Member Info for BeContrarian

Genuinely gutted to have missed out on this today. This was exactly the sort of thing I was waiting for. Too busy in the garden with the kids, so it’s hard to be too sore about it! ;) have a good weekend all

Nigwit, you are painting this narrative of a realist truth seeker trying to wade through a horde of mindless rampers when the reality is nothing of the sort. My own experience of this board is well reasoned posters who are well aware of (and often discuss) the downside risks.

I'm inclined to agree with you that it won't hurt to be guided at the lower end of the awards spectrum. I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on that particular point. Heck, you could even make the argument that ANY discussion of awards is ramping as it's cart before the horse discussion.

And that's where I think you are going wrong: we are simply thrashing out hypothetical scenarios. I don't think there are many, if any, of the regular posters here who are trying to ramp this stock to trade around, there is nowhere near the buzz on here as you get on boards like GGP, TLS, AVCT etc which really are shark pits for traders.

Which leads nicely into why Nano isn't trading higher. It's so easy to get Myopia on chat boards like this and to think the eyes of the world are on us. In the cold light of day, 99% of investors don't know about, or couldn't give a c**p about some virtually earningsless UK small cap. All of us that are backing this stock are contrarians as this is far from a 'safe' (whatever that means) investment and so it will only ever attract a certain type of investor - alike to a venture capitalist. There are handsome rewards on offer, but a fee must be paid, and that fee is uncertainty, frustration, volatility, worry, swimming against the tide for recognition and exposure...and therein is pretty much the only opportunity the market gives us to generate alpha.

Hopefully that is sufficiently balanced!

What’s exciting here is that even the most modest figure put us in multibag territory in terms of legal conclusions.
Commercialisation, which BT seems very sure of, would equally mean we likely at least bag.
As shown on the last presentation, there is very clear pipeline. Within 2 years we may have more than one commercial agreement.
Pre SNG I may well have bet the farm here but that to me seemed nailed on so I don’t 100% trust my own judgement. Once bitten and all that.

But if things pan out how we think they might. This could be epic.

So why are we still at 40p? There is still goi g to be a lot of fear here, going back a lot of years. Lots of older PIs who got burned taking an exit on the rising prices. Markets generally taking a toasting. Lack of earnings at present. Nano has never been a duster, it’s just had rotten luck…and luck never seems to get the respect it deserves when talking about backing companies. The margins between winners and losers are often wafer thin and Nano so very nearly ended up on the other side of that equation all those years ago. Still, I think the tide is finally turning here.

If we get Samsung then I feel fairly certain that others will follow. Tenner has said as much recently. This could be a long and fruitful partnership for both. Just think Nano are focusing on playing the cards they’ve been dealt first.

Feeks you’ve touched on what I think is a key point, and something I wholly expect our legal team to have front and centre in their arguments.

There is an argument that Samsung were motivated by cad free dots as a marketing ploy/to be greener for the planet but remember, at the time, the ROhS exemption on Cad free dots was soon to expire and looming large for all cad dots. It was why there was so much hype around this stock stock 10 years ago.

Samsung stole the tech because it guaranteed future compliance once it had scaled up. That is the motivation.

I agree with a lot of what you've said there, especially the idea that we should hopefully be pursuing Samsung in other jurisdictions before long. An injunction in any territory will seriously up the ante. The only question there is would this be Mintz' decision solely or would our legal funder need to green light this too? Hopefully those conversations are taking place.

But if I may, a 47-0 slam dunk PTAB isn't something I think Samsung saw coming. I mean even hardened LTHs here didn't see that one coming! There's no knowing what conversations are going on in the background, but if you don't think that somehow changes the dynamics in terms of the likelihood of settlement then we will have to agree to disagree on that particular point...and I certainly don't think anyone holding that view is getting ahead of themselves.

"They had plenty of time to stop the legal action commencing and weren't bothered to do"

Nigwit there is a fundamental misconception here that I think warrants further discussion. Before legal proceedings were commenced, Nanoco was just another minnow that they thought could be squashed/would just go away. Til this point, what has been the incentive for Samsung to settle, what has been forcing them to the table? Not much I would say...So in response to your comment it's not a question of whether or not samsung are bothered or not, rather what is legally compelling them to be bothered?

