Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Nanoco BB twilight zone instruction manual:
1) begin something approaching sensible debate
2) burnt posters bay for Tenner’s blood
3) Giga wades in to slam all the clueless imbeciles who apparently know nothing about anything - ironic given the amount of time he dedicates to them.
4) debate then becomes a personal, bile filled slanging match
Rinse and repeat, Ad nauseam.
Baronet, the concept of BT resigning off the back of this settlement is simply nonsense. He wasn’t acting alone. You can be sure that every move he made, especially the decision to settle, would have been with the board’s blessing.
Now it remains to be seen exactly why the board thought the settlement suitable. And I don’t think it is particularly useful to guess as to why until further detail is known IMO.
I suppose the natural counter argument is that the cash settlement makes Nanoco robust in a way it has never been before. No threat of dilution, no more making tough decisions about which limb to chop off to get cash burn under wraps, for the next 2 maybe 3 decades. If you are prepared to hold and wait it out then it stands to reason that opportunities will come along and underpin the company organically. It’s just a matter of patience.
A lot of mud slinging going Tenner’s way but I’m reminded of Nietzsche’s wise words ‘don’t mistake the unintelligible for the unintelligent’. In other words, whilst, right now, we don’t know why the settlement was as it was, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a good reason for it. It’s too premature to be calling for Tenner’s head, I don’t think we even know the half of it TBH.
I’m off too. Still holding with a great deal of interest. Plenty of irons in the fire for this company and I shall reserve judgment for a few months yet. Hopefully be back in brighter times but this bickering and point scoring is just getting pointless.
Not sure I agree with you on that point FH. I think there’s a certain irony at work: whilst Samsung have got away with a slapped wrist, I think nano’s logic is that now Samsung have settled, and with the IP validated, it does give them cash and leverage to go after others in pursuit of fair value licensing agreements elsewhere. Samsung could afford to slug it out endlessly, I’m not sure others would be so well geared to do so. I don’t think Nano would need to go to the lengths they went to with Samsung in pursuit of licensing deals and the threat of litigation would be a major warning shot for smaller less cash rich infringers.
So whilst we didn’t get fair value out of Samsung, we may well get some revenue streams from CFQD licensing agreements from smaller infringing parties.
I’m not setting too much by it because we don’t know how many companies Nano have their sights on, if any, but it’s an intriguing concept for sure.
I think the Runcorn facility will have a part to play in supplying product to more niche customers and end products.
However, I've always round the round the clock production figure a bit of a ramp from the company. Any serious volume of production will likely be on the basis of a licence agreement, rather than it being from the turbines of Runcorn.
It'll be intriguing to know who Nano have in their sights in terms of other infringing parties, and what their plan of action is for them, that could in itself bring in quite a nice revenue stream.
It won’t get to 36p on fresh air. It’ll be news that drives us there and by that point LTHs may have brightened their views on it all since then. I accept, too, that there will be some who will be just looking for an exit.
I see this as anything but boring. This is where BT and the team earn their crust. What is all this working capital to be invested on? How will a production contract impact a modestly valued company with limited cash burn? Will the end user, rumoured to be apple, create a halo effect? Things could turn around quite quickly when you think about it.
My gut instinct was that it was a bad deal, but my gut also told me that Tenner seemed to have the company’s interests at heart when I first invested. Both of those gut instinct can’t be right haha so I wait and see which it was. I owe my investment that much at least.
FH - The alternative argument is that there is a good reason for the mismatch between BT's rhetoric and what has so far been reported to investors via RNS...
I have a sneaky feeling there's a lot that needs to come out in the wash over the next few months which may yet redeem BT in the eyes of investors.
HH, I hear you, but you are clearly emotional about this and cool heads are needed. To be fair I don't think posters are trying to gloss over rather than fully make sense of why the agreement was so low, and the rationale for this. An intriguing scenario has been painted by Steak this morning. I don't set too much by it but it's certainly worth considering.
But certainly it is worth considering the notion that the litigation was proving a barrier to organic growth. That seems logical to me. It's important to remember that Nano exist in an industry with long, potentially fragile, supply chains. Nano could have a brilliant product but if their very future is in doubt, I think that's enough to put customers off and look elsewhere. Tenner talked about the litigation being a 'cherry on top' which puts a hell of a lot of emphasis on organic growth now. I won't be selling until I've heard the company give the full context to their decision to settle and to see what comes of this much vaunted organic growth. I think only then can you draw definitive conclusions about what's transpired.
For your own sake though HH, try and move past this. I feel foolish myself because I did go a little bit OTT on the buying and got spiked. Lesson learned. But it's just money at the end of the day and life is much much more than that. Make your mind up to sell or hold but if you decide to hold, it'll eat away at you if it's through gritted teeth, there must be a reason to hold and believe me, waiting to break even is not a valid one.
Believe me, I am as disappointed as anyone that, on the face of it, there has been a terrible deal been struck here. However, I do think the pendulum has swung a little too far into 'doom and gloom' territory.
