Member Info for Nige_W

Hi OWLS
We need a trade agreement. If we leave without one we will have no agreement with the 3 largest trading Nations in the World EU, China and US. As bighammer said shortages of Mats and increased transport costs.
Trouble is I don't think Boris wants a Deal, so doubt we'll get one.
BoL

Hi sandg
I never use stop loses - if I invest in a Company it is cos I have researched it and I trust my ideas. Don't know how many people got caught out by MRE drop due to stop loss. I did anticipate it but decided the Market can't be that stupid. Not Tier 1 cos only 3.4m ozs in just 10% of Hav area - so Hav could hold 34m ozs (but won't cos first 2 areas chosen for MRE were the highest density Gold found - but ignore the other 3 high density areas entirely).
The influence of MM's has decreased over time - they used to be able to set Bid Offer prices but don't think they can even do that now.
Still about time Ggp got on the Main Ftse, so no need to worry about them.
BoL

Hi Dodge
I was not concerned about the drop in Sp.
According to Paddy plan (from Ggp) so called MRE represented barely 10% of Hav area. Not surprising only 3.4m ozs so not Tier1. 3 of the 5 high density areas not included. Rough guesstimate Hav probably has double the Gold of Telfer (26.4m ozs from memory).
Only question was how long would it take for the Market to realise its stupid mistake - 2 days not too bad.
BoL

Hi 2227
Sp's going south cos probably No Deal. If confirmed on Monday they will go further South (even if it makes no difference to Builders). Just 1st of potential disasters.
BoL

Hi Amarulla
As far as I know all the major Builders have fixed the fire trap problem in timber framed houses already (at their own expense). So is history, and should not affect Bwy.
Think this was new regulations. When I worked in building we were told Timber frames were treated and can't burn, still a major c#ck up which should have been picked up, and completely different to the Tower Block where Builders followed architects plans.
BoL

Hi PPE
First point Nanoco granted the Patents so it is Law. It is possible that a Patent was not granted correctly (somebody else had already done it - but never Patented it, usually law still stands), but Samsung not disputing that.
Samsung cannot afford a US Injunction nor closedown of Nano Dots Production (Mintz will make both happen). That will lose them a fortune, so they cannot risk this going to Court. They have settled out of Court previously and taking it to Court has rarely benefitted them.
And where does 200 ps come from? IP alone worth about that (without Court Case which will go ahead anyway cos fully funded and could lead to £1Bn damages). If Samsung offer 200 it will be rejected out of hand while the bidding war will begin.
For me you have a very pessimistic way of looking at things.
BoL

Hi amerloque
Since Samsung didn't even deny copying Nano IP they are guilty of IP infringement.
The only issue of whether Nano omitted a critical stage will do no more than alter the amount of damages Nano will receive (ie 10% to 90% of damages).
Any other solution invalidates the function of the Court, so Gilstrap will make this clear to Samsung after Markman hearing, and I am still hoping for a settlement, so Samsung avoid Injunction and ban on production of Nano Dots.
BoL

Hi Notrader
Only a matter of time but they have to get organised before they can do that. No surprises II's not keen on Ssx cos they had no money - the opposite of Ggp, 7 years exploration paid for and sat on one (or more) Tier 1 Gold Mines.
Potential better than ever.
BoL

Hi New2
I've made mistakes in the past, got stuck in Dot.Com Bust, but at east made far more than I lost. We had many great Tech Coys that just got bought out by foreign competition when they got cheap.
Last to hurt was Nano co which dropped massively when an US company pulled out of an agreement.
The really good thing now is Ggp price is justified by Gold (not market sentiment nor IP issues) - just hard Cash. Can't get more solid than that.
Of course as Ben said the price of gold could collapse, and pigs might fly.
Believe in yourself - just don't sell, and Best of luck Mate.

Hi Ilike
All I meant was I have no money in Builders now.
Still worried about issues to come, even No Deal Brexit will drive Sp lower.
BoL

All Imho but
The news drives Sp movement and that is coming thick and fast.
I expect mid 30's by end of next week (after AGM and possible Scally results, Hav update). If excellent results could be mid 40's. Doesn't matter much what TA says, where 1st / 2nd resistance level is, teardrops...

Hi OWLS

Given 03/01/20 = Rel Price 100
Max Pre Covid-19 21/02/20:
Psn 122.2, Tw 119.0, Bdev 115.7, Bwy 112.5, Rdw 111.2
Covid-19 Lowpoint 03/04/20:
Psn 60.4, Tw 52.3, Bdev 51.5, Bwy 49.9, Rdw 41.2
Last Week (27/11/20):
Psn 100.4, Bdev 84.3, Tw 80.5, Bwy 75.8, Rdw 69.8

The Company with the most cash (Psn) will be less affected by Covid cos better able to survive a catastrophe.
Those with least cash most affected (Bwy and Rdw).
Since vaccine and minimal affect on Builders the lowest rated have been catching up again.

