Member Info for bluerill

Huh. looks like the offending post has been removed. Anti-disinformation software working better

Once again parsnip, you give everyone here pause to wonder about whether you are a bad actor. These are completely normal share incentive awards vesting for the management options/shares plan, so the shares need to be registered as part of the Company's capital. There is nothing unusual here and those shares are certainly NOT for sale in any way.

First off, you confirmed MY post, at least with the early part of your only coherent sentence, '.....The TRAM cash will eventually arrive I am sure....' However, the rest of this post is precisely the same at the balance of your previous: meaningless blather

N/a

You started so promisingly, BS....TRAM is a US hedge fund. They are sending US dollars. San Leon would have a money center bank account to receive those dollars. Any issue would reside with the major, international, household name banks involved in that transaction, period (eg., possible some moron put a hold on the funds simply bc TRAM were sending such a large sum to a company (SLE) that does business in Nigeria. Sad, but possible). Readers can therefore ignore the rest of swanny's post beyond the first sentence.

That sounds sensible enough gffy, but is very likely not the way to look at it. If there is a block in the system, the bank or banks involved will assert that they are not required to provide ANY reasons or explanation, which is what can make these situations so intensely frustrating. Therefore, rather than junkie's mudslinging speculation where either SLE or TRAM or both 'know' but for some reason are withholding that information for instance (a very, very serious, possibly even criminal, infraction, by the way), it is much more likely that actually, neither party are, at this stage anyway, certain why this has happened in the first place, and the NOMAD (and/or the FCA) would therefore prohibit SLE from publishing an RNS with what they would doubtless consider guesswork without sufficient corroborative evidence at this stage, no matter how 'well-informed' that guesswork might be. I recognise that my scenario also has some weaknesses, but my confidence that I'm in the right general area is because one thing we can all be certain of right now: in a situation like this, regulators - both internal and external - will be absolutely crawling up Fanning's you-know-what and so there is even less room to mess around with the public messaging than there might otherwise be, which as I wrote already, is very low to begin with these days.

N/a

Maybe not as bad as it reads: from the other board: '.....I reckon the money likely IS coming one way or the other, otherwise the NOMAD would have compelled the Company to say so. I admit that it's been nearly 2 months since the original deal with TRAM was announced, but that's kind of the point. Given the time they've had to investigate, if there weren't a credible reason for the delay or evidence that the funds were in fact sent in the first place, I reckon the NOMAD would never have allowed a statement like this morning's to go out in this massively overly cautious AIM reg environment. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that there IS evidence of the funds having been dispensed and, for some reason that cannot be disclosed yet, they are stuck in the settlement system (notice I wrote 'most likely'. I am certainly not discounting other, more negative explanations, and that also doesn't mean my partial explanation won't end in tears), and thus we will likely get a further update reasonably soon....'

honestly, tgtd, you're starting to ****** the conversation here. banging on about one point or another in favour of a nasdaq listing, in light of the vast preponderance of evidence that nano's current size, capital structure and special situation niche that it just won't - and shouldn't - happen, is devolving into needless mental masturbation. we get it: you would love to see a listing on the famous exchange because you fancy it would serve as a validation of sorts of nano as a relevant tech company and hopefully then attract more sophisticated us investors who would re-price the shares even before the company gets to the point of commercial traction. frankly, in the end, you may well be right, but for all the very relevant reasons which have been laid out for you, the argument against pursuing a listing at this point in time, and likely for several years to come if ever, is simply too strong. for all intents and purposes, it just isn't something nano will be considering now or likely for the next few years. enough already

I think I did a pretty thorough job of explaining why a NASDAQ listing is not in the company's near future. It's too small, too niche, too cash rich and thus too much a specialist investment to make it plausible for the next couple years.

Tgtd - there are indeed UK hedge funds and several are already long (in fact, though Lombards are largely a long-only institution, believe it or not, several of their funds are able to go short individual shares and indexes, just like a hedge fund, including the fund(s) that houses the NANO position), but there are a heck of lot more in the US. Ddbuya - I'm not sure I understand your question. Of course they're not mutually exclusive, nor does one necessitate the other either. Regardless, this is not a Company either in its capital structure or capital requirements, which is in any way a likely candidate for a listing on NASDAQ. it's just not in the Company's future for now, sorry.

Tgtd/ddubya - let me put it all a slightly different way: at present and for the foreseeable future, NANO is a £50m pile of cash with some quantum dots and IP attached. It is the very definition of what is colloquially known in the hedge fund world as a special situation, and thus I'm certain that the bulk of meetings with new investors that management are having are with hedge funds who are by definition more than capable of buying shares across most/all the major international markets and currencies. So even when the share price doubles as I expect it to simply on the back of a re-valuation of its core businesses, it'll still be another 2x+ in the share price and a couple of years, before any kind of listing in the US would be appropriate or needed.

