Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
As with any disruptive or revolutionary tech the take up time for wide adoption is often surprisingly long. Weaning companies off well oiled supply lines to try something new is no easy task.
With sensors the age of the QD may be upon us. The full scale of their usability is not yet known. The potential is colossal. But Nano won’t enjoy a monopoly and will need to continue to make space for RandD and be poised to exploit opportunities and growth when they arrive. This is why the quality of the board must stand up to scrutiny and why many are cautious of the path ahead when taking into account the previous 12 months
In 3 trading days approx 45 million shares have changed hands and the price has shifted upwards marginally, and no TR1…does that not strike you as odd?
6 mil shares today. It’s surprising to see such volume vs fairly modest price action. Buyers and sellers locking horns.
In virtually every RNS the litigation is cited as creating ‘value’ for investors. This must be understood in the context of the SP at the time.
If you think creating value is cratering the SP from 40 to 20 then good luck to you.
I’m over what happened during the litigation and like you I am positive about the future. I for one got carried away by the litigation and I accept that. But I take everything tenner says with a heap of salt from here on in.
Do you not see the logic in me trying to temper some of the hype here and prevent a ‘litigation mark 2’? You can’t on one hand say ‘poor PIs getting carried away’ and then yourself perpetuate (as yet) rumours about who the end customer for the STM contract might be. It’s one and the same!
Daz, many holders went off Brian Tenner’s words, not some share magazine that I don’t recall reading.
It was the CEO who was talking about how the litigation would lead to inflection points etc. I’m not going to dredge over old ground here but as part of any DD you should be looking at those investor presentations and what he actually said.
I share your enthusiasm for the future, and it’s genuinely nice to see new holders that aren’t burdened with the baggage of the past, but you really ‘needed to be there’ to understand the way the company chimed in and played on the narrative of a big settlement. There’s no way they would’ve had an oversubscribed raise at 35p if they didn’t.
So some knowledge of the past is worth keeping in mind, and I would tread carefully trying to characterise holders who bought on the litigation as rainbow chasers because the story then was very different to what we know now.
Repetition not religion
Inclined to agree with NGR. There’s a difference between sharing research and just cheerleading the share a few times a day. Your facts are correct but the frequency of religion makes it feel pumpy. Let’s just wait and see what materialises.
Today’s volumes are bananas! The last day this many trades went through was the day that dare not speak its name…
You could be right Daz but it’s speculation at the end of the day and let’s face it, appetite for speculation amongst Nano LTHs can easily round to nil, given the events of the past couple years.
As with bigger, more established companies, dollar values on agreements are not disclosed. It'll all be the figures come results. Glad to see the board learning from past misdeeds. I think this’ll be significant and the wording suggests as much.
I would still argue that a buy back really isn’t of much use to a long term holder unless the intention was to try and sell a chunk which, given the current sentiment, seems a fools errand, and would likely lead to heavy selling and loss of the gains that should’ve been enjoyed by suffering shareholders.
Nano as discussed before most LTH would be fine sitting on a paper loss and getting some cash back on their investment whilst things pan out. A divi is far more LTH friendly than a buy back.
Agreed it’s a pointless exercise buying shares now just for the divi unless you expect imminent news.
I also wish it for IT. He’s always been such a believer in the tech and I for one have found his enthusiasm infectious, even if he doesn’t suffer fools gladly!
Apple Vision Pro: $3,499 headset finally gets release date https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67922296
It isn’t so much me wanting an exit more so it giving me some liquidity whilst waiting for things to unfold without having to sell any shares.
As a LTH I’d much prefer the special divi rather than a buy back, and think this is the more LTH friendly option.
A buy back will be played and absorbed by traders. Buy backs can work well to supercharge a SP when there’s a lot of optimism anyway. That isn’t the case here and I worry that a buy back would not be reflected fairly in the SP given so many are perhaps looking for an exit as it is.
A divi gives you an instant cash injection and if the general trajectory and direction of travel is to be believed, the cratered SP will be temporary.
Just my thoughts.
Share buy back option is an absolute bog standard resolution that you’ll see in the majority of company resolutions. The company has explicitly stated this isn’t the route they will go down and a special divi makes much more sense.
This is a non debate.
Thank god for Nanonano. Without them this board would be back biting and the ubiquitous troublesome anecdotes/puns.
I do understand why it’s been flat today, more shocked that 2.5m shares have changed hands and the market can’t even decide up or down!
Sentiment will crush this share for some time yet, and throw a wet towel on good news.
But think back to what valuations Nanoco has achieved in the past for enterprise value alone. £1.75 a share 10 years ago with nothing but rumours to back it up.
Now with pipeline, commercialisation achieved and millions in the bank we trade at below cash?! Market’s a funny place sometimes! Patience needed as I don’t think this tank will turn round in a hurry. Agree with other posters I want to see some director skin in the game.
I’m fairly laid back about whether this goes bananas or not. I think things will line up in time and let’s face it, getting ahead of ourselves is simply rinsing and repeating of what happened with the litigation. From a purely technical standpoint, operating below cash with a commercial contract in hand and an RandD makes NO SENSE to me.
I’ve added a bit more today. Not that I’m suddenly a believer again, but that the technicals make it look really attractive proposition to me.