The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Ha, ha. If only I had done my research in 2009. As one of my very first share purchases, I bought my initial batch on the advice of a work colleague who said "Tanzanite One, they look good. I bought some and so should you." Hopefully, I'm a bit less naive now?!
carsgeek, here is what the FCA themselves say: "We are an independent public body funded entirely by the firms we regulate, by charging them fees. We are accountable to the Treasury, which is responsible for the UK's financial system, and to Parliament."
Their role seems odd - on the one hand they regulate but don't seem to offer meaningful advice when needed. Then they announce at short notice they will appear at court and deliberately attempt to destroy Amigo's work of the past 4 months. This is bureaucratic dictat and more like something out of Kafka that a functioning market. The FCA should hold its head in shame.
I very much hope the judge will look at both sides' arguments and see that Amigo's approach is the more reasonable IMO. I don't know if the judge can only approve/reject the SOA, or recommend approval with changes.
I've only a small holding and sold some on Monday but today bought back some : 6000 at 16.8p and 6500 at 15p. A pimple on the back of a blue whale but am overweight in this share for my portfolio size.
For all the posturing , selective fact-picking yesterday and apparently inconsistent behaviour by the FCA, my sense is they won't want AMGO to go to the wall. The scheme does seem just about fair. Will the judge approve it? No idea, but my opinion's moved to more negative from 'likely' . Fingers and toes crossed...
It's a bit confusing. We had a big rise on 12th May on no news. Now today, another big rise on no news.
Also LSEs recording of buys/sells must be wrong - there are more sells than buys and yet the SP is currently up 21%???
Anyway, let's hope it stays this green until the end of the day and beyond.
I sold over half my holding yesterday, as nervous about tomorrow. On balance, I do think the judge will approve the SoA as that is in all the parties' interests and is the logical conclusion of events to date. However, if there is a small chance the FCA or judge could ask for the terms of the SoA to be reviewed, I'm worried the SP will dive in the short term.
If the SoA is approved, then I will definitely buy back in with all my profits but will have to accept I will miss some of the price rise.
Well done to all you brave hearts who are staying in and GLA.
Having bought in at 13.50 and 9.30 in 2011/12, this LTH is feeling a bit bitter at this fait accompli. It still considerably undervalues the company and is being whipped away from under our noses for a steal. Yes, my motive was to make money as well, but the oligarchs greed is beyond belief.
Corporatism and cronyism have one over long-term value and a positive future.
Other posters have mentioned how the FCA seems partly motivated by its own problems - here's a very recent news item. Let's hope their proxy appearance in court next week won't push it into anything rash for the sake of good publicity...
The Financial Conduct Authority has set out plans for a new "consumer duty" for financial firms to give more protection to their customers.
The regulator said many firms were providing good products and treating customers well but that a substantial number were still misleading customers and causing harm. One in four respondents to an FCA survey said they lacked confidence in the industry and only 35% said firms were honest and transparent.
The FCA said it would expand its rules and principles to force firms to provide better consumer protection and shift culture to the benefit of customers. To avoid regulatory action firms will have to abide by three elements:
A consumer principle on overall standards with the wording 'a firm must act in the best interests of retail clients' or 'a firm must act to deliver good outcomes for retail clients'
Three behaviours: taking all reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to customers and enable them to pursue financial goals, and acting in good faith.
More detailed rules covering communications, products and services, customer service and price and value.
The FCA has been criticised by politicians, campaigners and an independent inquiry for failing to protect consumers on matters such as the collapse of London Capital & Finance (LCF) and the treatment of small businesses by Royal
Bank of Scotland (now NatWest). The watchdog has admitted it did not do enough to protect investors LCF, prompting the government to pay compensation covering most of the £237m losses.
Sheldon Mills, the FCA's executive director of consumers and competition, said: "The package of measures we are proposing will enhance our existing rules and is designed to tackle the harms we see in financial services markets, and their causes, as well as put consumers in a stronger position to make good decisions.
