Member Info for bluerill

I have the same or more time in a professional capacity to you, HH, and I'm saying that it's nearly 100% that such a move intraday would prompt a call from the regulator. Ask any NOMAD. Such calls are totally common, and happen all day, everyday. As for your thoughts on the efficacy/work ethic of the FCA generally, I don't disagree, but by definition, these specific situations are clearly different as they require an immediate decision and in fact, are again, quite common.

That's a fair point, HH, but I think the Times did repeat the number on the day. Otherwise, Troublesome - I'm not exactly sure if you're having a go at me, but I'm not here to fight. Sure, mine is a 'theory', but its logically sound given the highest quality evidence we have, namely the near 70% gain we saw at the highs (brought down to, I admit, a far more pedestrian 30/40% by Lombard's selling, but that would not matter as much to the FCA as the 70% gains at the highs), the published figure of 500m in a mainstream source (which is, in fact, very, very relevant to the FCA in these situations if you were not aware) and the subsequent release of the 2nd RNS. As I hope you also got from my post however, I believe - again thanks in part to Lombard - that the current share price way 'over-discounts' my theory. I believe, at 37p, we're actually trading near or even below our eventual cash award and I'm quite bullish on the core business post-payout, putting a value of between 10 and 20p on it. Finally, I think that the bulk of that cash is likely to come back to shareholders, not in a special dividend, but in a massive share tender by the Company which will allow some shareholders to sell a decent chunk of their holding at a price materially above where we are now as others will opt not to tender all (or part) of theirs. Quick side note: Gigawhatever - you are the worst kind of mindless troll. There never was and never will be any share suspension in NANO. Utter nonsense.

I'm sorry feeks, as much as I may agree with your analysis and hope that it is a possibility, I'm afraid you're ignoring information which in all likelihood, trumps the hope that the settlement amounts are anywhere near your figures. Basically, it all stems from the fact that the Company was almost certainly compelled by the FCA to issue the now infamous second, 'clarifying' RNS on Monday. In cases like this one, the most common reason for such a decision is that the regulator judges that a 'false market' has developed in the Company's shares. Further, we know that after the Company's press releases and public utterances, the FCA puts particular importance on what is published in the mainstream press. On the latter, we know at least one publication promoted the '500m payout' theory. So, adding up all those items together - while certainly not definitive, I admit - one has to assume the MOST LIKELY conclusion is that the regulator listened to the inside dope on the suspension of the trial and the early framework of a settlement and then compared what they were told to the 70p highs the share price reached early doors (before Lombard got a hold of it of course) and the 500m number that was published by one of the legit news sources (The Times, I think). Since they then appear to have compelled Nano to issue the clarifying follow-up RNS, we therefore have to consider it highly likely that they judged the original RNS to have been insufficiently clear; so that the 70p/500m 'market activity' was sufficiently removed from reality to constitute a false market, thereby necessitating the 2nd RNS, which I admit was messy but in this context, its main purpose was almost certainly meant to tamp down expectations vis-a-vis the 500m number in the paper. The good news is of course, with the 'help' of Lombard's continued selling, the share price now more than discounts the much more likely, 'lower case' outcomes so, at 37p, we 'own' your ambitious upside case for less than nothing, as well as the upside for a re-valuation of the core business post settlement and the inevitable capital return that will follow.

That is just flat-out gibberish. There is no scenario - none - where the Company gets 'nothing' or anything near that figure. The biggest take by far, the funder, is capped at 50m or so, max, while at the other end, for some of you who are so fond of citing the market as the ultimate arbiter, you think 40p is discounting 'nothing' or anything approaching that? Even at this current, pressured price, the market is still discounting a material payout and will begin to include potential upside after things calm down a bit.

There is a lot of nonsense repeated endlessly here, but none more damaging than the assumptions made about the Litigation Funder. First off, he/she is NOT in charge of the Company's actions at any level; the Company is. Far more importantly though, if some of the numbers flying around for a potential settlement figure were/are fanciful, some of the assumptions of Funder's success fee that are thrown around by some bearish posters, are even more ridiculous. There is usually a sliding scale that's true, but bottom-line, but this isn't the lottery. Payouts are almost always CAPPED at somewhere between 2-3x their costs so with the working assumption that these guys have 'invested' $10-15m thus far, they're looking at a maximum, all-in, return of around $50m. The idea that if the court settlement is 2-300m, that Nano may end up with 'nothing after fees' is just patently ridiculous and has to stop.

