Member Info for FlyingHigher

IntrusiveThought- How many times......?
My estimates were based on the loss of licensing or enhanced revenues + wilful infringement models presented by Michael Edelman and Brian Tenner. The $1bn I cited was completely rational in this context.
New information is available and this no longer applies.
The problem here is your inability to process new information.

Burnham pier isn't very long

AGAIN, you partially quote me there to fit your agenda. The next part is the most important.
"if you cared to study the facts from 2014 onwards." The justification. That's an O/T point though, but the relevance here is I'm seeing a collective inability to develop a deeper understanding across just about every topic covered. Then you all recommend eachother's childish posts so you can sit in this pit of ignorance and feel better about yourselves.
Well done, just be warned the outcomes may not align with your ignorant perception of affairs.

Nanonano - I agree there will be growth but from a starting point of 5p. That's where you and others here have deceived yourselves into thinking this is a good one to buy or hold.
I'm just trying to help you out.

Hawi it's not Russian propaganda, it's the truth if you cared to study the facts from 2014 onwards, but don't go there here because I will own you on every point, I promise you. I'm well versed on that subject and it would be inconsiderate to others.
Your mischaracterisation of that particular view though is consistent with your wider mischaracterisation of other views you wish to ignore.
I'd suggest you have a generally narrow view of the world, which isn't supported by much substance.

Be careful, it could go closer to 20p yet

"Missing all the essential ratios" Hawi.
Explain that comment and consider everything in the analysis you're clearly ignoring.

Not necessarily IntrusiveThought.
The world peace deal will be a one off cash payment that will most likely price out competitors.
Hawi - how have I mislead shareholders with false data? You mean data produced by simply wall street that's uncomfortable for you to read.

You're missing the point again.
If Samsung's case is hopeless, why have Nanoco changed from talking about Transformational figures to lower end figures extending the cash runway? Surely if it was hopeless and Nanoco were certain to win, this would be giving money away.

IntrusiveThought - so hopeless that Nanoco are strongly indicating a lower settlement, having previously suggested a much higher one would be targeted. Take off those rose tinted specs.

I put in a small disclaimer that I couldn't personally verify that email. I didn't dismiss it.
Algorithms are written and maintained by people.
However the analysis has been produced, it's backed by sound data so the site is more reliable than speculation on here. The valuation of sub 5p is based on industry Averages. That's how you sensibly value anything.

Mikey - are the people at Simply Wall Street also bell ends?
I'd trust them over you or the other clowns giving me a hard time on here.

The point about the strength of Samsung's case is Nanoco change of tone from one of outright confidence to conciliatory.
This point is one more astute investors picked up on.

My comments were rational at the time when we were talking about a multiple of various models and the deterrent of an EU injunction, as I must have told you 1000 times. You seem incapable of processing a changing scenario as new information materialises and try to hold people to account for past statements made in completely different circumstances.
July 2023 prediction:
20p maximum, but as low as 5p, depending on the settlement.

No, downward movement for some time unfortunately.

IRRELEVANT!!! You're misunderstanding

Nanonano - It then goes onto the bit you're deliberately ignoring/misconstruing:
"However, a settlement is likely to be based around lost earnings rather than revenues, with a further discount on the potential jury outcome reflecting uncertainties about risk and the time value of money, noting the full trial and appeal process could take years. Lawyers’ success-based fees will also be deducted from the settlement."

Edison were really clear on this.
They reiterated their $200m-$250m guidance saying the lower end of this, acknowledging that global sales would also be factored in, but that the total would be discounted for an early settlement v a jury trial. Finally, they said IF there is anything remaining after all costs are subtracted, it would extend the cash runway.
You could infer that the guidance is higher based on their statement surrounding global sales, however they've been really clear to emphasize the discount and put a big IF in there too.
To a rational investor, this should spark the question of whether they're preparing the market for 'disappointment.'
When I say rational investor, people like LOAM perhaps, not clowns like troublesome, Hawi and intrusivethought.
How many times do we have to go over this before the rampers on this forum accept what was written in plain English?
I'm happy to repeat this statement again if you still don't grasp it.
Hawi - don't worry about my numbers or valuations, worry about Simply Wall Street, who give a much worse assessment than me and suggest the company is currently fairly valued at sub 5p based on earnings.

Troublesome you're really boring

Barbon it's not daft to bail if you can't find £120m of value here. That's the point. It is positive in some sense that Nanoco will get something. It's just negative if that something doesn't warrant anything close to the current valuation.