"We want firms to be putting themselves in the shoes of consumers and asking 'would I be happy to be treated in the way I treat my customers?' We want consumers to be able to advance their financial wellbeing and build positive futures for themselves and their families."
The FCA has asked for comments on its proposals by 31 July.
I think the numbers are right, as there were only 12 additional creditors at today's meeting, of whom I think one was the FOS . In monetary terms, though, they may represent a disproportionate amount, possibly resulting in the c£203m in favour vote, vs the c£10m against.
Robbo13, agree. The first time I had a stop triggered, I got a much lower price than the level the stop was set at. Lost a few hundred quid and that hurt. Since then, I've never set one, though it does mean keeping a beady eye on events. This share seems quite manipulated so a stop is even riskier.
This seems very good news. 5/5 would have made me really comfortable but as Meatloaf almost opined, 4 out of 5 ain't bad! Thanks to lobo87 explanation and backed up by Screenlearner's comment about Pareto, the 80% is the important lump and that is what we have on our side. The polymer definition looks the least relevant to our case in my layman's eyes.
The fairly recent scaling back of the PTABs power and our Markman ruling means I hope that (a) an IPR won't be granted but (b) if it is, we have a better chance of a good outcome for NANO.
Thanks for all the informative posts and GLA.
I have doubts Samsung is buying NANO. Firstly, would it stop the legal action? I would guess not, otherwise any big company could buy a tiddler as a way round flagrant IP infringement and that wouldn't be justice (or am I being naive?). Secondly, they would have to pay a huge price to entice shareholders into voting in favour of a takeover, when those who have invested believing we will win the legal case are expecting a large increase and possibly multiples of the current SP, especially considering the separate recent Intel award, plus Samsung's recent court failure.
Although I'm already heavily overweight in this share, I made a tiny top-up of 20,0000 shares at 3.55p. Bearing in mind sulphides in the drilling being another positive sign (though to be confirmed), even if the initial results are disappointing, I can't help but think at least one of our prospects will turn up decent, extractable quantities to mine profitably...and that must mean the SP will be up significantly by the end of the drilling phase. The best miners are able to extract at $600-$700/oz, so even if the gold price settles about the current level of $1700-$1800, I'd imagine many miners would be queueing to buy up our rights.
Yes, using US ticker GLD, the MACD has crossed over (though still in negative territory), as has a short term SMA crossover I use. Still just below the 50 day SMA but these are positive short-term signs.
I think PiratePete mentioned the result of the Markman Hearing will only be out about a month after the hearing itself. Makes sense that the judge needs enough time to consider and write up the likely outcome. Also, Mintz must be advising the Nano BOD about what/when things can be said, if known. At the same time, the BOD will have to consider whatever the RNS rules are about material information. My guess is we won't know anything material about the case by 30/03, so the RNS may just say something bland along the lines of "our court case against Samsung is continuing". It would be great to have something more concrete and a big jump on the SP, but somehow I think not.
In any case, I am still optimistic and am not selling any of my holding (which is hardly life-changing unless we win and are awarded $10bn)! Dream on...
Unless I've misunderstood, Samsung has the parallel action to try to begin the IPR, which is their other route to try and disprove NANO patents and these were the document links provided in earlier posts? If an IPR was granted, the Board tends to lean towards the petitioner and there is a greater likelihood of the patents being made invalid.
It's for this reason that we do not want an IPR and our strength is going down the Markman/trial route. Mintz are all over this and I assume it's a standard approach taken by larger or well financed defendants.
Pirate says we have to wait a month after the Markman for the judge's indication, which I hadn't thought about, so we are looking at the end of April for any concrete news. I can't see the the announced RNS showing anything useful about the court case, as I'm sure Samsung will string this out for as long as they possibly can. If the parallel case doesn't go anywhere, I sense they will go to trial and then appeal, even at the risk to them of a bigger fine. Having read all the excellent posts here, I feel confident of a win as their defence seems pretty weak, but am resigning myself to a longer timeframe for settlement.
lptuf93, shares hadn't been consolidated then, so I paid 17-18p a share at the highest. I think market cap was probably in the 10m-15m range then, so it has always been a tiddler.
