The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
..........start the car ;)
Okay, here goes with Devil's Advocate......
Might the market be looking at Nanoco and saying, This company has been in existence for years and there was nothing really stopping them from expanding or making any sort of a decent profit from their great products during the litigation period? So, litigation income aside (because we shouldn't need to rely on that alone), would it be fair to reason how the majority of punters have bet on the trial outcome and are now exiting rather than believing in more of the "jam tomorrow" that they've watched to date on the actual profits front? In short, other than working with a bigger budget, why might NANO perform better commercially and produce a better 'bottom line' than previously.
Might we not expect Samsung to pay our "costs"?
That's if there is no TO.
I think Samsung's legal team were probably hoping that we would approach them with an offer before the trial started and then when it became obvious we would not.................
MM's will be earning their money today.
A big thank you too to the more knowledgeable LTH on this board, especially those with their legal backgrounds.
Between the figures you've mentioned - 80p to £1.
RJT1705, be careful she doesn't now use your profits on a divorce lawyer?!
Worldwide future TV sales is likely to come into play. Sincere congrats to Brian, the BoD and our backers for believing. I think it's a hugely unusual event for Samsung to back away.
Just for the rolling board home page.
Think "mollusc"
I'm also going to be buying some more once the Royal Mail has delivered my Aunty Beth's birthday postal order. So, I'm expecting that to be around June (Boom! Tisshhhh! I'm here all week. Try the ****les)
It would have been extremely foolish for AB to say, "We look forward to a successful conclusion if not by the end of the year then certainly in Q1 2023" unless he was supremely confident that the potential partners JOG is negotiating with will know they are equally happy with a very solid deal and there is no danger of them then back-tracking. Otherwise it opens us up through him having publicly shown his hand too early, thus cornering ourselves where ongoing negotiations are concerned. Let us hope that AB's statement reflects him being "supremely confident" rather than the alternative. Having the Ithaca team on board does provide some reassurance.
You know you're meant to sleep on the top of it, James?
golferboy, the reason you are seen as a deramper is fairly obvious. Why on earth would anyone spend entire their morning on here running down a share which they thought was going nowhere when their is so much opportunity elsewhere? You clearly have an axe to grind where AGL is concerned or, as is more likely, you are trying to create an entry point for yourself. I am open to any logic you can provide in response to the first part of my question?
Golferboy, deramping aside.............
I believe their main product (Parsortix) would benefit through the distribution and marketing outlets of a company such as Abbott. IMO, the mistake they are making is in taking too long to generate and implement meaningful commercial partnerships as a first mover. The buyout option would make sense to someone who was looking to buy and market Parsortix whilst shutting down the rest of the operation, imo, so the 15 mil per annum would not matter. The financials do no make for great reading and the SP will continue to drift until such time as income becomes more apparent.