Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Shandypants, no, nothing wrong with your response at all, quite the opposite - I only repeated it for PiranhaPires benefit, as they clearly hadn't seen it.

If it's the "marginally more polite" comment you are concerned about, that was a joke. There was obviously a huge contrast between the helpfulness of your comment and the "have you been living in a cave" offered by moniman. I was pretending there was a small difference between them, when there was unmistakably a huge one: humorous understatement, see?

Trading update shows a 12% decrease in the US. That makes more sense. Wonder why they pretended the only problem was in the less important South Korean market. Untrustworthy guidance, imo.

Don't worry, Piranharama, rude boy Moni asked the same question a few days ago. Shandypants2 gave him a marginally more polite answer: "conditions I signed when I accepted the offer stated that the transfer would be completed with 14 days of the offer close. We are still within this 14 day period."

Never seen Pru release such information, but as wise posters have hinted, the cold reality is that, even if this gets a lot worse, it will almost certainly remain statistically irrelevant to insurers.

SP is possibly more affected by travel restrictions: 63% of Pru sales in Hong Kong were to Chinese mainlanders, according to the interim results in August.

Rock and Rollers 'Richard Griffiths and the Controlled Entities' have spent about 300 grand to take their holding from 12.15% to about 12.96% of the company. Big reaction for a relatively minor tweak. Shorters, ya burned!

Good point JimJam. Think also of the people in lockdown in Wuhan, with limited supplies, and the medical staff who are most exposed. Chinese authorities are being more open and honest than during the SARS epidemic, but still seem shifty. They are now saying up to 3000 are ill, but it was 2000 the day before: sounds more like news management than fact. I think they have shared DNA data though. Because it is contagious before symptoms appear, this will likely be harder to control.

"ICICI Prudential Life Insurance (where Pru owns 26%) reported a net profit of Rs 302 crore (about £32M?) for the December quarter of the current fiscal, a rise of 1.68% from the previous year. "
"I-Pru Life grew its value of new business (VNB) 25 per cent YoY in Q3 to Rs 910 crore. What’s good is that the VNB margin (a profitability indicator) reached 21 per cent in Q3, from 17 per cent in the year-ago quarter, though there is room to catch up with 22-24 per cent margin of peers."
“De-growth seen in savings products has been arrested in Q3,” said N S Kannan, Chief Executive Officer, I-Pru Life.

https://www.financialexpress.com/market/icici-prudential-life-insurance-reports-q3-net-at-rs-302-crores/1830754/
https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/q3-results-icici-securities-revenue-grows-4-lombard-meets-expectations-120012101681_1.html

Small numbers seem to indicate Indian business is a surprisingly tiny contribution to the overall Pru picture, although it does appear to be showing considerable organic growth. It is still in "investment" mode, after 20 years, apparently?

Recipe
Ingredients: Hvivo assets, Venn business, Orphan databases. Currently valued at £28.74 million Market Capitalisation.
Method: Hack off deadwood, slice and dice, stir it up, roast for 6 months in a pre-heated Cathal Friel.
Rinse and serve on a bed of prime quality BS.

"it says parties (more than one), so I assume they were contacted by 2 (or more) companies,"

"Certain parties" only establishes that the amount is more than zero. Some might say your choice of assumptions are based more on wishful thinking than logic, not me though ( :

The sale option is embedded within the strategic review of options which is needed because they lost their only source of revenue. So if "No need to sell" is the only reason to "assume they were contacted", it's a pretty flimsy one: the need is implicit in the review.

A company running out of money with very little revenue has good reason to seek out buyers, arguably a much stronger reason to assume that it was Nano who initiated the sale talk, and why would that be unethical - it's surely just part of seeking to maximise returns for shareholders, as stated in the announcement of the review when the idea of a sale was first mentioned.

The wording gives little away, like most Nano statements. It doesn't say, for instance, that Nano were approached regarding a sale, they may have just started ringing around everyone they know, and it would still pass the "entering into discussions with certain parties" definition, as would virtually any other interpretation.

The management team will host an analyst and investor conference call / webcast, including a Question and Answer session.

Date: Tuesday 28th January 2020 Time: 9:30 AM UK time

https://www.africa.airtel.com/investors

"the grouping is arguing for regulators to be allowed to take more risk"
Not sure that's quite right jatw, the article says the regulators are resistant to the IRSG's recommendations, so it's more a case of persuading or forcing them, rather than granting them permission? Regulators seem to see ANY relaxation as a return to the "light touch" which led to the banking crisis, and to regard "competitiveness" as code for an international "regulation war" where the least regulation wins the most business.

Not sure who is right, or where the lines will be drawn, but on the face of it, the IRSG's views seem more aligned with a Brexit government. This should come to a head with the end of year deadline, and will presumably be a key part of the UK/EU trading agreement. Fascinating to see M&G influential in this debate.

The 1.7% was from this site, lse, but you are right, other places say 1.37%. All of them seem to include an eight year old position from Teton capital, which seems questionable?

I wasn't saying shorters are always right, I've already mentioned a spectacularly bad short which Lombard Odier are currently sitting on. It's just interesting that some financial professionals regard even the current Nano price as way too high, a view never expressed here.

Fastest in over 7 years, but still too slow. Where are moniman's shares? I think they should be fast tracked.

"You'll get your shares when we feel like it, not a day earlier, and be grateful", said no-one. What an outrageous statement... that would have been, theoretically. Free the moniman shares!

Short interest in Nano has been creeping up, and is now 1.7%, it's highest since 2016 I think. Surprising they see much value in shorting at these levels, obviously expecting a very poor outcome. Hope the wild eyed optimists are right, and the shorters get caught out, but it's another sign that some people need to temper their enthusiastic expectations and assess this stock more soberly and realistically.

Julian Adams, Director of Public Policy & Regulation at M&G, has chaired a report from a city think tank called the International Regulatory Strategy Group, which could be influential on government policy towards future regulation. The thrust, as I understand it, seems to be that regulators should be more flexible where possible, rather than always erring on the side of caution. They are also calling for a separate government committee to consider the issues, presumably as a counterbalance to what the city perceives as overcautious existing regulators:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-banks/finance-wants-competitiveness-role-for-uk-watchdogs-after-brexit-idUKKBN1ZM00E?rpc=401&

Should be noted that a new shorter, Marshall Wace, emerged a month ago. Long term shorter GLG Partners also increased their position. The overall short interest is small but increasing.

Also, Deutsche and Credit Suisse gave "sell" and "underperform " ratings today. They did raise their targets, but they are still well below current SP.

Shorters obviously took a hit on Q1 results, and the analysts previous forecasts were not a good guide. Downside view always worth keeping an eye on though.

Apologies for my apparent rudeness, btw. I had just watched the Netflix show "Don't f**k with cats".
The joke doesn't really work, even if you watch Netflix: I have a big mouth.

The end of the transformation seems in sight now, with the ratios shifting dramatically over the last year. If anything like 22p IS returned later this year, that would more than offset any short term slowing in dividend growth - last year the TOTAL dividends were only 16.91p! I like the fact that they have paid down debt too, lots of positives atm. Management seem to have made the right moves to get the company into a good groove.