The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
If before the trial I'd have said: 'would you take a 'fair' worldwide settlement from Samsung' the vast majority would've said yes. I don't think many would've turned that down.
And yet here we are, with a settlement in the offing, and the SP is about or below the pre settlement price. It just seems so odd that only now people lose their nerve about management. I can't help but think some people have overthought this, got into their own heads, and convinced themselves that the situation is somehow different when it's not. LOAM's selling added further fuel to that fire.
I think bulls and bears can both agree that given the comms in the RNS, regardless of how this plays out, it will seem so obvious in hindsight. But if it turns out well, it will be a cautionary tale against allowing yourself to be talked out of your own investment strategy by soothsayers. I do like this BB but it naturally can make you too close to see the wood for the trees when you are trying to coexist with mudslingers.
Do we reckon he’s still out there? I’d have thought it was the legal eagles thrashing this out now?
I can understand why expectations are low, it’s pretty basic psychology. After the exuberance on Friday anything other than the most bullish RNS was going to be met with an equally enthusiastic opposite reaction to the downside. And here we are. Nanoco have hopefully learned some lessons from that.
But the fact remains that
A) cash runway, Tenner’s credibility as a CEO, and the 11th hour nature of the agreement do not support a low ball deal
B) it’s important to remember that the main thrust of the RNS was to clarify the concept of patent peace. I guess rightly, Nano wanted to guide the market that this. For whatever reason we’ve been obsessing over high middle or low settlement values but read the RNS again and you’ll see that most of tje RNS seems to really nail that point.
I’m confident.
Giga, whilst I appreciate the update that you have sold and admire you having the courage to follow through on your convictions, I’m hopeful you are not going to become another FH. This board doesn’t need two prolific derampers without a penny invested.
You have your reasons Giga and, unlike FH at least you have the courage to act on your convictions.
All the best for the future, we’ve got very different perspectives on this and we’ve had our disagreements but I wish you well.
* Nanoco AGREED to settle with Samsung at the 11th hour. Samsung knew they were toast and therefore made an acceptable offer.
* Tenner is satisfied that the settlement offers a ‘fair outcome’ for the company and its shareholders.
* The objectives of Tenner and shareholders are well aligned. Tenner stated many times they were happy to go to trial, and that being lowballed with such a promising case puts his tenure as CEO at risk.
* Patent peace is the overarching objective as outlined by the RNS the ‘fair value’ must therefore acknowledge and encompass worldwide sales and future royalties.
* The agreement is not yet binding. So there are safeguards against us being strong armed by Samsung into a bad deal, in addition to the 37-0 slam dunk PTAB and the at present active legal action in overseas territory
* As CEO, Tenner has not done anything yet that warrants anything other than the faith and confidence of long term investors.
Those are the facts as I see them. All the rest is just spin, bad mouthing and pumping agendas.
He also gets to that view by parroting the usual dull platitudes about how he’s litigated many times, how it’s stressful, Nano will just want it out of the way, screw fair value they’ll just be glad to see the back of it all etc etc.
Honestly he’s so far into his own fantasy world with all this he’s halfway to Narnia.
Questions that the RNS doesn’t address but to which answers are needed to reliably arrive at a figure:
1. Whether the settlement offer made from Samsung is a gross dollar amount offer or a per unit figure
2. To what extent the projected future earnings of the tech is still being debated and valued
3. Potential sticking points over Samsung’s third party supply chain and how value might be extracted from Samsung there
4. The issue of revenue vs earnings vs the value of the QD film only.
So as you can see, there are sufficient variables just in those 4 points to arrive at a staggering range of potential settlement outcomes.
One final point, Tenner’s tone in the last RNS initially struck me as bearish and I must admit it did spook me. Now there is of course still a chance we are getting lowballed. I’m not ruling that out. But equally, what other tone could he take? Now is not the time for vainglorious self congratulation and talk of transformation. The work is yet to be done, the bird is not yet in hand, and so an objective, measured tone was absolutely needed. BT was trashed by some for tje RNS but the more I think about it the more he couldn’t have said otherwise. Sure the RNS lacks sufficient detail to do anything other than speculate, I’ve already voiced my frustrations on that point, but I still believe shareholders will be happy at the end.
I really wouldn’t set too much by Edison, or any broker notes to be honest. As is the way, they are simply synthesising the available information like the rest of us. Sure they might have a few boffins on their books to crunch some numbers, present some pretty charts and give some ball park figures, but in my experience broker notes in terms of price targets etc are wrong as often as they are right.
As Taleb would probably suggest, for fairly obvious reasons, investors (people with skin in the game) shouldn’t really be paying too much heed to broker notes (written by people with no skin in the game).
I know this is going to the outer borders of speculation here but just wanted people's thoughts on this really. Something BBD said yesterday got me thinking...
I am guessing it is likely that the tech Nanoco stole all those years ago has likely been improved, refined, developed, maybe even reimagined since then. Of course nothing has been said by the company about the settlement etc but I am just wondering...given the massive slice of market share Nano tech has effectively given Samsung, I am guessing they would be very interested to see what else Nano have up their sleeve in terms of tech. I really wouldn't be surprised to see some renewed interest from Samsung in some of our display products and despite everything that's happened, a potential working relationship blossoming. Question is, for that to happen, how do you see a relationship between these two working out, given the history?
FH: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
‘With one or two exceptions you’re a bunch of chancers and hustlers making it up as you go along’
I remember Nigwit mark2 making similar remarks before the inevitable implosion.
I shall ask Nigwit mark 3 the same question I asked back then: if we are just chancers and hustlers, clearly this board must be of little value to you, so why on earth do you spend such an inordinate amount of time here? Genuine question.
Oh dear. Are we witnessing the blowing up of the 3rd incarnation of the Wit dynasty?
I asked yesterday if you’re genuine conviction is a low settlement (tens of mil) and if so, why buy at 40p?
To me that suggests either:
1. You don’t actually believe what you are guiding others
2. You are a terrible investor who buys even though they think it’s going to drop like a stone in a matter of days.
Now number 2 is patently absurd I would’ve thought. But the mask slipped when you told us you bought at 40p. You’re clearly a bit more bullish than you’re letting on. No one in their sane mind would buy pre settlement if they honestly thought it was pants.
But instead of admitting your ambivalence on the matter, you double down with the insults as of everyone has it wrong on here and we are all rainbow chasing morons after a quick payday.
I remember Nigwit and Nigwitty going a similar way. Rather than accept, once having inconsistencies pointed out, that you may in fact be fumbling in the dark like the rest of us, you push the gospel according to you even harder, eventually blow up and delete your account.
I have no desire to continue this spat any further but I have hopefully succeeded in pointing out a central inconsistency here between the view you apparently hold and your behaviour which suggests otherwise.
You haven’t answered the question
As I said yesterday, if that is your genuine conviction, there is no way you’re a buyer at 40p. It doesn’t make a jot of sense.
FH why are you using ‘we’ if you sold? Odd
“ It’s not as much as you want but it’s something and it guarantees your company future and saves time, money and worry. We can try and ask for more but maybe you should consider it”
This is the most deluded rubbish I’ve heard on here for some time. And that’s really saying something!
For those that've been here a while… I’d be prepared to wager a fair amount of dough that FH is our former resident ‘in then out but never really that confident in anything the business is doing’ investor Being the Banker.
Interesting to see GirlyBrian’s early morning rant has been wiped from the board.