Member Info for lejjb

NGR1616 - OMFG, you have literally proven again that you are troll who just posts to disrupt. There are literally small summaries that explain what market makers do and how dark pools operate at the top of each page.

Market Makers
A market maker is an individual participant or member firm of an exchange that buys and sells securities for its own account.
Market makers provide the market with liquidity and depth while profiting from the difference in the bid-ask spread.
Brokerage houses are the most common types of market makers, providing purchase and sale solutions for investors.
Market makers are compensated for the risk of holding assets because a security's value may decline between its purchase and sale to another buyer.

Dark Pools:
Dark pools are private asset exchanges designed to provide additional liquidity and anonymity for trading large blocks of securities away from the public eye.
Dark pools provide pricing and cost advantages to buy-side institutions such as mutual funds, and pension funds, which claim that these benefits ultimately accrue to the retail investors who invest in these funds.
However, dark pools’ lack of transparency makes them susceptible to conflicts of interest by their owners and predatory trading practices by HFT firms.

For NGR1616's benefit: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark-pool.asp

"presents you" - typo, apologies.

NGR1616 - so if somebody prevents you with a fact you don't like, your response is that it does not exist?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmaker.asp

@Hawi - your interactions with the trolls are very helpful for real holders, thank you!

NGR16:16 - a buy sales ration of shares is rarely 1:1 Because of a think called "market makers" who are contractually obliged to buy or sell some shares regardless of whether there is enough demand on the other side, within broad limits.
The notion that there is always a buyer for a seller on the stock market is fallacy (vs dark pools).

This is also why any charting tool with a volume option turned on will show larger or smaller red/green candles to demonstrates a bigger or smaller volume of sales/purchases of shares in a given time period overall.

@blitzed - one of Twitteratti quoted by Hawi, Borg, is actually a respected trader who almost exclusively relies on technical analysis (i.e. charts), and who posts many before / after "predictions" (i.e. he does not make too many claims of success after the fact). So while he is definitely not always right, Borg is one of the few who are respectable on Twitter.

NGR1616 doth protest too much, methinks.

"so the disruption doesn't have too much impact" - typos!

It's probably the fact that the 30 day deadline to finalise the binding agreement is coming up soon and some people may finally be taking positions.
It's possible that the multiple trolls disrupting this forum have tried to distract / deter PIs from buying in too so as not to push the SP up too much before the news release, so that IIs can get in for a better price.
But that technique does not last forever, especially due to the quality of the research and clear / simple wording from other posters on this board that don't the disruption have too much impact.

GW - "company director" and "commercial design expert" are not qualifications, unlike "solicitor" or "chartered accountant".
And anyone who spends about £50 (IIRC) can set up a company at Companies' House and appoint him/herself director.

And only a qualified solicitor, or an another officially qualified legal professional with an accredited top-up litigation qualification (e.g. chartered trade mark attorney) is allowed to conduct legal proceedings (different from being actually allowed to plead in the high court and above) in England and Wales. Other civilised countries have comparable official qualification requirements.

Who's the moron?

Samsung is in big trouble and Nanoco has a much stronger legal hand, based on the succession of events since 2015. Samsung needs an exit before things escalate badly for it.

GW clearly forgets what it is to be sued in 3 jurisdictions (incl. the two largest economies in the world) by somebody fully funded.
And GW clearly does not know what IP / patent licensing is.

Troublesome - trolls have been working extra hard, and some "older" ones have been reappearing as the more "recent" trolls have been consistently proven wrong by very hard working posters.

Samsung is probably the party that's yielding due to the timing of the request to stay the proceedings (the day / day before the trial), and considering that Nanoco had launched full court proceedings in 3 countries (with possibly two more considered). And got full legal funding (a legal funder lends money to somebody it thinks will win).
All of which is evidence that Nanoco has a steel clad case that has been years in the making (since Nanoco first tried to be conciliatory with Samsung in 2015 IIRC).

Whatever good and reasonable comments are shared with the trolls, they will come back claiming to be reasonable too.
They refuse to be stopped, because that's their job to disrupt.

Their aim is to distract from the likely high figures of the likely settlement which has been roughly estimated based on on clear and reasonable calculations shared by the competent posters on this board, and also circulated by the real media (not algo-written websites).
I suspect that £300m (straight in the pocket of Nanoco, i.e. after all litigation fees (and funders' fees) are deducted) is the base amount, for reasons explained many times on this board.

I predict somebody will call FH a troll.

Unfortunately, I'll disagree with you here. A troll's job is to be a disrupter, not somebody necessary producing good arguments.

Trolling (albeit under another name) is actually a very old tactic to disrupt public-speaking forums (or fora for Latinists) and prevent those with good rational points from being heard.

GW -
A 9 January RNS that explicitly says "lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome"
Note the words SUCCESSFUL JURY TRIAL OUTCOME.
You are working very hard at turning a broadly positive RNS into a negative one.

I don't think so, otherwise they would have mentioned it.
There are several other well-established ones around: Burford Capital, Litigation Capital Management, Vannin Capital, Omni Bridgeway Limited, and maybe more.
This amount of competition also means lower fees for the entity seeking justice, so Nanoco is unlikely to be charged extortionate amounts for the financing of its litigation.

$380-390m.
Legal fees (plus litigation firm prices ) are high but not that high.

FH has picked up the Monday morning shift, completely ignoring accepted valuation practice out of the window (eg he ignores the valuation of IP, ignores proven revenue growth and gradual loss reduction, etc) to justify insanely low figures, and/ or contradicting himself (eg claiming nobody can give a figure to the settlement then later on he gives an (absurdly low) figure).

The more vehemently he makes argues, the more I am confident in my belief that a settlement worth above $400m (as $200m was calculated to cover revenue from past TV sales in the US only) is likely.