Member Info for Bachatanut

LAURA2022

When I read the clause 4 you just posted I suddenly got this awful feeling of deja-vu. The language it used reminded me of TW and how he dodges direct questions. It's almost as if he either wrote it or had a helping hand!

Kooba,

I agree. Nanoco should move to AIM. Wish I'd thought of that! Is there any way this could be put to shareholders as an alternative to the management's proposal?

TW

You said: " If someone has been building a stake to support the delisting, that would explain the activity."

Please explain to me why that would NOT BE INSIDER TRADING.

TW,

Yes, if the management "execute" then everything will be ok. THIS IS A TAUTOLOGY i.e. it is constructed in such a way that it cannot be false.

For a while now you have resorted to just monotonously banging this drum repeating ad infinitum ad nauseum "if the management execute then everything will be fine". As such I suggest that you are not contributing anything useful and also find it insulting to my intelligence. The fact is that when it comes to "executing" Nanoco's management have a very poor record in the opinion of many, if not most, of the contributors to this chat board.

Seems to me this is the first move in a process that will see all us private/retail investors diluted horribly. Any useful comments to say about that, please?

I'm resisting the temptation to sell but have yielded to the overwhelming temptation to have a SPICEY TUNA sandwich.

GLA LTH

StayingPatient,

Thank you very much. That's probably the best answer I have ever received to a question on LSE.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it AIM investments are exempt from Inheritance Tax?

Sorry, only $90m of the $150m DID go to Nanoco.

TW

You have said "Everything will be alright if Nanoco can execute. There's no reason to think they won't at the moment."

The first sentence is at best a tautology.

The second sentence is rubbish. Lots of us can think of lots of reasons why they will fail to execute e.g. they simply fail despite their best endeavours before running out of cash, competitor(s) patenting better technology, competitor makes a successful takeover bid.

IMHO the two sentences taken together are a form of GORMLESS SPECULATION as they seek to predict the future.

TW

Please note that as a poster you are completely ignoring the fact that only about $90m of the $150m (not $155m) did not go to Nanoco. All right when you completely ignore something? For example completely ignoring Nanoco's past record that lots of companies have engaged with Nanoco and then walked away and so Nanoco have actually delivered next to no physical product from their own production facilities and so in terms of contacts won are a commercial failure.

Kooba,

To use the past as a guide to predict the future, or to gormlessly speculate, that is the question.

TW

As usual you have not addressed the points I raised. The comment about the JDAs existing is totally superfluous, no-one is disputing that they exist.

What do Nanoco do if Shoei go into direct competition with Nanoco in sensors? Would be grateful if you could actually answer the question, please.

. . . that this agreement opens the way for sensors for both Shoei as well as Nanoco. I also gormlessly speculate, based on the history of lots of companies working with Nanoco and then walking, that at least one, and quite likely both, of the JDA1 and JDA2 companies will go and do business with Shoei. If Nanoco are able to sue on non-IP grounds then Shoei will have assessed and accepted this business risk as worthwhile because Nanoco have limited cash resources and virtually no meaningful inward cash flow.

As a result I gormlessly speculate that Nanoco will go broke or will be bought up by some sort of venture capital outfit who will dilute all of us into insignificance and delist Nanoco. I have predicted this before because I have experienced it. Also someone else has recently recently gormlessly raised the possibility having experienced it more than once.

TW

IMHO your comments about Nanoco being ready to sue Apple are "gormless speculation". I gormlessly speculate that just because they added Apple to the case was just a tactic that IMHO didn't work.

TW

Please explain why your statements about the future of the two JDAs are not "gormless speculation". All right when you make any statement about the future?

TW - thanks for the reply but I feel compelled to repeat my question.

How optimistic are you that they will come up trumps, please?

TW - as you say Nanaco have at most, as things currently stand, three years to "execute" so all is not lost YET.

I know that past history is no guarantee of future performance but SERIOUSLY, how optimistic are you that they will come up trumps? IMHO given that they have failed to gain any significant orders the overwhelming probability is that they will continue to fail to "execute".

IMHO if it's such a bad deal for Nanoco in the opinion of many LTH then presumably whoever is buying and steadily driving the bid price up either thinks that the deal adds value, which is speculation and legal, or they know something, which would be insider dealing and illegal. Anyone like to speculate why the bid price is rising?

Looks to me like Shoei are playing for time by being deliberately obtuse.

According to Google AI the process of Due Diligence with respect to Mergers and Acquisitions is the acquiring company's reviewing of the target company's financial records, contracts and legal compliance to assess value and risk. Thus IMHO it's reasonable to expect that Shoei were satisfied with the risk they were taking and what we are speculating about IMHO is their attitude and approach to risk. As people have said we just don't know what this is but I think we all agree that Shoei had access to all the relevant information.