Member Info for BeContrarian

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.

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.