No its not. It's DECISION TIME. This thing is going to open up at a price that's going to disappoint most everyone here bc, well, thats the market we're in. The key is: DO I BUY MORE?!?

Possibly agricore, but that was clearly not the spirit of the point I was making. Anyway, in particular regard to the goodwill of the holiday season, with all due respect, your theory won't play. Nothing of the kind happened at the AGM. There were only a scattering of bodies in attendance, certainly not including any 'large shareholders', and exactly one old man raised his hand and that was to thank and praise Zvi for the amazing work he had done and the amazing returns he had provided long-term shareholders. Sorry.

Thanks daisy, I reckon you're in the minority (most consider me a useless windbag, but not because they've ever been able to reasonably dispute anything I've written, but 'simply' bc I'm seen as someone who has been bullish - and I have been of course - yet the sp has still fallen. The logic of that may seem rational to some at first glance, but it kind of isn't if you really think about it....). Anyway, while I'm still on my soapbox, I'd add on the idea 'there isn't much volume yet', so we should necessarily diminish the price action and put it down to some specy--related reason, how many times in watching this name - and dozens of others I'm sure - have we seen 100k volume being posted during the regular session and then several times that amount getting posted in extra time? This market trading/volume/price/size/market maker/dark pools, etc thing is way more complicated than any of us appreciate sometimes.

sheesh. Nothing to do with politics or leaks or any other ephemera. You don't see much volume yet (though 1/2 million posted by 1030 the day b4 Christmas isn't bad, frankly), but the PRICE ACTION is what's important. This doesn't always apply (which is why I don't post often) but today in particular, you are seeing a material move because market makers KNOW there are 'buyers around', including the Company of course, and with the completion of the Jefferies block and months of dumping by small retail, they worry that a decent chunk of potential supply is now locked up in very steady, long-term hands, so THEREFORE they don't want to be lifted even in small-ish sizes bc they won't be able to get the shares back. That is what is reflected in today's move thus far. It's may seem either a bit of advanced trade analysis or hope over experience on my part, but I am confident its the former.

Nutmeg - right now the price action likely has nothing to do with any leaks. The severity of the over-reaction - even in this awful market for small caps - to the recent (very poorly handled) block seller through US broker Jefferies, is being slowly counter-acted by a few serious buyers who took most of that block and then a couple of newer buyers who see the deep value/near-term catalysts opportunity here and have joined at least one of the original block buyers in the market. Meantime, the Company remains a steady presence on the order book, if at a restricted price most days. While the raft of near-term positive developments - I fancy the Cyber contract has a solid lead in terms of near-term probability - I can assure you none of this (early) move is on the back of any 'leaks'. In fact, my earlier post on the possibility of the Company re-entering the TA-125 if the sp can reach and sustain around the 29p level, is far far more likely a reason for the recent buying/sp improvement. Translation: what we are witnessing presently is almost entirely an 'organic' re-pricing of the shares, rather than any hot money that is going to exit in 2 weeks if it doesn't get the 'news' it was punting the shares for.

From EchoRidge on the other board once again: '....Recognising that we're still down over 20% since early November and we're barely the same amount off multi-year lows, I offer the following 'kinda fun/a bit ramp-y/pretty unlikely/but definitely possible' bit of a Christmas stocking stuffer: If (and its a yuge if, I know), we should get some significant news between now and very early January (my bet would be that the Cyber contract economics would be the most likely candidate), and our share price can get to around the 29p level and stay there on average over the appropriate measurement period, which I believe is a week in early January, then as of this moment, BATM apparently would have sufficient market cap to be able to re-enter the TA-125 index. My source is pretty reliable but I haven't checked the details yet - ie., the precise measurement period, how many other Companies shares are also close to the entry level and therefore may pip BATM to the post if they also have big rallies in that period, even whether this is purely a market cap-driven index and there isn't any human overlay that may apply, etc. - but it's certainly useful for everyone to realise that this is even a possibility in the first place, remote though it may be. As I've highlighted before, the Company's rejection from the same index in August saw almost twice the number of shares traded - 22m if memory serves - than any of us watching it expected. Re-entry into the index would be indisputably a big event for the share price. Note that I am discounting the repricing that's going on currently on the back of the buyback and some bottom-fishing new buying being able to do it on its own, but that's always possible, especially if we have a few more days like we're enjoying this morning...!'

