Member Info for BeContrarian

The chat on here is just getting bizarre and every day seems a rinse and repeat of the same, tired, circular arguments. It’s boring and it insults people’s intelligence.

We’ve had the arguments for and against many times over can we please just let people make their own minds up from here on in? To continue to trot out the same arguments is just insulting to everyone’s intelligence, and tiresome.

It’s wishful thinking to suggest that the share will trade significantly above placing when it hits. The dilutive effect of raising that kind of capital at 1p a share is going to be pretty astounding to be honest when you think about shares in issue at IPO. Also worth noting if they saw news on the horizon that would come to their rescue they wouldn’t be looking to raise at just 1p.

You have to wonder why they are raising funds at such a heavy discount. I feel for LTHs as this is a good old fashioned shafting and a real sentiment basher.

Longer term this does have legs but a horrible precedent is being set raising at 1p and all the pumping in the world won’t change those facts.

Thanks for the update HH

So how does retail get involved in the main raise should it be approved by existing shareholders?

Is it through turner pope/crest or something else? The RNS is not exactly clear…

Ddubya, if he decided to give himself an easy ride at the QandA and sidesteps the big questions around the whole Loam correspondence, he may well end uk paying a high price for that…I really hope he doesn’t continue to insult the intelligence of retail with tired platitudes because we deserve better than that and he knows it.

For me the deal breaker is Pickett. If he goes we are toast, and this is what the board are saying if the motions are voted for.

I’m deeply unhappy with the settlement. Most are. I’m unhappier still with tenner’s inability to address the elephant in the room and comment on it, let’s hope he does so in the presentation.

But right now Nanoco needs Pickett. So I’ll be voting against.

NGR I don’t think people are disagreeing with that aspect of it at all. If everything was played with a straight bat and the settlement was in line with guidance, there was no dodgy loan on exorbitant terms, there was no vague RNS then another RNS, then I think there is no way we would be trading below cash.

The question is, if certain parties were playing with a loaded deck from the outset. That is a totally separate matter to the notion of financial stability for the company going forward. And so far it hasn’t even been close to getting answered or addressed by our frankly arrogant CEO.

I think people are trying to make the point that it’s all the underhandedness and unexplained areas that have destroyed the SP, not necessarily the settlement itself.

This company will be cash stripped, asset stripped, devalued and taken private on the cheap. That's the objective here.

Precisely. So you would’ve thought the current board would be doing a bit more than a few trite statements about how they’ve done nothing wrong if this is what’s at stake, I presume?

Voting them out would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

But the arrogance of Tenner and the board just sitting on their hands makes it tempting…

If the powers that be have any desire to win shareholder confidence, to show that the future of this company and of shareholder interests is really their priority then they really should be bringing in an immediate and radical salary restructure until the company is turning a profit. That or buying some shares. If we really are all in this together, but some damn skin in the game!! And if the company is headed where you say it is, this would be an easy, temporary knock to your wallet after all.

It just seems like they are doing very little, other than insulting our intelligence over the settlement, tk actually engage with shareholders and win their trust/backing.

Fair enough maxi. Don’t disagree with you there.

My point was the idea that it would impact on the SP. I think the market is telling you everything you need to know in terms of how guidance and the current board are valued by mr market.

Maxi I would have to disagree with you there.

We are operating below cash value so it doesn’t hold that changing expectations would shift the SP. The market is currently attributing a big fat 0 to the operational elements and whatever it is the company is guiding. If there was some value above cash in the SP then your point would hold water.

That is a sizeable redistribution.

What shareholders will want to see though is some news that will underpin the share price when the divi does happen. They must be confident of that to make this announcement…

There’s clearly a bit of an impasse here between two camps, and I don’t really understand why people need to be ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ the board on this one when the picture seems more nuanced.

The fact is, Hamoodi has alleged insider dealing. So, in essence, fraud. No matter how much the board apparently ‘welcomes scrutiny’ this will need to be accounted for, and a satisfactory answer provided. But to me, right now, the loan that was taken on very favourable terms to the lender does not stack up. If there has been fraud, the board must go.

