seems a reasonable target figure based on those actions. Needless to say, the RG data doesn't support a target of over £1.

RG's buying yesterday at £72K was the biggest daily amount since 27th January (£256K). The previous phase of sustained buying preceded news about litigation. I wonder if this new round of spending, which started on Tuesday, might 'coincidentally' presage any upcoming news?

Not sure what "assumption" you are referring to Hawi, it's a fact that he shorted above 30p. Your assumption that it was a short-term momentum based trade may well be right, and as I have already said, it's perfectly possible that his long-term valuation is higher, but purely based on his actual actions and available data, he is a seller rather than a buyer at that level.

TB, as I have said several times, 25p is not not my estimate of Nanoco's worth, it is a mere guestimate of RG's thinking based on the data about his activity, which is available to everyone in the RNS.

Personal attacks are boring, and against the rules of board. It would be more interesting if you addressed the argument rather than the arguer, but I'm afraid that might involve actually looking at the data and formulating a reasoned analysis.

Thanks for the link about Apple's renewed association with Imagination TB, I wasn't aware of that. We made no extra money from litigation in that case, just the takeover price, so if you are using that as a comparison, maybe expect the same result. It is true though, that a deal could be made where we share in the outcome of ongoing litigation, even after a takeover, but it's not the most likely outcome, just one of many possibilities.

Hawi, as I already explained in a previous post, it's just a guestimate of what valuation RG puts on Nanoco based on what we know about his buying and shorting from the RNS. His valuation is interesting because he is the second biggest holder. Rather than taking my simple guestimate personally, it would be more interesting if people looked at the RNS and gave an alternative reasoned analysis based on RG's activity. I may well be wrong, and I'm certainly unaware of his trading pattern before January, when the bulk of his position was obtained.

Regarding Imagination, I don't actually think Nanoco's position is anything like Imagination's, for one thing there was no litigation, only the threat of it. But if they were similar, as someone here claimed, then the outcome was solely a small premium to the prevailing market price, which in Nanoco's case is also consistent with a 25p take out price.

"You play with averages but ignore the pricing on the most recent transactions over sight was it?

27th Feb 20p
26th Feb 19.65p
24th Feb 23.85p"

I had already referred to those recent buys, as you know PP, so obviously not oversight. I was making a distinction between them and the previous round of buying, as indicated by the dates I specified. The last figure you gave, by the way, was the closing of the short, not an addition to his long position. If you include the new phase of buying RG's average buy price comes to 14.96p, so it makes no difference to the point I was making, i.e. that RG's holding is not inconsistent with a 25p valuation.

That 25p figure is just a guestimate based on RGs known activity anyway, if you don't agree with it, let's hear your analysis of the available data rather than spurious objections. If you have any information about RGs original purchases, that would be helpful too: were they above or below current levels, for example?

" they may wish to take a percentage of our settlement if they help fund our lawsuit, I've seen this happen before, even in imagination technologies."

I held imagination. There was no law suit at buy out, or since, the company was simply bought out by a Chinese company at a slight premium. If Nanoco goes the same way then something like 25p is likely.

I should point out that most experts are dismissing the idea that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, but it's proximity to the very centre of the outbreak is remarkable. Yes, a candidate vaccine is better than nothing, but phase 1 is just development, it might not work, and even if it does there is a very long way to go to get it tested and distributed. In the meantime we have no protection whatsoever against a highly contagious virus, and no-one has immunity.

At the very least, several weeks of disruption to business and supply chains are likely, worldwide. On a long term basis though, this is probably a buying opportunity if you can call the bottom reasonably accurately. My guess is markets will continue to tank for some time in this rather unfamiliar, unpredictable, and open-ended situation.

OK Shandy, but the viral lab on its own, after removing all the careful qualifiers, is not unique, so it's value is less than the messaging suggests. Not sure what can be done here that hasn't already been done in Wuhan or the US, or any number of other labs? Also, the outbreak in China may have originated in animals, but surely only the initial jump? It doesn't make sense that "human to human" contagion is somehow less dangerous, since all of it apart from the original jump will have been human to human? The WHO are not reporting any difference in the mortality rates inside and outside China, AFAIK.

Europe's only 24 bedroom quarantine clinic with onsite virology lab. Yes but the clinic does not have a model for coronavirus, so how does it perform challenge tests without a model? Anyone who has a coronavirus model presumably has their own lab (albeit not in Europe, or perhaps just not with an onsite lab)? You seem to be suggesting there are coronavirus model owners without labs who may be adapting ORPH's facilities, or perhaps doing something other than challenge tests?

None of the vaunted ORPH 'challenge study models' are for coronavirus, so even if/when a vaccine is developed the existing models don't seem to give ORPH relevance? Struggling to understand exactly what they have to offer wrt covid19, it all seems rather vague considering we have a world expert advising.

"Blahblahdo.. still does not know what his game is..."
No-one does except him PP, that goes without saying. The information is available to all in the RNS's, no need to make things up.

"If RG values the company at 25 there is no way he would have such a big holding. "

His average buying price in his previous spree (24th Jan - 6th Feb) was 14.17p, so 25p represents a worthwhile profit - about 76%? I don't have any information about his previous purchases though, which admittedly form the bulk of his holding.

"He's buying every day now"
He bought on Tuesday and Wednesday. Before that he hadn't bought since February 6th.

" the small short the other day just an error on his teams part"
"a short placed to bring the price down"
"just a small sort 370k shares"

So it was an error, but also somehow a price manipulation tactic? The short was for 276,055 shares:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/form-83-nanoco-group-plc-918k84qs2bp35pc.html