That is anecdotal nonsense. Utterly meaningless gibberish

Oh, and the Musk reference is so laughably the precise 'exception that proves the rule' here, as to truly rank as one of the most irreducibly idiotic attempts to try and look clever by invoking current events, but instead face-planting spectacularly, that I have ever had the misfortune to read on one of these benighted message boards.

Of course its significant, sundrum. That is simply an objective fact and truly beyond debate. The sealer to the argument of course is the price. If M&G were actually uncertain about the Project's prospects and were like 'yeah well, its Christmas so let's throw something under the tree for these poor souls' - a kind of investment process completely absent for ANY other pre-revenue UK small cap over this entire miserable year for such companies, particularly so over these past few months - M&G absolutely, positively, without a scintilla of doubt, would have insisted on a deep discount to yesterday's closing price. Sure PRE's sp has taken a beating this year and in the recent past, but show me a single other example - if you can even find one that's close where an institution the likes of M&G are involved - where even if funding of any consequence has closed, that it wasn't done at a MASSIVE discount to previous day's close, no matter how poorly the shares had preformed to date. You won't bc you can't. In fact, it's even likely that M&G may well have tried to negotiate a material discount and they were rebuffed by management who could well have told them that if they have to take such a deep haircut, they'd rather go to the market and let existing small shareholders a chance to benefit. This deal today is an unequivocally positive event. There is no other way to see it.

I thought not, and I likewise apologise for my snippy reply

Christ, how do I get a job at any company Eloro runs where $4.5m is chump change and institutions are happy to chuck in amounts like that as an act of charity

First off, I'm going to assume the mis-spelling of my nickname was a fat finger and not a childish attempt to wind me up. On more important matters Nutmeg, you needn't have any 'reservations' about this any longer. The information I posted is not speculation and so, there is no significant short selling activity - ie.., anything of the size or scope to influence the share price in any meaningful way whatsoever - ongoing at present. You labour under some basic misunderstandings about how markets operate that I don't have the time to correct right now. Just be assured that a large, on-going seller has been cleared and the market in our shares is at least better for that for now.

Uh huh. So in a capital market environment where getting significant institutions like M&G to stick their hands in their pockets and make a multi-million pound investment in ANY small cap company in any industry, PARTICULARLY those that are pre-revenue - very, very, very much INCLUDING names they are already invested in - is rarer than hen's teeth, in such an absolute desert for such Company's to raise any kind of equity capital, you have the unlimited gall to try and denigrate today's announcement, where the vote of confidence in the Project is 100x more powerful BECAUSE of this awful capital climate, and that confidence is magnified even further by the fact that the deal was done at a minimal discount? Step off mate......

from Echoridge on the other board: '.......I will try and provide more details tomorrow on the recent trading and price action in our share price, but for now, for those who are interested, the major seller that has been in the market for some time - and is almost solely responsible for driving the price down from 30/31p to 21/22p into the recent trading update - I am near certain, is now finally finished. As I've shared previously, the seller has been working through the US mid-sized broker-dealer, Jefferies, a titanically stupid decision as Jefferies have never traded BATM in my memory and likely never will again. That has exacerbated the decline as have the thin holiday markets. Shore Cap did reasonable volume again today, indicating that the Company was active again, but most of today's Jefferies balance went to the other 2 buyers I also previously mentioned have been active over the past 4/5 sessions. One positive for shareholders, aside from the fact that this persistent seller is now finished, is that none of the 3 buyers today are going to be looking to turn any of the 5m+ shares they've bought for a 1 or 2p profit. They are all long-term holders and so we should have a reasonable shot at seeing a genuine bounce in the sp now that this overhang has(finally) been removed......'

Name one. And while you're at it, add any that trade below the cash on the balance sheet plus its real estate assets value, allowing you to own 2 moonshot businesses and solid cyber and a medical testing businesses for less than nothing.