The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
CWWX - today's news, and the SP's movement today (SO FAR!) makes my view on this company no longer clearly bearish but neutral.
The news means that it's cutting costs with no (allegedly) impact on production, i.e. reduced losses.
And the SP is forming what's called a bullish engulfing candle and has gone back onto the earlier volume shelf that my chart yesterday showed, i.e. yesterday PM and this morning's breakdown did not last long and the SP has gone back to its earlier support level (ish).
CWWX - that would be buying while counter to several trends:
- the macroeconomic trends (still high food price rises and people finally no longer spending like there's no tomorrow), - - the weak business ($1.25bn bonds due in 2025 IIRC, still loss making and only "hoping" to go breakeven this year only), - weak technical indicators: look how it keeps hitting the resistance and has just gone below the volume profile, i.e. the high 450s beckon based on that chart.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/4xJXihZs/
I traded this share about 2-3 years ago but decided to stay away for good due to the claim back in Spring 2021 that another fundraise was considered at some point in the future. Still, I've been following this share through the corner of my eye ever since then.
I'm genuinely sorry for all holders, that was a largely unpredictable event and completely in contradiction with all the official and unofficial notifications from the company and its senior staff.
Anyone trying to say "I told you so." is a complete fantasist.
What you saw in the streets is your own personal anecdotal evidence, not a rigorous nationwide data collection exercise, and not even for the purchase of houses but of "crap" as you said yourself.
The Bank of England says otherwise:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-01/uk-mortgage-approvals-fall-to-lowest-since-first-lockdown
We are having a double-whammy of
(1) people who cannot afford to buy houses / homes and
(2) interest rates that have risen very fast so that the land that housebuilders have on credit is becoming too expensive to keep as their interest rate repayments are increasing dramatically.
We may witness soon (if not started already?) a fire sale of their assets, in turn leading to a substantial downwards rerate of the NAV of housebuilders.
The immediate recent results and the increase of the dividend (especially the latter) can get people excited. BDEV and PSN did not have that luck. Barring any substantial macroeconomic news, I suspect that in 1-4 days the reality of the housing market will come back to weigh on the sentiment.
The "head in the sand" approach of the vast majority of posters on this board and that of the other UK housebuilders is typical of many PIs, trying to turn into a positive spin forecasts of minus 30 to 40% of completions.
We are witnessing one of the worst downturns in housing demand in decades, combined with the highest interest rates since 2008 which puts enormous pressure on the existing interest repayments for all housebuilders for the land that they still own.
Yet people still splutter "fundamentals are goods"!... Absolutely insane.
It's definitely not a dog considering that its business has mostly recovered from Covid and even achieved operational improvements vs its state in 2019.
However, throwing around dividend suggestions for the near term, especially numbers from 2006, borders on the insane (or desperation to get the SP to rise). Right now Marston's is (rightly) focusing on paying off its debt.
The NAV per share of £1.02 and the evidence of the trading recovery to around / a little above pre-Covid levels, and reduction of energy costs globally (gas especially, although the tariffs were fixed already), make this an attractive investment.
The debt is of course problematic but the figures shared that it is being clearly reduced.
Whether takeover offers like those of early 2021 (£1 per share was the highest one IIRC) is a question: interest rate (hence the cost of borrowing) were much lower back then, but the SP is now lower but with higher NAV than 2 years ago, so this company is effectively cheaper than it was so does remain very very attractive vs early 2021.
As I posted so much before, it's fair that I close my participation properly by sharing my final view for whomever interacted with me (based on the latest facts, my view can change if those change too):
- Insanely low settlement value vs the facts that I listed several time this week and before.
- The sale of some patents, even if they are mentioned as "non-core", makes me question what they truly are, how many years are left in them, and why Samsung was simply not granted a license. So while Nanoco can use them (due to the license back from S to N, but not written as being "exclusive" as far as I could see), S, as the owner, will still be able to license them out to other parties and make more money off them. WTF?!
- The very low value of the settlement does not look much of a deterrent for any other major company (vs medium / small ones). So if were Apple, I'd be less afraid of infringing any of N's bestest patents if I knew I could make £300-400m profit from using them.
The financial results have demonstrated that it is a growth company, but I am far less confident about the scale of that future growth, especially Nanoco's ability to make big deals with big companies (vs medium or small ones) considering this stunning caving in by BT.
I wish all the best for all remaining and new holders.
I never said it was a fact, I just said there was no credible reason to make the US global, esp as this is not what BT said either. While you treated that as likely with no evidence for that.
Was your rhetoric and law teacher Derek Zoolander?
Buzz - you contradicted yourself. The $250m low possible award is only mentioned for US sales, as per what you quoted.
There are thus no reasons for the rest of the world (about twice that amount, so $750m in total incl USA) to be just given away for free.
FH - sorry for appearing finicky on words, but I am not describing a "scenario" but a succession of facts (counting the publication of the Daily Telegraph report of the possible £500m for the USA as a fact too).
Officially and according to the press, the facts have not changed from the list I gave.
I won't try to speculate about the reasons of the tone of that RNS from 9 Jan, especially as the writer still refers to a successful jury trial. It could just be an attempt by the board to be professional and not to make overblown claims, it could be something else: anyone's guess is as good as anyone, so longs as they stick to the facts.
As I listed, the facts show that Nanoco is an extremely strong legal and financial position vs 47 massive infringements from Samsung (whether "willful" or not), so until I witness a change in those facts, I am expecting a likely very big net cash payoff.
Legally:
- A matter in the making since 2015, when the patent infringement first transpired with the release of the QLED TVs by Samsung.
- Nanoco attempted to come an agreement in the early stages, which benefits its position in the eyes of the court.
- Samsung attempted to buy Nanoco in 2019 (and was rebuffed due to the relatively low amount).
- Nanoco is formally suing in the USA, Germany and China (well-known to be a bad place for IP owners, i.e. one must have an ironclad case to start legal proceedings there).
- Nanoco is looking into suing in 2 more countries incl. the UK.
- All 47 claims of patent infringement in the USA were validated in May 2022 - the postponed US case is about whether Samsung wilfully infringed.
- A litigation funding company agreed to finance Nanoco - i.e. that company believes its chances of success are high to stake its money in it.
Conclusions: (1) Nanoco's legal position is very strong and (2) it is much more likely that it's Samsung that approached Nanoco for a settlement rather than the opposite.
Financially
- Oversubscribed fundraise in June 2022, supporting Nanoco financially through 2025.
- Significant increase in revenues last year (+18%) and decrease in operating losses (loss decrease of 26%).
- Funded for its legal actions (see above).
- Extremely high estimated high value of the US claim, the Daily Telegraph reported it could be as high as £500m (so Germany/EU and China would be on top).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/01/manchester-firm-sues-samsung-tv-tech/
Conclusions: Nanoco is not under immediate pressure to accept any settlement offer from Samsung.