Relative Strength (03/01/20 = 100)
Max Psn (21/08/20):
Psn 128.9, Bdev 99.2, Bwy 91.8, Tw 91.3, Rdw 88.8
Last Week
Psn 118.2, Bdev 102.2, Tw 98.4, Bwy 93.6, Rdw 87.7

Over the last 5 years Psn and Rdw have outperformed the rest.
No money in builders now but Imho Psn probably overvalued now, best value Rdw, Bwy and Bdev.

BoL

Hi rs28
It is unclear where the liability lies.
Building regulations have changed since timber frame houses first became popular (so if you have an old one, it probably wouldn't be allowed to be built now).
Personally, I think the least responsibility lies with the Builder cos he must build whatever the architect planned. Yet another reason why we should follow EU Regs, so it wouldn't ever happen.
BoL

Hi aquazi
Say your cost of Ggp shares was £10k and you sell £10k then your cost is nil. ie All for free. Doesn't work out that way with LIFO but it is really true. Gives you a warm feeling.
BoL

Hi Basscadet
The fact that Samsung didn't even deny they copied all Nano's IP to me is an admission that they did. To me this alone makes them guilty. Whatever the situation of the missing process doesn't matter - Samsung got it.
Gilstrap cannot let this prosecution fail cos it devalues their system, and after Markman I am sure Samsung will settle.
Sp roughly holding 10, if they settle implies Nano IP OK which should boost Sp to about 160 (based on £500m, besides damages, contract....)
Could be the recovery of the century.
BoL

Hi Feeks
Its not in China! Trial not inherently uncertain, whch Samsung cannot risk. (Injunction in US and ban on prod facilities.)
Still think a settlement of £1Bn + achievable by Nano + Contract. Still have to pay TPF for work of Mintz but if no court case shouldn't be too much.
Assuming Net £1Bn settlement Sp could be 327, add 20% for contract 392, add lump for £500m IP then 500+.
Don't know if we will get a spec Divi cos Nano will have to reestablish their old research systems.
How can we diverse so much $300m = about 80 while I'm saying 500+.

One word of caution, if we get £1Bn it will take some time for the Sp to catch up with real value, cos people like me (long termers) will have far too much money in this company and need to sell (before reaching 500), but that is also an opportunity for those that bought cheap).
BoL

Hi Jay et al
Just can't see it happening. It will be far more expensive for Builders (something they don't like much). It needs a massive reform in employment laws to make it economical and not going to happen any time soon.
When I was in building (40 years ago) more and more trades were being subcontracted out (or to Labour only S/c). Don't know how it works - are you offered a price you just accept or reject? How many bricks per lift, what transport, mortar facilities... Suppose all standardised now. When I last worked they were changing from 3 and 1 squads to 4 and 1, do you still have hoddies?
Suspect it was no more than idle Cabin talk.
BoL

Hi amerloque
Agree upside Massive £1Bn = 33 * nano MrktCap, but Imho downside doesn't exist cos Nano IP should bee worth at least £500m equates to Sp of 163 not counting Assets, Prodn Fac...
This assumes Nano don't lose the case, but I don't think Samsung can let this go to Court cos the consequences could be disasterous, Ban on QLed tv sales, ban on production of Dots. If out of Court settlement it effectively means Nano IP Ok and more contracts will follow.
Nano suing for £14 Bn (No of Tvs * profit per Tv ($1,000) Samsung made - the other way of calculating Damages).
If Samsung not found guilty it effectively means IP Law is non existent in US and they might as well pack in all their Courts, so they can't let that happen.
Still hoping for £1Bn+ settlement around March / April + Contract, and if Nano Sp falls much I will be topping up from profits in Ggp.
BoL

Hi amerloque
Thanks for the research.
I thought Samsung was guilty of several IP breaches, do they all suffer from this defect? As far as I see it is no more that a irrelevant technicality and suspect Gilstrap and Markman will agree - no need for a court case.
BoL

Hi Rusty
Fantastic reply by Zoros the Great. Keep a note of the great Posters.
Couple of things - you will notice the accounts go nowhere near justifying the MrktCap £886m. Doesn't matter too much cos MrktCap does not include the Havieron mine and Ggp will sell that land off to Ncm (their big Aus partners). It is a Tier 1 mine (once in a Generation) and worth a fortune - at least 15 years work there for Ncm.
Plenty of announcements coming soon which should move Sp a lot, so I say get in now. Sp moves according to potential - if double the amount estimated, Sp could go up by double so doesn't matter about high MrktCap. Having said that the MRE will probably underestimate the resource (almost always do), and only applies to part of the site.
Lot of rubbish on this board but I also suggest you scan the last few pages of posts - you will learn a lot from that.
Welcome and very Best of Luck.