Member Info for Bachatanut

With regional wars now a reality and in some peoples', including my own, opinion global war now looming large over the horizon I would have thought all this SWIR/NIR infrared technology has the potential for huge military/weapons capability enhancement???

Thanks, Xenon. In other words yet more "jam tomorrow" from BT & Co.

So BT said "our customer" as in the singular. Does that mean the once much vaunted large chemical company from the Far East has departed the Nanoco scene and so BT et alia have done a 1984 on them?

According to website CITYA.M. a short (as in real world short not Nanoco PDMR short) time ago:

"Investment bank Cavendish has maintained a 60.2p price target and reiterated its financial year 2024 forecasts."

So assuming this is the same Cavendish group of companies that operates Nanoco's advisors and joint corporated stock brokers Cavendish Capital Markets WHY THE HELL WOULD I SELL FOR 24 PENCE AND REDUCE MY EXPOSURE TO THE PREDICTED GAINS?

Here's some ideas on what MIGHT be going on behind closed doors.

https://www.cityam.com/exodus-eight-troubling-omens-for-the-london-stock-exchange/

Could someone please remind me of the rationale of moving Nanoco to the main LSE market?

FlyingHigher,

EXACTLY. I spent several years moving the maximum allowed amount of my shareholdings from my share dealing account into my ISA. All my shares are now held in my ISA. I would expect the vast majority of PIs who are LTHs to have done the same.

Skeletor,

I think that's a very good point. IMHO it's the most likely reason for them deliberately delaying telling us how, when and how much. Other possible but less likely reasons could be:

a) there's a massive argument going on behind the scenes;

b) the arrival of new directors has caused the delay in some way;

c) a combination of a) and b) above;

d) the accountants are deliberately delaying because they are playing their favourite game of "cash balances" and want to earn as much interest as they can;

e) they have found themselves in a dilemma whereby legal/professional advice is inconsistent with what they would like to do (variation on a) above?).

2G2D - your 06:59 post.

I think you're right. They're playing for time. They definitely said that they were going to return capital in Q1 but the latest from LG is that they have moved the goal posts and are now going to tell us what they've decided in Q1. My advice is don't hold your breath. I'll believe it when it happens. I suppose the most likely date if they do what LG says is the interims announcement on 27th.

IMHO they are treating Nanoco as gravy train and in my opinion they are being successful so far - look at the share incentive scheme they came up which again IMHO is in effect "double dipping" on the litigation settlement which is now history and they've been paid but the resulting payout will contribute towards their future renumeration.

However I suspect that they realise that if the share price does crash in the way you predict then the gravy train will hit the buffers and end up derailed i.e. they may well be given their marching orders.

His silence from BoD isn't golden, it's deafening in that it's shouting "were up to something"

Kooba,

Phew!!! Thanks for the prompt, succinct reply. End of panic. I clearly got it wrong, thank goodness.

Kooba,

URGENT. URGENT. URGENT. URGENT.

I have just read your 12:41 post with horror! You quoted the following:

“…a return of capital of between £33 million and 440 million or approximately 10 pence to 12 pence per share (including vested options)). The return of capital is expected to commence shortly after the receipt of the second tranche of litigation proceeds.”

What's horrifying me is the three words "INCLUDING VESTED OPTIONS". Am I right in interpreting this as meaning that all the options the BoD and other PDMRs hold, including the ones granted recently, will be included in the return of capital? I.e. they stand to gain about 10p to 12p for every share option they hold even though they might not actually be granted the shares if they do not meet the performance criteria?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME THAT I HAVE GOT THIS WRONG.

Kooba,

Good one. Believe it or not it's actually assuming a straight special divi and no share buy back.

I agree that this looks wildly optimistic to some, if not most, and I did say "for what it's worth" meaning I don't see it at all authoritative. My point was about the psychological value of £1. Please let me explain a bit further. Any buyer will be looking at the future potential of Nanoco. Most people probably see that this comes from their patent portfolio, their skills and knowledge and their relationships with customers, which is very sensible and pretty orthodox. However a potential buyer with existing product lines and customers would be looking to get additional "leverage" by getting control of vital technology. This new guy joining the BoD (in May?) seems to have shown this previously???

Daz,

Sorry, but I am a "senior citizen" as in past state pension age. Also, at the risk of being boring by repetition IMHO the RNS about the senior management share options is fully consistent with my basic paradigm that people who runs things will do so AS FAR AS THEY ARE ABLE to their own maximum advantage, which is not necessarily pecuniary but usually is.

Hawi,

I agree with you and Daz423 at least 90% and this is NOT a dig. I agree that a takeover is likely sometime, probably IMHO sooner rather than later as the buyer will want to get Nanoco as cheap as possible so will try and pre-empt any news that sends the share price rocketing . So, the "exam question" NGR1616 set was: AT WHAT PRICE? For what it's worth I would see £1 as a clever psychological pitch.

Kooba,

Thanks. Thing is, given the diversity of share holders, tax efficient for whom? Add in the BoD's duty to treat all shareholders equally then surely the paradigm is not tax efficiency but tax equality? I.e. we all incur a similar tax charge?

Thanks Maxi19. You clearly know a lot more about it than I. What I like in particular is your point about directors' duty to treat all shareholders equitably but presumably that's open to interpretation!

Thanks for the prompt reply MAXI19. What you say makes sense to me. Would I be correct therefor in drawing the conclusion (or corollary???) that the likes of LOAM are indifferent to the form of the return of OUR MONEY to us?

I've been trying to educate myself on things like capital return, income return, dividends, what the differences are and what the tax implications are for each, income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. I admit that I am struggling. One of the things I am struggling with is why a special dividend is so disadvantageous to the likes of (say) LOAM. Corporation tax is 25%, so how would a capital return help them avoid it? I STILL HOLD TO MY BASIC PARADIGM THAT PEOPLE WHO RUN THINGS WILL DO SO AS MUCH AS THEY ARE ABLE TO THEIR OWN MAXIMUM ADVANTAGE. In other words the paradigm of "Noblesse Oblige" is not relevant in this situation. This basic paradigm is what is driving my view of how BT& Co. will decide to return OUR MONEY to us.

Sorry, 2021. Must proof read.

Daz423

I agree a TO is a real possibility and that all sorts of manoeuvrings and shenanigans may well be taking place right now.

What is this "huge TO deal in2012" you are referring to, please?