Talk of Nano becoming a cash shell and/or boys club seems a bit overblown. Let's see what 'transformative' looks like for the company. We also need to see what happens with the sensors. Will customers sitting on the sidelines now come to the fore now they know Nano is a going concern that won't go bust and ruin the supply chain? These are legitimate reasons for at least a little optimism in my view.
Steak how might this work in practice? The RNS seemed to give rise to the belief that it’s all done and dusted? Thoughts appreciated thanks.
Gigs I don’t disagree with the general direction of travel in your comments. That said, I do find it ironic that the bloke that totally dismissed out of hand the concept of a settlement is now talking as if what has come to pass were always going to be so and so the market knew all along too.
The point investors are trying to make are that little week in court could’ve been and gone by now. Sure there was a tail risk of a loss but equally there was a golden opportunity for a colossal damage award too.
You called the low settlement, well done, but don’t be so blinkered as to think this is the only way events could’ve transpired. I think what’s maki g people sore is that nigh on a decade of infringement, that brought Nano to the brink of extinction, has been punished with a small change settlements and some patents to boot!!
To clarify, I am not bashing here, I will wait and see what Nano’s next moves are with interest as I said yesterday. But please just be a little more open minded and less insulting to others. It doesn’t help anything.
I plan to hold for the next few months to see if this sensor contract comes to fruition. If it doesn’t, I shall cut my losses and bail. I trimmed my holding yesterday and crystallised some losses because although Nano looks really good value at this price, I am concerned that Nanoco’s flagship IP can be purchased so cheaply. It doesn’t fully add up to me.
Feeks I shall be sad to see you go. We’ve always seen this in a similar way and whilst some on here are congratulating themselves for calling it right (fair play to them- no hard feelings from me) it is worth repeating that things could’ve turned out very, very differently here. We (foolishly, it would seem) followed the guidance, did the calcs, and saw big upside in a fair value settlement or court award. That wasn’t pie in the sky stuff, that was there to see for even very modest per unit calculations.
As for the future, Tenner’s credibility is in question now. I will be keen to know what his reasons are for settling so low, especially if he is as bullish on sensors and cash runway as he has often stated. There are questions to answer and should an adequate response not be provided then his credibility is totally shot in my book. I was offended by the RNS to have the gall to call this fair for shareholders. The price action yesterday tells you it was anything but.
Let’s see what the next few months brings.
From a technical point of view, very little value is currently being attributed to the company as a whole minus the eventual settlement. It looks oversold to me. But I also totally understand why it is where it is.
I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than a capitulation from Nanoco. What does this do to other customers looking over at this unfolding? Does it convince you in the ability of Nanoco to defend their IP, or does it give you a bit of encouragement that you can nick what they have for a slap on the wrist. Jury is out on that point.
It gets even more murky when you think about the fundraise at 37p which was off the back of an important legal milestone and more talking up the court case. Which then leads to doubts about the organic side of things. Why settle for so little if you have so much confidence in the organic side of things? It does make me wonder if the confidence in the sensing product has also been pumped too?
For now I'm a holder, but I am definitely feeling nervy about it now. We are essentially relying on Tenner's word that the sensing applications will come good and that this was the cherry on the cake. At the minute, there is no cake, and the cherry has had a big bite taken out of it...
I'm an outsider looking in, I accept that. But I think that Nanoco would've had the backing of most shareholders to have taken their chance in court. And, if the organic side of things is as Tenner is suggesting, that would've come to the rescue of the SP on the slim tail risk of a jury loss.
I suppose you can look at this two ways:
On the one hand, Nano is cash rich: a position it would never have been in without this litigation. A company not knowing where its next meal is coming from will behave very differently to one that doesn’t. Let’s see how growth plans play out, particularly around sensor tech.
On the other hand, let’s be frank, this isn’t justice. A titan of display has strong armed us into a pretty crud deal. Crime does pay it turns out.
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frustrated. I believed that this company was pursuing Samsung for just recompense, armed with a strong case, I shouldered a hell of a lot of risk for that reason. Can’t help but feel a bit short changed.
All the best intrusive. I’m joining the others and will be gone until the next RNS. All the best.
Sammy hasn’t made a bad call yet. Pretty arrogant of you to call him a clueless idiot when he correctly called a settlement whilst your previous monicker, Nigwitty told us categorically this would not be so, and you branded Sammy a ‘settlement ramper’ at that time too.
Intrusive, FH. He clocked off at 5. Another job well done in the boiler room haha.
I'm coming round to the conclusion that the best thing here is to just flat not engage with any of it. Just ignore it totally and move on. These people feed off the ire and attention. Just give them no other option but to argue with themselves.
FH - are the people at Simply Wall Street also bell ends?
You do realise that the articles written by simply Wall Street aren’t even written by people!? It’s algo generated articles, they all follow the same formula! Hahahahaha.
Christ what a total clown.