Member Info for bluerill

I've discussed this before, but it's clear that this is not as well understood as I would have thought since repeating it - again - will help this debate way more than it should: this Company is funded for its current operating plans through to 2025. It is therefore never been in doubt since the fundraise that made that happen, that Nano had any intention of retaining the bulk of the net proceeds of any nearer-term settlement, but rather to pay out the vast majority (say, anywhere from 80% to all of it) back to shareholders (likely in the form of a share tender, rather than a special dividend, as I've explained previously). This has never been in doubt to professional investors for some time and certainly nothing the Company has said publicly (or privately I imagine) has ever argued against that. The Edison analyst, for instance, would know this and so her comments can be better understood in that context.

let me try and put it in a framework based on this Company's ecosystem, which captures the essence of the value of your uber-confident declarations: your comments on stock markets and market activity, derived apparently from your having owned some shares over time, are precisely as valuable as mine on quantum dot nanotechnology would be having owned a TV.

stop talking

thankyou feeks, I really thought that was self-evident but it obviously isn't and needs articulating. If you have any background in money management, especially familiarity with large, hedge-fund-like institutions like the Lombard fund(s) that hold nano, then you understand that 'the fact that Lombard are selling' is simply not the only 'fact' available to us. Their patient, liquidity-available selling over a long period, with minimal price impact, as well as the recent price action and even conversations with market professionals, are also very much part of the fact pattern, and that fact pattern does NOT point to a bearish, get-me-out-yesterday holder, but rather a still constructive shareholder who is trying to mitigate its exposures in an increasingly hostile small cap market where they are the only visible institutional holder (an environment by the way, which has shown some early signs over here of being somewhat less hostile so far this year, as small(er) caps have started the year strongly with some evidence of fresh capital coming back to the market).

I was gonna say, but I was trying to be polite so I didn't run foul of troublesome's morality police

'......There is no evidence that LOAM are "re-balancing", "risk reducing" or that they need the money for anything else. All we know is that are selling. I don't see how that can be interpreted as implying anything other than the mCap exceeded their valuations......' Well then, it's a good thing I was here to explain it to you. You can bookend it with your lesson on how markets operate in UK small caps....

then you must be thrilled they maintain such a huge position, krawiea....

Gigawhatever - There is no evidence that Lombard 'understood' anything, as you are so fond of asserting as fact. In fact, their selling has been ongoing from the summer and has all the hallmarks of a risk reduction exercise based on the lack of other institutional investors in this name, and has been focused over that entire time on days where liquidity is high, likely in order to minimise the share price impact (that would explain why they seem to have accelerated their selling recently where daily turnover has jumped materially for obvious reasons). In my opinion, the market is telling us that that process would appear to be ending/has ended as the share price has stabilised and is carefully starting to recover (obviously, we will have to wait for the next few sessions to confirm no more Lombard disclosures and then the price action continues to recover). The result of course, is that Lombard will be left - still - with a very large position indeed. This is simply not the behaviour, over time, of a large shareholder who 'understands' something sinister as you so frivolously assert without evidence, but the rational behaviour of one who is trying to risk-adjust for a miserable market for UK small caps, while still maintaining a very bullish outlook on a still very significant holding.

np HH. Meantime, I'll take the 100%+ in cash, tyvm

Well HH, at this share price, it would be plenty transformational, and frankly, that's all I care about right now. And meantime, go easy on the exclamation points. You're going to burst something

phew.

That's meaningless, what was it again.....? oh yeah: twaddle. The people who determine the price of Nano work at firms like Peel Hunt, etc., market makers all. Meantime, that's it for this nonsense. Everyone else, look for Lombards to make another disclosure or 2, but the market is telling us they are likely done - or close to done - for now.

What's explained on the lSE website exactly? Were you looking for information on burn remedies?

yeah, you're snarky reference to SETs, as if that precludes market makers, when you have absolutely no idea what you were talking about, singled you out as a real pro.

well I guess you would know. And fck you very much

and they were very much frantic this past week in the name and today, not so much

sorry, giga, that's not at all correct. For mid-sized/smaller names, the market makers/brokers are still the most important traders in Pantheon in determining the market price. The fact that it trades on SETs is essentially irrelevant

Prepare for a bit more bullishness as I completely disagree with Intrusive and flyinghigher: Today's price action was far different than any other session since the bombshell last Monday. By mid-afternoon, market makers were clearly less frantic when they were getting hit in shares and a instead - finally! - an effort to find form a bottom was evident, and of course we closed unchanged after having flirted with a gain on the day. While I agree Lombard was likely in the market selling a bit more today, I reckon today's price action - particularly given the fact that LO has been such a massive presence on the sell side for such a long period, but of course particularly aggressive in this past week, and market professionals are going to have a better idea about a major seller's continued (or not) activity than any of us - is likely consistent with Lombard being at or near finished. Expect therefore a position reduction RNS tomorrow but perhaps no more for a while, in my opinion.

HH - assuming the more conservative $, given that we can further assume such a settlement (or thereabouts) would involve the lower end percentage for the funder, then we're still talking about a per share settlement amount at or above the current share price. That's precise enough for me

2 words: 'transformational' and 'successful'. The former of course has been used in multiple public statements to the market , most recently in December when the sp was around 40p, while the latter is by far the most important word in the entire, otherwise benighted, second settlement RNS from last Monday; specifically when it turns up in maybe the most (over)analysed bullet points in the history of RNSs: '......The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the
lower end of the range of expectations for a SUCCESSFUL (my caps, obv) jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company.....' I have done quite a bit of digging around, speaking to some of the bigger shareholders, reviewing videos, etc., so there is a longer story here, but the short one is simple: Assuming that the Company's frequent (and therefore meaningful) use of the word 'transformational' applies both to the core business AND the market cap/sp, then it is very, very difficult to reconcile the Company's most recent use of the term, and the 2nd RNS's use of the word 'successful' in its main 'condition for choosing to settle', at a settlement figure below 200m. I just cannot get there under any reasonable scenario - again, based on the Company's clear public statements to date, none of which they have been withdrawn or altered - without the Company opting instead to go to trial.