Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Matter? Well, without Eskers neither we, nor they, would know about it, so credit where it is due, surely? Also, it does highlight the fact that, despite likening us to "muppets on a balcony" they are still hanging on our every word.
Extensive research reveals that Bagpuss on advfn DID credit Eskers. I guess they must think he is some kind of ... phenomena?

Surprising to see the "interesting article" ascribed to "an advfn contributor" when it was posted on this board by Eskers long, long ago (well, 2nd December). Do advfn contributors not credit their sources? If not, what a bunch of... muppets?

Writers everywhere are a disgrace to their profession with their factual "Bloomsbury buys Oberon" stories. Where is the "Wizard Masters capture King of the Fairies" nonsense we all expect? Once in a lifetime, and they blew it.

"But almost 100% of their publicity ?
Which is all bad !"

The publicity also focuses attention on the rather glaring regulation deficit, which may eventually incur unknown future costs and/or restrictions on the fund, but it's surely not really a big deal in terms of M&Gs overall business model and profitability.

M&G are waiving 30% of the fees during suspension of the fund, and fees from the fund were "more than £100m since the Brexit referendum according to FT analysis". https://www.ft.com/content/e8255fe8-181e-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385

Therefore, if the suspension lasts 4 months like last time, that means they lose ((£100m/30 months)*4 months)*30% = £4m (actually "more than" that, as above, but presumably not significantly more). Seems like a relatively small dent in profits?

Anyone buying at current prices would get 7.14% of the purchase price back in dividends, in May, assuming the expected dividends are announced, and the estimated dividend for the following year of 18.5p, if realised, now represents a future yield of 8.38%.

"Can anyone confirm or deny my estimation that M&G's property fund represents less than c. 1.3% of the assets M&G controls?"

Using figures from two recent FT articles gives a much lower number: just over 0.7%.

£341bn under management as of 12 October: https://www.ft.com/content/e1df0da1-5e78-3581-98eb-3271a6d2823b
£2.5bn in property fund as of 8 Dec: https://www.ft.com/content/e8255fe8-181e-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385

n.b. Wikipedia has a lower figure for AUM of £332 billion in assets.

Isn't it news that a key player in [Apple's] supply chain has confirmed demand for " further test volumes of our IRQD materials throughout H1 of calendar year 2020 as they seek to identify other application opportunities while completing their own production facilities. " That seems positive to me. Also, the news that "The Runcorn plant is now fully commissioned and able to operate at its designed capacity." may be just as expected, but it is still progress.

M&G did the same thing in 2016, along with many other fund managers. Holding illiquid assets in an open-ended fund is the predictable cause. In 2016 the fund was suspended for about 4 months, I believe. It's a demonstration of how Brexit causes genuine, unprompted economic fear amongst hard nosed investors, rather than a mere media-induced "project fear" claimed by prominent Brexiteers. M&G stand to lose management fees on the fund.

We don't have an actual bidding war, merely the possibility of one, evidenced by the fact that at least two interested parties have been identified, or partially identified, with both sides seemingly having a credible reason for preventing the other getting nano technology, and thus potentially willing to outbid each other. It's a more positive scenario than we had before Eskers find, imo, and a valid reason for the SP to rise slightly, even if it is just one uncorroborated report. The games afoot.

It's unusual enough to make the national news, being mentioned on Radio 4, for example. The Guardian reported "M&G admitted it had been unable to sell commercial property fast enough to fund the rush for the door by investors [in the Property Portfolio, specifically] , leaving it with no choice but to prevent further withdrawals." Sounds like a valid enough reason, nothing to really panic about. Seems like some major players don't fancy Boris's chances, but I suspect they'll be buying back at higher prices before long.

Of course they are REAL incentives. If they only had huge basic salaries, how could they possibly be motivated to reach any targets? They'd almost certainly get distracted by their roles as non-exec directors for other companies, perhaps sitting on their remuneration boards, carefully considering the latest incentive scheme, and whether to approve it or not. Difficult decisions.

RNS of 29th November highlights how needy our poor M&G directors are. Unable to operate effectively on just their huge basic salaries, they require millions of pounds in incentives, just in order to concentrate on doing their jobs. Must be tough, hope they can soldier on.

Thanks for your comprehensive reply TLW - a high quality post, much appreciated. Good luck, and keep posting!

Another brilliant find by Eskers. The thrust of the article is that South Korean companies are worried that a Chinese purchase of Nanoco would immediately close the technology gap (presumably between Chinese companies still using cadmium and Samsung, who supposedly are cadmium free, but possibly dependent upon nanosys technology, which itself may be under patent dispute). So we have the possibility of a bidding war between Korean and Chinese operators? Good for the share price, but depressing that all British tech companies seem to end up owned by the Far East.

Also, China responded to the US human rights bill by suspending US navy visits to HK, plus blocking several US human rights groups, so hopes for trade war talks took a minor hit. And anyway, US and London markets were down generally.

Hi TLW, yes this volatility is normal. Today's is probably due to the continuing protests in Hong Kong, which often happen on the weekend. Some hoped they would die down, but since Carrie Lam has not made a single concession to the Democrats, despite them winning 17 out of 18 districts in elections, there is no real reason for them to stop - she is clearly opposing the will of her own people, which is why they started in the first place. The retail sector in HK is being devastated, especially Chinese firms, but Pru seems to be surviving reasonably well, from what we know so far. The market seems sensitive to HK news, but Pru operates across many territories in Asia, and beyond.

If it's "impossible to speculate" then I must be Tom Cruise. A 20p prediction sounds suspiciously like speculation too though, and with a current asking price of 13.25p it envisages a 51% profit for speculators. Unless you know something the market doesn't, that's a bold position, but kudos for sticking your neck out: without intelligent speculation this board would be like a balcony with no muppets.

Thrilling rns today about Bloomsburys entry into the domestic Chinese market. This, on top of Bloomsbury's potential profit surge over the next few years due to it's investment in Bloomsbury Digital, makes it an exciting growth share.

That's exactly the question. Cancelling the contract suggests they don't want it, other statements suggest they might. Offering the company to allcomers seems like one way of precipitating an answer, right at the time they stop payments.

ddubya's point about the timing of the move is in the same vein as my suggestion that it may have been MEs attempt to induce Apple into making some kind of commitment, perhaps also hoping to attract interest, or rumours of interest, from their rivals, if Apple fail to take the hint. In other words, he may be trying to leverage the position he thinks Nano deserve, by virtue of attracting Apple in the first place. If so, it's a reasonable ruse with little downside given Nano's lowly share price, and he isn't committed to anything, even if there are bids.

We should be aware that the entire MCAP of Nano is absolute peanuts to both Apple and LO (and, say, Samsung).