Nano management are in NYC on what city types like to call a 'non-deal roadshow' - essentially a series of presentations to institutional investors both new and existing for the purpose of simply highlighting the investment proposition (ie., why the shares are cheap and the instos should consider building or adding to their positions, rather than as a precursor to raising money, which NANO obviously has no need to do) - and not in any way to discuss or plan for a NASDAQ listing. The reason shareholders should be more than mildly excited about this news is: 1. small cap UK companies - no matter how desperately cheap they may be - don't do these formal roadshows hardly at all anymore in this grinding small cap bear market, mainly because almost every single UK company that may want to do such a tour of US instos would necessarily be deemed to be doing it precisely as a precursor to raising money, and US hedge funds and long-onlys DO NOT want to see such companies right now and therefore often reject out-of-hand any such meeting requests with prejudice. Said a different way, the fact that NANO seems to have a decent schedule of funds to see that includes many who are looking at the investment case for the first time, is at least a partial endorsement of the unique risk-reward case of building a position at these prices ('...Listen mate, it may not be the most liquid name but you get an interesting, growing IP exploitation business + the real prospect(s) of significant commercial production for less than nothing + around 5-7p of pro-forma net cash, AND in a couple of months you get 62.5%-75% (and very possibly more if activists get involved) of your investment back in some form of capital return, so risk/reward is ridiculously skewed in your favour and liquidity is waaaaay less important than it normally might be.....'); 2. Also, doing a non-deal roadshow now in the US so close to year-end and the near-promised breakthrough commercial deal, demonstrates a level of confidence by management in the story they're telling in the first place. Of course the proof of this pudding is whether the hugely favourable valuation-risk/reward balance and the fundamental story are enough to entice new buyers in over the next couple weeks. FINALLY: some shareholders here need to forget about hoping for a NASDAQ listing as some sort of magic re-rating system for foreign tech companies like NANO. First off, the entire process is an arduous, expensive pain in butt, that has long since stopped being worth the effort and cost. Small cap NASDAQ has not suffered as badly as small cap AIM to be sure, but it has been a particularly miserable 18 months over there as well and the market is riddled with cheap-looking biotechs, SPACs, etc, all down 80%+ from their highs (despite the massive short squeeze in a lot of names just this past week!), so a total of no one over there is waiting for a Nanoco listing anytime soon. The mystique of a NASDAQ listing is well and truly over

Kooba's right again. Company management is in the US presenting the story to institutions, both existing shareholders and new

And by the way, when I write 'corrections', I'm not referring to anything important like the size, price or the names of the parties involved. I'm talking about detailed information mistakes that apply to the accurate delivery of the shares to the relevant accounts in exchange for cash on the other side, the stuff generally contained in the t'settlement instructions' and part of back office operations that are rarely discussed on boards like this.

So we're clear, the systems you and other retail investors use are certainly more informative and accurate than in the past but they are far from comprehensive and frankly, even if you had a Bloomberg terminal you might not be able to decipher some of the corrective trades, double-counting by brokers anxious to try to artificially enhance their market share, etc. In this case, I know there was only the one trade and the rest you saw on your system were meaningless trade corrections because I spoke to one of the market makers involved. However, in future, a dead giveaway is that the original bargain was 6m and the subsequent ones were the exact same size and one was exactly double the 6 and they were reported mostly next day AFTER the close of that day. All strong evidence that they were meaningless trade corrections. Trust me, nothing more to come out of this.

It's true, qdnano. All the 'trades' you mentioned were just attempted corrections on details of the original trade of 6m. There were settlement problems with the 6m share trade, so you often see those kind of trade corrections go through later in the day or early the next when that happens. Conclusion: there has only been one trade for 6m, which LOAM bought

The 6m reported late yesterday was just a technical one related to the original trade on Wednesday, Nano. Nothing new traded

I'm not sure I understand your question, maxi, but I never said this was typical of large block trades, etc. However, what I described is what happened today. A seller and a buyer were put together by a intermediary broker. Simples

Yeah, it is a bit 'wow' frankly. The market has a way of pricing these sorts of blocks efficiently. Even if the block hasn't formally been shopped around for a while, it probably has crept out that there was a big potential seller around for the last couple of weeks, which in turn has eaten away at sentiment and eventually pushed the sp lower. Clearing this massive overhang could have a much more bullish impact on the market over the next couple weeks than first thought.