Member Info for BeContrarian

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.

I think that the fundamental issue that the 2nd RNS sought to clarify was the issue of ongoing royalties. To be fair (myself included) we thought this might be part of the settlement. Most of the 2nd RNS seems to be labouring this point IMO.

So whilst I don’t think that the price was allowed to go bananas on Friday (ironically thanks to LOAM) it could well have done in the weeks that followed if investors thought an ongoing licence was on the cards.

Naturally as the RNS was not super bullish the pendulum has swung back towards thinking the deal is utter dross! Sentiment eh!

I still think we will get a good deal but I think the main point Nano sought to clarify was the concept of patent peace within the settlement. 70% of the RNS is dedicated to this singular point.

Giga

Me: Now I don't know why LOAM is selling. I have no desire to speculate.

There is no confirmation bias from me.

I don't know if it's good news or bad news; I don't know if it matters or not. I was simply fact checking your confident assertion that LOAM selling was bad news when in fact there are a myriad of potential explanations. What's the point in making an inference on LOAM's selling when there are so many viable explanations?

A major fund selling a winner to counteracts a loser is not a personal conviction, it's the truth.

If a fund has no investors, then it's not going to be a fund for long.

And most investors that invest in 'safe' investments like funds, do not like to see whopping losses. That prompts a huge rush to the exits and hence the fund collapses.

So yes, a fund must absolutely sell winners to keep the show rolling and to maintain fund performance.

I cannot believe I am having to explain the basic mechanics of institutional investors, and how dramatically different their priorities, responsibilities and behaviours are compared to that of the average PI, to someone apparently so learned as you. Yet here we are.

"You think LOAM would sell a profitable investment to compensate for a losing one?

No! They would sell the losing investment and put the money where they think there are better prospects"

Giga please refrain from commenting on things you clearly know nothing about. Funds usually report on their performance quarterly. Sometimes that means having to sell really promising investments in order to maintain the performance of the fund, crystallising gains here to offset losses there. In that sense, major IIs often behave in the very opposite manner to that which you describe.

Now I don't know why LOAM is selling. I have no desire to speculate. But please leave the guesswork dressed up as fact.

There’s a certain logic to what you say Lobo but the implication of what you say in reality is of course tenner losing his job and an investigation. It just seems a bit too far fetched to me.

Well the SP may be cratering but the levels of guff on this board is certainly rising nicely!

It’s a sad state of affairs really. The bulls are sick of repeating the same points/waiting for the outcome meaning that it’s open season for bears and bashers on here. Don’t get me wrong I am angry at how the communications from Nanoco have been handled, I said the same last Monday. Whether it casts a cloud on this whole episode…I don’t know.

But equally I think the bashing is going a little too far now. The Tenner Witch hunt is in full swing I see. Stas20 is definitely a more sophisticated basher, but grade A basher he most certainly is. ‘Looking into’ the company today and oh no! Uncovering all these red flags. Utter guff. Give it a rest.

What’s equally unhelpful is guff by the likes of Giga who is living in a dream world where the litigation doesn’t count for much and has now elected for seeing everything as a metaphor. Particularly words like ‘transformational’ and ‘inflection points’. No one is denying the pivot to organic growth is vital but that’s not the conversation we, or the market is having right now and it seems to have escaped this poster that achieving a fair value settlement aka defending patents robustly, is a pretty vital component to Nanoco’s business strategy if profitable organic growth is the aim. You don’t get good organic growth if you lower the drawbridge for pirates and charge them 10p to loot your ship.

In my book there is lots riding on this outcome: Tenner’s credibility, whether Nanoco can be taken seriously as a company that sells high tech IP etc. but equally all this relentless bashing is totally premature. By all means let’s have those conversations if they are warranted by actual news, but let’s not butcher the man before he’s even announced to the market precisely what the deal is!

Giga that’s hogwash.

Let’s be more specific then, Tenner mentioned ‘inflection points’ (a phrase almost unique to finance)…are they intended to be metaphorical too?

It’s irritating how you portray this event as a ‘well it’s nice to come away with something it’s the taking part that counts’. Likewise, you keep referring to all those wanting to see rightful recompense for 10 years of corporate piracy as greedy rainbow chasers looking for a quick payday.

What many holders want to see is something that fairly reflects the tech that has been stolen and that fairly reflects the usage of those patents for the rest of their life. Do you not think Nano being lowballed is a big potential red flag in terms of Tenner’s credibility and our business model going forward (go ahead and steal the tech we can be bought cheap if it ever gets to court)?