Member Info for BeContrarian

‘ that the equation has now moved on from how many million infringing TVs Samsung have sold to how much is a fair price for a one-off, global, perpetual, non-exclusive licence. This number may seem, and in reality probably will be, almost arbitrary’

I do agree with this to be fair. It is going to be a case of ‘making a hand to fit the glove’ in terms of whatever ‘calculations’ are offered. The truth of it is that Samsung will likely have made an ‘all in’ offer of x millions, rather than some per unit offer. What this all boils down to now is how high that figure is and precisely what we mean by ‘fair’.

This is where Tenner earns his crust. Whilst the suggestion that his very tenure is at stake here, his reputation in the eyes of shareholders certainly is. I know some on here would be happy with a few million in the bank, but that isn’t justice, it doesn’t warrant the tail risk of not going to court and it doesn’t send a great message out to other would be infringers off we settle for peanuts. Lots riding on this for all concerned.

What I find so sad about it all is that we now firmly reside within a false market. Look at the posts yesterday and you can see that the sheer confusion is causing frayed nerves. Effective price discovery is simply impossible, and conflicting comms have served to swing sentiment violently one way or another. As if the situation couldn’t get any messier, you have LOAM selling and fuelling bearish sentiment.
What an abject mess.
I am going to say it again because it bears repeating; this massive moment we’ve all been waiting for, a moment that may yet be wonderful or terrible; should not have been handled in this way! Long term holders are left reading tea leaves and having to fend off the ridiculous comments of day traders and may have been flushed out or will be flushed out in the coming days if the SP dips further.
Two opportunities (Friday and Monday) were missed to suspend the market whilst the settlement is finalised, we have seen nothing from the company to indicate whether that was even pursued, ironic given that Tenner mentioned it as a possibility during the trial. Instead, what we have is a 50% top to bottom decline in just 5 trading days. In no book is this acceptable for a company waiting on news like this.
If the BOD is reading this, please get a handle on this situation. Thank you.

‘GirlyBrianT’ interesting choice of name by the way - your comments are sailing very close to slander and I would calm it down if I were you. Somehow this board is plumbing the depths of new lows. Jesus.

JG, it seems simple to me. The market hates uncertainty. And it hates uncertainty that's been in many ways engineered by the company themselves even more. LOAM's selling is adding more fuel to that fire.
The pre trial price was (foolishly it would seem) attaching some value to the notion of some sort of ongoing licence in the case of a successful outcome.
Now we have a settlement (great) but the tone struck by the RNS Monday has led to speculation that the IP has been sold for a song. If that is the case, by logical extension, doubt would be case over the way it's all been handled, and then you are into more systemic/fundamental doubt territory. I agree that this is all speculation, but investors are going to speculate by their very nature, and Monday's RNS has actively promoted speculation in its vagueness.
For my own part I hold firmly to the notion that Tenner has done very well so far and so I am putting my faith in him securing fair value for the IP. Less than 300 million as a settlement and I really do wonder...

And there it is ladies and gents. Vintage Nigwit/Nigwitty/Gigawitt. Some things never change.

Giga:

"The company has not set any expectations of a numerical value so they can not refer to the lower end of any expectations they've set. Therefore, the expectations must come from elsewhere."

Surely you recognise, in the absence of Nano actually pointing to where the guidance is that they are apparently referring to, the complete absurdity of your comment?

Surely this very discussion signals how poor Monday's RNS was worded. It can be taken in pretty much any which way. Face it, the guidance is as clear as mud.

The good news is the SP has created a lot of room for uplift based on even a very conservative settlement amount.
The figure I have pegged in my mind for anything even approaching ‘fair’ is 300 million. Less than that we absolutely should’ve rolled the dice in court. A low end damages with a multiplier would put us somewhere similar just for past US sales alone. with injunctions pending elsewhere we would’ve turned the screw for a big settlement. Less than 300 mil and I think we have been truly diddled.

Giga you are sidestepping the main point!

"I found the market reaction on Friday strange"

Exactly. There should not have been a 'market reaction' until more was known. End of. Instead everyone was left swirling around clutching at estimates that swung from wild optimism on Friday to pessimism Monday. That is not just a bunch of headless chickens, that is PIs who had done their research and prior to Monday's guidance thought we were set for a bumper payout. It's done now, so I won't keep crying over spilt milk, but the reaction Friday, fresh off the back of bringing the mighty Samsung to heel on the 11th hour, was entirely understandable in the context of the RNS we got that day.

