Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video 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.
I wish for great shock and wealth to be heaped upon you Compass (and others too) .
The patents are out there for perusal. However you would require a very thorough understanding of chemistry to make any sense of them. None of major ii's seem to have been reducing which is a good sign, but they do in general hold pretty low averages.
When it comes to business updates via RNS etc. it has been commented on many times that Nanoco still behave like they are an AIM listed company. I think on occasions they have sailed close to the wind, and I'm amazed that the senior executives did not come under scrutiny over the shares sales following the interims. Perhaps they did, but we didn't get to hear about it. Perhaps it has influenced the large ii's to decline further investment and force a sale.
One thing that stems from everyone's contributions over recent days and weeks is that Nanoco has closely guarded all information about the quality of its production techniques and intellectual property. There is no way that investors can attempt to value the latter and we are relying on the integrity of the company in that its products will pass the scrutiny of prospective bidders "with flying colours", and that an accepted bid will add value to the current MCap and share price.
It is probably about time, bearing in mind the time sale designated for the bid process, for the board to draft an interim RNS to inform investors of any progress - in a general way. Perhaps major institutional investors, who may have had a hand in shaping the process, are being kept informed? It is likely that retail investors will hear nothing until the outcome. This has been my experience of similar situations in the past.
If we get an offer anywhere near $200M, I will not only be shocked, I will be wealthy......I sincerely hope you are right and I am way of the mark and completely wrong ....but I just do not see it......this is my opinion of course ....
Does ' commercial quantities ' refer to the level of output not profit or loss ?
Nanoco has said also that the performance of their CFQD's has improved over time but it's always been difficult to find any actual figures in this regard which suggests they are only minimal, not as good as competitors or breeds doubt.
My single main concerned revolves around the lack of sales into display, which were largely assured many moons ago.
I've never seen a satisfactory reason for why they couldn't get beyond prototype stage. Some posters on here and elsewhere have poo-poo'd this, and stated we've been fully informed, but I beg to differ. Speculative excuses have been given that problem was with other stages of display manufacture e.g. processor boards, but this hasn't stopped Nanosys bringing out one display after another, and letting everyone know about it, whilst Nanoco's dealings remained cloaked in NDA's which never materialised into any significant sales.
So with doubt comes uncertainty, and thus the share price flounders. However if the tech is good, someone is going to want this IMO, and more than one. QD vision had zip compared with Nanoco, no cad free, a flawed process of integrating the QD's in display with edge lighting and QD enhanced tubes. I think Samsung paid the $70m just to get them off the market, not for their tech.
Re: Previous post. Sorry, I logged into the account very occasionally used by my grandson by mistake.
True enough BeingTheBanker, My earlier comments about City Fibre Infrastructure, and equally successful bids for other companies like Laird substantiate that argument. The final bid price (if bids are submitted and one is accepted) will ultimately depend on the integrity of the board, and the value of the company's intellectual property portfolios. Regards.
I can assure you if the Market thought the IP was worth over $200 M the SP would not be sitting at circa 12.5p even if the manage to get a sale I think the most we can hope for is between 30 to 40 % premium and thats being generous....