We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
It wouldn't surprise me if LOAM agreed the floor price for the £3m 'on market' buy back so that they extracted as much cash at the highest share price at retail investors expense stuck watching the share price decline to mid teens if not lower as there is only the £23m cash remaining to support it!
Another £100k burnt through at 19.91p allowing LOAM to dump shares and extract more cash in doing so!
Mmmm
Situational irony or downright hypocrisy !
What about 21 Best Jesse Livermore quotes for traders :
https://traderlion.com/quotes/jesse-livermore-quotes/
I always try to post a link to articles I think relevant so folks can read the whole thing even if the article was 5 years old and written by a PR guy.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/the-need-to-put-to-an-end-malicious-postings-on-investor-bulletin-boards-1751978
I would be delighted if there was more stringent adherence to the codes of conduct myself as I think these boards have real use..as it goes so does BT as he used the fact something was mentioned on a chat room rather than the company once as proof of market guidance..that was interesting.
As to analysis of selling. It's an order book, so order driven not price driven. So if an order such as a buyback is working on the bid and absorbing selling is it a sell ? or a buy by the company. The analysis on these and other boards is not a definitive breakdown of buys and sells at all ..it just guesses around the spread. So it is impossible to isolate what is a buy or a sell. Though I would guess there were more sellers than buyers into the end of the week as the shareprice reset to find an equilibrium. See where it goes from here but unsure they will rerate until there is some transparency and news flow around ant commercial build up.
Morbox ..until that announcement no one in the market had a clue the company would be selling a chunk of its already scaled back IP portfolio even if they did delve into the court documents showing ALL the models ! Who knows what Samsung wanted and why !
Just find it a bit dull when apparently we all should have dug below the surface into court documents and not trusted the company sponsored narrative around the settlement to get a view…which would have been totally at odds with the company narrative and marketing. . Now when we do question the latest narrative we are told you have some dark reason to be doing so and must be on some payroll. The estimates of post tender valuation on a like for like basis were explained and fact based but were in hindsight attacked by newbies who had no pre tender view expressed and tried to foster a only way is up viewpoint in the process…that indeed was just a view but was put forward as some sort of fact and any other view was rubbished , I hope folks didn’t jump in at the wrong level.
Some might reinvest sure but not sure after the initial odd response there is there a real hurry?
As to what some of the larger holders who tendered their whole holdings do..seems anyone’s guess. If they factored in the all important ( apparently) reduction in shares outstanding rather than the resulting cash impact per share then it would be odd if they thought they could buy them all back at a significant enough discount to tender. But LOAM are the professionals and I’m sure know what they are doing.
Just one other point about the trust in the board, on the 3rd Feb 2023 but the settlement, they stated within a RNS that “ Settlement structured as a sale of non-core patents and a global, perpetual, fully paid up licence agreement”.
Those “non-core patents” actually turns out that one was core. Just another example how the board communicated during the settlement.
@Kooba
Don't push him too hard, he'll be booking a trip to the Indian Ocean !
They don’t seem to have removed them though. On loam confirming they had tendered their whole holding we got..
THIS IS GOOD NEWS!
You guys commenting on this are twisting information again. Who do you work for?
Do you think that is balanced or constructive ..there was no twisting of information and it’s reasonable to think the largest long term institutional holder selling out is not a positive for a number of reasons. The question as to who other posters work for is typical nonsense ..you try to make out you are balanced…far from it. You are intolerant of others views and are only prepared to hear overtly bullish views such as your own..”dodging bullets” before they go better again type comments trying to influence investment decisions .
Why are you so worried in the price short term anyway…over 10 years invested from much higher levels and you only get motivated around where the price settles after a significant capital distribution. None of us will hopefully influence peoples activities and I certainly don’t try to but a bulletin board is a place to discuss and correct if facts are incorrectly posted…but it is somewhere where varied opinions are encouraged and not for personal attacks .
Please post as much new information supporting the build up of commercial revenues as you can..if I can be convinced I might not ask so many questions.