I agree with munpip that this company does not have a history of success. If I was a better investor, I should have sold out many years ago and probably not long after I started investing in Tanzanite One in 2009. Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Having said that, it does seem that we are in a much better position now for a number of reasons:
1. Major private investors who did not sell out prior to the RTO and have, on the contrary, increased their holdings since relisting as LEX. The instils some confidence.
2. We are prospecting for gold, no longer mining for sapphires etc. I had the impression that the marketing and pricing of stones would have been much more difficult than gold, for which there is a stable demand. The Capricorn mine seems little short of a disaster but we are now a slightly different beast, with enough cash for now and what seems a more cogent plan for making LEX profitable.
3. The macro background. I know I've mentioned this before but massive fiat printing since the financial crash was only partially clawed back by governments/central banks. This has now become far worse by having to prop up economies during the corona epidemic and is continuing. Although the GLD fund has now passed a technical 'death cross' of the 50/200 day SMA, I feel this background is likely to support the gold demand and price in the medium to long term.
4. We are working in the USA. A developed country with a stable democracy (yes, I think the Trump wobble was grossly exaggerated, though substantial divisions do exist) and an established and respected state and federal law system. There is no illegal mining or a likelihood of one industry being picked on for 'special' tax treatment. I know we could say that about Australia, too.
5. We have 4 prospects in an area with successful historic mining, plus the current example of the Haile mine. With modern technology, it seems if we manage to find suitable deposits, they are likely to be extractable at a level of profit that means we can sell them that brings a large increase to the SP.
Perhaps I'm being too optimistic. I reckon that this time we will achieve a big SP increase over the next 2-3 years. I'm waiting with bated breath to see what the initial drilling results bring and how the SP reacts. (Though it may never reach the effective highest price I paid, of a mere £1.79.)
An interesting new headline, where Intel has been told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent trial :
Intel Corp. was told to pay $2.18 billion by a federal jury in Texas after losing a patent-infringement trial over technology related to chip-making, one of the largest patent-damages award in U.S. history. Intel pledged to appeal.Intel infringed two patents owned by closely held VLSI Technology LLC, the jury in Waco, Texas, said Tuesday. The jury found $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers.The patents had been owned by Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors Inc., which would get a cut of any damage award, Intel lawyer William Lee of WilmerHale told jurors in closing arguments Monday. VLSI, founded four years ago, has no products and its only potential revenue is this lawsuit, he said.VLSI “took two patents off the shelf that hadn’t been used for 10 years and said, ‘We’d like $2 billion,”’ Lee told the jury. The “outrageous” demand by VLSI “would tax the true innovators.”
Federal law doesn’t require someone to know of a patent to be found to have infringed it, and Intel purposely didn’t look to see if it was using someone else’s inventions, he said. He accused the Santa Clara, California-based company of “willful blindness.”
The jury said there was no willful infringement. A finding otherwise would have enabled District Court Judge Alan Albright to increase the award even further, to up to three times the amount set by the jury.
On this board we've speculated at length what Nanoco's award could be if they won. Perhaps this could give us an inkling, as it's another Texas case?
If the Markman goes in NANOs favour, is there then any incentive for Samsung to settle without a trial? EG would they avoid the possibility of being guilty of wilful infringement in a trial, which can result in 3x damages if they lost? In that case, with reduced legal fees and and an agreed settlement with NANO, they could pay much less, albeit earlier.
On the other hand, if it went to trial and they appealed after losing, they would gain time but the cost could still be greater.
More good news with the start of drilling. Had we still been in Africa, I expect there would have been numerous delays.
On the close, the spread is now 1p - let me type that again , I can't quite believe it - 1p: bid 3.3, ask: 4.3. I don't think I've seen anything so wide since HMS Queen Elizabeth left harbour. Probably puts off potential new small PIs but if another big PI or II comes on board, won't the MMs have to start closing their shorts and that would help push up the price faster? I'm not really au fait with shorting and its ramifications.