As we currently stand, there is a near 50% top to bottom range within the SP, well inside 4 trading days. Whichever way you cut it, there has been a serious misstep from the company in terms of either ensuring the comms was right in the first place, or securing market suspension whilst the details are finalised. Before anyone says 'people should invest in premium bonds if they don't like it', I cannot help but feel angry that well meaning investors have been subjected to such volatility, especially when this could have been avoided by means outlined above.
Based solely on the company guidance, one could reasonably reach a conlcusion that Nanoco is in a position to receive very low amounts (in the tens of millions after legal funding etc etc) all the way through to the high hundreds of millions. To be clear I will absolutely remain invested until the details of the settlement are announced, but it seems fundamentally unfair that this share remains a day trader's plaything whilst the market is scratching their heads as to which point on a colossal sliding scale we might end up. That's no way to treat genuine investors IMO.

Brilliant to hear from you Lobo you’ve been missed. Good analysis and fair assessment.

Agreed Hawi. It’s also annoying to see comments like ‘suicide cults’ and ‘avarice’ being bandied around when in reality a few LTHs have expressed a bit of disappointment about how this has all been handled. Why the need to be so disparaging about people who have expressed legitimate concerns?

Most of the old gang on here have been very measured in their response. I agree with others that there is lots of value here and if Tenner is what he says he is then we will all be very happy shareholders at the conclusion.

But a crucial distinction must be drawn between eventual value and how this has been handled by the company in the run up to that: I don’t think anyone can really argue that this situation has maximised volatility and loaded the dice in favour of day traders. It’s just not a good look and we shouldn’t be conflating the issues of value and poor communication and using one to justify the other.

Exactly bass and I think where LTH’s were initially irked is that ‘lower end’ (of what?!) does not provide any clarity to the market. One could reasonably calculate past sales future projected sales, uplift for worldwide and end up with an eye watering range of potential outcomes by many millions of hundreds of pounds.
It was the movement from a position of relative clarity to reading tea leaves that hacked off many yesterday. I absolutely get the board’s desire to guide the market a little, but yesterday’s RNS was at best opaque, especially in the context of the fact that genuine investors have been left to navigate high volatility and the worst that day traders can throw at them. It’s not been a pleasant ride for new entrants to this share I can imagine, and that’s a shame.

If you’re a long term holder, and feel that what Tenner has done, and what he has to say, carries any weight at all, then the RNS starts and ends thus:

‘In evaluating the settlement offer and concluding that it provides a fair outcome for the Company and its shareholders’

A fair outcome for the company and its shareholders. I’ll take that.

Tenner seems commercially focused and seems to be developing good pipeline for the company. He’s always had me convinced from that angle in terms of investor meets etc. However, to forego a licensing agreement and let Samsung off the hook, with commercial viability as the ultimate goal, that I’m really quite surprised about, and it’s come as a big surprise to the market too. A one off sale of your IP seems like an odd way to generate revenue if you ask me.
For my money, without a licensing agreement the settlement needs to be a healthy figure. If it isn’t, it does make you wonder if Tenner blinked just when we needed him to say ‘get stuffed’. For now, I hold him to his word on fair value and look forward to the detail.

Forgive the poor grammar of my impassioned rant haha.

Henry I share your sentiments.
It all boils down to what this actual settlement looks like now but there’s no way of cutting the manner of communication that doesn’t raise questions. It’s not been handled well.
As for the long term holders who have shouldered so much risk for so long, were there when the very existence of Nanoco was a foregone conclusion, they are expecting a settlement that does not sell this company short. Especially if a forward licensing agreement is not on the cards and is intended as an all encompassing settlement.

I absolutely get the company’s desire to move on from this whole fiasco…but if we get something like 100m I don’t think there will be many LTHs who will feel anything other than upset and anger that we have been sold down the river, and if that we would all have supported Nanoco in proceeding to trial.
I will happily wait for detail from the company as to what this settlement.

But it’s important that we remember that this is all conjecture, which brings me full circle to my original point that the whole purpose of an RNS is to combat conjecture, not fuel it.

I’ll await the details of the settlement. Feels like a huge overreaction today and traders capitalised on it.
I think the RNS was a misstep, it has tried to cool a market that had hardly overreacted in the first place, and has attempted to clarify but produced the opposite effect. The shares should’ve been suspended til the detailed were known. I will be mightily disappointed if they’ve capitulated with a poor deal at the 11th hour, I just cannot see that happening. See you all again for the full RNS!

The fact that we are here reading runes in this way suggests the RNS was a misstep. Either suspend the market and wait for the details, or don’t say anything at all. This has fuelled speculation and misinterpretation. I don’t think there is any way they could have worded that RNS, short of actual details of the deal, that would have produced anything other than confusion.

That said the Friday price action has still created lots of headroom here. The bone of contention is the litigation vs patents which I’ve expressed my view on.

Exactly Ceejay. I’ve read the RNs a few times and there’s been a misunderstanding. The settlement removes risk of all future litigation. It doesn’t give Samsung carte Blanche to use the patents. This settlement deals with past infringement and makes the patents whole. A future licensing agreement must be made separately!!

Granted the RNs is opaque but this is how I read ot