And that's why PTAB and subsequent trial date arrangement is so important. It has turned the tables completely. You can't use previous form and try and transpose it onto the current situation. So much has changed.

Just playing devil’s advocate here… Samsung could easily argue the dots need a certain chip to drive them, certain materials to optimise the display etc. the costs could stack up (whether this is true in reality is not exactly relevant because unless we get a warrant giving us access to such confidential info (chances: slim to none) you can easily see how Samsung could explain away all their profits through ‘costs’).

I see the logic in what you’re saying Sammy and I think there is a strong argument that a product which flies its flag on the unique tech we provided means Mintz are likely to push for something which goes beyond bog standard licensing fee.

Sadly I can’t see it being anywhere near the figure you’ve quoted as a significant chunk of that premium is probably accounted for in production costs, and it would be hard for Mintz to prove and zero in on precisely how much of that extra $1000 is sheer profit based on the tech.

I do, however, think that the figure will be significantly higher than what Edison are guiding. We must remember that court is not just about recompense, it’s also about punishment and prevention. Any court award will include damages else what is the point in courts in terms of enforcement of the law? I reckon Samsung will have the book chucked at them (if it gets there)

I share your opinion Matty. Imagine trying to squeeze your 20% out by selling when we hit 22p, only to find it carried on marching up to 27p! Don’t think it’s worth trading this at the minute. Sadly, with nearly 8 mill shares changing hands yesterday, volume is usually a signal that traders are in town.

Still, as I said yesterday, think there will be opportunities, and I’ll be in for any dips if momentum tails off in the coming weeks.

Thank you Hawi!

Important to keep feet on the ground. For sure others are seeing the potential we’ve seen for a long time but there is still obvious risk here. Nothing has been signed, nothing agreed yet.

Current SP is fair value in terms of risk/reward in my opinion.

Side note: I bet RG is kicking himself at all that missed profit selling his shares when he did!

Feeks we have been of like mind for some time. I believe we both piled in after transcripts at 19p and again at PTAB at 37p?

Welcome aboard Sammy and thank you for your observations. This is a great board with some amazing posters. It’s nice to see ‘new’ investors finally cottoning on to what is going on here and the potential on offer.

This is the sort of price I expected off the back of PTAB 47-0. Clearly the market likes the clarity around timelines. But in terms of risk it’s practically identical to when PTAB so goes to show how good a price that was. Decent value at this point but I am happy to sit on my shares for now and will dip in again if we get a momentum lull in the coming weeks.

I agree with Feeks. The open market offered the opportunity for a while and was only because of the work package they knew the offer would comfortably sail.
Also worth mentioning that manual broker deals are prohibitively expensive so unless buying loads of shares better to just suck it up and pay a bit more on the open market for what it’s worth. It’s always the way that with popular fundraisers the humble PI is always back of tbe line.

Any long term followers on here will know I have said for a long time that settlement is the likeliest outcome. Today’s news raises the chances of that considerably in my view.

Samsung are many things: morally bankrupt, corrupt, disdaining of innovation and collaboration, I could go on. But they are also pragmatic. You don’t get to multi billion market caps through arriving at decisions that make no financial sense.

Right now, settlement makes a lot of sense. What a beautiful irony it is that the ticking clock is now Samsung’s enemy, not ours. The window of opportunity to strike a deal that saves some reputation and gives Samsung at least some control of how this will all go is closing fast. The alternative, throw the dice and place yourself at the mercy of a judicial system that hasn’t offered yoh a whiff of hope thus far, potentially awarding punitive damages beyond anything they’d ever imagined.

Time to get the cheque book out I think.

Accordingly, the Court finds Samsung’s assertion that the Federal Circuit will reverse the Final Written Decisions too speculative to justify continuing the stay.

In other words, judge is saying ‘I call bullshytt’.

Understandable concerns articulately worded Titan. For my own part I think the latest flu contract shows they are alive to the need to raise margins. As another poster has alluded to, this scaling up is part and parcel of an early phase company and I expect there were a few one off costs thrown in there. So overall I think the margins have some context and are likely to improve.
Where I do agree with the disappointment is again the disparity between CF’s guidance and the reality. I totally understand that as a CEO he wants to talk up the company at any opportunity, but missing guidelines consistently does nothing but hurt sentiment more. We are big boys and girls we can handle the truth. That’s all we want. Honest, warts and all guidance.