Having said that, I don’t necessarily support the notion of sacking the board until the above is actually proven. To do so I would feel very much like a turkey voting for Christmas. If commercial orders are indeed on the horizon, I wouldn’t want to risk the company being destabilised like that at this important juncture.

But whichever way you cut it, the truth is hard to come by right now, and it’s weighing very heavily on the whole situation. Tenner mischaracterised the settlement on multiple occasions and for that I am angry at his conduct. Posters who claim that this was the sort of settlement that we were getting all along grossly misrepresent how things actually unfolded at that time. I’m beginning to wonder if history is repeating itself with this fabled commercial order. I’m holding because the cash makes Nanoco robust, but my belief in the board hangs by a thread at the minute.

I do find it a bit galling that they see fit to maintain a communication strategy of months with nothing but radio silence, yet as soon as their salaries are under direct threat and a few cages have been rattled, they are straight on the case with an intra day RNS!

Can’t help but feel the humble PI is being disrespected in all this.

Slides 10, 13 and 14 put some more meat on the bones of allegations that Tenner and Co should, and must put to bed. Fraud is being alleged.

It’s hard not to agree with the evident anger and frustration that is portrayed in the report.

I’m not against the concept of an EGM per se, but a lot hinges on how firm the proposed candidate list actually is. Last thing we want is to sack the board and then these proposed candidates come to nothing?

There’s a risk also with such instability that we would scare customers away.

I’m really not sure about this one. I’m still angry at the settlement but surely there is a risk to us all if the company enters a period of massive instability.

To suggest we PIs knew everything there was to know about this case is at best naive. On the outside looking in, it looked cast iron, and like so many others on here I was disappointed by the settlement. Having that said, I accept, looking at all the redacted dockets and the mountain of information locked away under NDA, that I don’t know all the facts. Far from it. So whilst I share the frustrations of many, I do find the hand wringing and calling for BT’s head a bit overdone now.
I think many of us created causal links (a+b must equal c) that gave us a cast iron case with a simple narrative of wilful infringement and countless riches. But I worry that many are simply making the same mistake in the opposite direction now: trying to retrofit a set or arguments to create a narrative of BT engaging in clandestine back handers and declaring this company an abject failure.
The uncomfortable truth is that we don’t know, and might never know, the full range of reasons behind the settlement, and fabricating narratives based on our frustrations is not going to get us any closer to the truth.
My own personal conviction is that there is still another twist in this tale, and that Nanoco may yet collaborate with Samsung in the future. But we just have to accept that uncertainty is likely to persist for some time yet.
As for the SP? It’s well oversold given that Nanoco now has a level of robustness that it’s never had before, and that negative(!) value is currently being attributed to IP and patents. But equally there is a lot riding on commercial viability. I think if we land the contract that’s been mooted, this bags overnight.
So it’s a frustrating hold at present but one has to make room for the unknown as an opportunity rather than a threat IMO.

For the past 18 months here, all pump and dumps have never succeeded in achieving anything more than a 30% rise. We are now sitting around d 100% above recent lows.

I don’t know if there’s anything in it, but from a purely price action standpoint, this would be a very unusual pump and dump, and I don’t think the hype is here as it was pre phase 3 to create a purely momentum built rise like this.

Exciting regardless.

Eccles you are mistaken. Pallas Point 6, the loan note, needs explaining and Pallas seem to have proof that better deals were on the table. It’s also not consistent when you think equity raises via shareholders have been very regular for this company. The loan note narrative is compelling if you ask me, and it needs explaining.

NGR and HH there is no use going over old ground.

The accusations levelled at the company by Pallas are an accurate and viable summary of events. NGR I don’t think there is a way to spin this whereby Tenner gets off without a more detailed accounting of what actually happened. Within Pallas’s letter there are serious claims with potentially criminal implications that will need to be addressed and if there has been no wrongdoing, the claims are easily proven false and can be dismissed. Would Pallas a potential libel/slander case against them if it all turns out to be hot air? I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Meanwhile there is no point in either trying to defend the board or to twist the knife either. Let’s see what Tenner et al have to say in their defence.

If we are braced (ironically) for another legal battle it better not be company money being used to defend director’s positions.

To me the claims made are not idle threats and are points made in plain English that need to be answered and clarified. Either get on with proving your innocence or ship off I say.