“I requested that my previous posts be removed and I walked away for a few days.”
I can understand why , but perhaps you explain why you requested your posts be removed.
Long term investors with absolute confidence in the company which is fully funded for years now should hope for a lower price for the company to buy shares back surely , the lower they do the more concentrated interest in the successful delivery of their targets the better. Those that profess to be long term seem more concerned at the short term price that anyone rather than best bang for buck short term..sit back relax the price will sort itself out and what happens short term will not have an impact of them creating transformational shareholder value down the line ..if they manage to.
All the conspiracies and someone driving the price down is a bit on nonsense ..it’s a small tech company with mostly underwater private investors..stop jumping at shadows.
I don’t tend to remove my posts rightly or wrongly and folks that like to cite historic posts should probably be honest and leave their comments up for reflection.
@Xenon
If you could be more concise, it would be helpful - considering your last 2 lines it may have been better to chew your opinions over by yourself - my opinion - you've taken up so much space, it feels very claustrophobic !
I was interested to know about the pattern for selling Nanoco shares since the tender, so I have been doing some analysis using data from the past week. I have tried to be impartial, but note that some of my investments are in Nanoco so my findings may well have an unintentional bias. This is not advice and you should not base any decisions on this analysis, nor should you assume this information is in any way accurate. Please do your own research.
According to my research:
5.8m shares were sold in the past week (45% at 22.5 - 23.5p, 66% at 21 - 23.5p, 34% at 18.5 – 21p). The selling “appears” to be slowing down (based on this very limited set of data).
We know a lot of traders took a high or maximum tender allocation at 24p – and it seems obvious to me that some expected to buy back in if the SP retracted. We know Lombard Odier have reduced their holding to 16.9m shares, which I personally believe is good news.
There were 12 individual transactions this week, representing 52% of all shares sold, which has helped push the SP lower. Co-ordinated sellers could try to lower the SP further by selling, but “if” this is trading activity to push the SP down I’m wondering whether they will have much firepower left. Of course, this forum could be abused to spread bad news and misinformation about the company as I’ve highlighted before in an attempt to induce some selling...
However… and here is my view… there are a lot of people waiting on the sidelines with money. £30m was given back to investors who tendered at 24p and the company still has £2.5m left to buy back shares.
So, I wonder whether the traders are playing a game of musical chairs with each other. Some are are waiting for the music to stop when the SP drops to 16-17p. I’m just not convinced how many empty chairs (sellers) there would be if it got to that level. Of course it is good news for the company buy-back if the SP did stay lower, but the SP would be expected to increase quickly if the selling volumes reduce and if those waiting to get back in think they are about to miss the bottom.
Again, this is all purely my opinion and I might be completely wrong. Do your own research and be extremely wary of the motives of overly positive or overly negative posters.
Sorry, misinformation part, at the end of the day this is a BB for views and maybe entertainment who knows, but one thing I wouldn’t do is invest in a company with opinions from a BB! Sometimes you can find some good snippets but that should be followed by your own research.
Anyway no axe to grind with anyone, I’ve got to say I do have a good laugh reading through some of the posts!
Highlighted!
Xen0n, I don’t often post here any more, but IMO, BT and the board brought on themselves, by over promising on the settlement. And before you say anything, I hightailed on the BB possible low ball settlement figure highlighted within the court papers which BT refers to as Joe public knew what the settlement could be. However, BT stated on numerous occasions that “the board would ONLY settle for fair value and fair value in the boards mind was for past and future sales of Samsung’s QLED TV’s”, thus the disappointment on the low settlement figure. So yes IMO the keyboard worriers have a point.
Anyway after 7 years of holding my view is that the company is in its most promising position now. I bought lots on tranches after the crap settlement and tendered all those (just under 38%) and have kept my core. Talking down the share price who cares! If you believe in the company you should welcome it and add more. The stock market is manipulated every day by the press and big wigs, just listen to Bloomberg opinions and others.
Anyway it would be good to see BT put his hand in his pocket and actually buy some shares, if he believes that the company will be profitable soon (self funding at least) it shouldn’t be a issue for him.
I have quoted below from a useful article below.
"The need to put to an end malicious postings on investor bulletin boards" (yorkshirepost.co.uk)
On-line shareholder bulletin boards and share chat rooms, are increasingly a forum for defamatory abuse, insult throwing, and misinformation deliberately aimed at undermining shareholder value.
If you look at sites such as ADVFN, Interactive Investor and London South East, home to three of the most popular bulletin boards, you’ll see a stream of commentary from investors about every listed company there is. Each writers’ identity hidden behind an online moniker (such as pauliewonder, mr hangman or bomber13) and emboldened by anonymity many of these posters swap insults with each other, post derogatory remarks about the directors and make accusations of fraud.
This is the saddest part about the current state of bulletin board chat. They discourage companies from taking them seriously, and make CEOs wrongly assume that on-going engagement with retail investors will just be opening the door to more direct abuse for these ‘keyboard warriors’. In reality though many of the posters on these boards are genuine supporters of the companies they invested in, and spend a great deal of time researching the markets in which their investments operate, constantly on the look out for relevant information that might have a bearing on the value of their shareholding.
Recently, I decided to post on this forum after years watching from the sidelines. My aim was to highlight, and counter balance, the disruptive behaviour of a number of posters who appear to have an agenda of posting defamatory remarks about the company and about its board of directors, sowing discontent and trying to talk down the SP. Disappointingly, I was very quickly drawn into engaging with them when it only gave them more air time. I requested that my previous posts be removed and I walked away for a few days. I do not plan to engage in that way with them going forward.
This used to be a good forum for healthy discussion about Nanoco, with different opinions and respect for the opinion of others. Now, any useful information is soon drowned out and it is sadly not currently possible to have a balanced discussion here. The disruptors tactics are a combination of misinformation, name calling and barracking. You will see these behaviours used cyclically by serveral posters – and I expect they will be used in response to this post.
It is clear that a number of people posting here took up the tender to sell their shares at 24p and are working hard to try and influence the SP down, so they can buy back in at a lower SP. If they weren’t doing that why would they still post here? Some will try to justify their reasons why they think the SP will fall, others will cherry pick information and turn it info misinformation, whilst others will reply to them to make it look like there is a lot of support for their opinions.
But, with such an agenda, these people are not providing a balanced and impartial view and it would be a futile exercise to try and reason with them.
I see that Trouble beat me to sharing the link!
Hi Pirate, do you have a link to this please. Thanks for sharing.
Nanoco Group has been granted a patent for a photodetector with a unique design involving two-dimensional quantum dots (2D QDs) dispersed in charge transport materials. The heterostructure photodetector includes specific materials like zinc, titanium, vanadium, or nickel in the interlayer, offering enhanced performance. A recently granted patent (Publication Number: US11903225B2) discloses a heterostructure photodetector designed with specific layers and materials to enhance its performance. The photodetector includes a first electrode, a first photoabsorbing layer made of a two-dimensional (2D) nanosheets, an interlayer made of a metal oxide with zinc, titanium, vanadium, or nickel, a second photoabsorbing layer made of 2D quantum dots (QDs), and a second electrode. The combination of materials and layers aims to create a built-in electric field for improved functionality. Additionally, the photodetector may include a transition layer between the two photoabsorbing layers, each layer may contain charge transport materials, and the overall thickness of the layers ranges from about 50 nm to 800 nm.
Furthermore, the patent details specific configurations and compositions for the photoabsorbing layers, including the percentage of 2D nanosheets and 2D QDs present in each layer. The patent also mentions the thickness and dimensions of the nanosheets, emphasizing their properties for optimal performance. Additionally, the inclusion of charge transport materials in each layer further enhances the photodetector's capabilities. Overall, the patent highlights a novel design for a heterostructure photodetector that leverages unique materials and layering techniques to improve its efficiency and sensitivity in detecting light.