Member Info for ddubya

What is the point I missed NGR?

If there were a buyer, I expect that depends upon who they are and what their business plan is. Potentially, the right suitor might have a very attractive proposition that is attractive to staff.

To be honest, most business plans are likely to have more appeal than the current information vacuum.

Thanks for that Nanonano. I see that Quantum Advanced Solutions receives a mention for its work on SWIR but no sign of NANO.

Sadly it does look like a trade sale is the most likely option and perhaps Milkwood either has a plan to add value to make us worth more than the sum of our parts. I have wondered for a while whether NANO had the clout or abilities needed to commercialise IR sensors or anything else and BT and the Board have demonstrated I was right to hold that concern.

There is an outside chance that we could find some success in the minor marketplaces but I can't see that it is likely we shall find a better partner than STM to deliver scale. To be honest, I would not be surprised if a (cheap) outright purchase is what STM is angling for? If they play hardball over our ability to market NANO wares to other companies that might provide a clue? I expect to hear more on that subject in October, so if NANO says nothing I shall view it negatively.

I see there is a TR1 out for Milkwood, upping its stake by over 2%, which it has managed to do without doing the same for the share price. What are their plans for NANO I wonder?

Kooba. If STM block NANO’s ability to market its own product it raises two points/questions for me.

What dreadful a negotiation it must have been be to allow the commercial agreement to fall away yet retain obligations to STM (in which case BT should be a ‘Bad Leaver’,) and is it possible that STM always planned to pull the plug on NANO, perhaps at Samsung’s behest?

and

Yes T. Remember the Board telling us that to accept the Samsung settlement was the right thing to do for the business. We were going to be so successful with commercialisation just around the corner.

And now?? 11.30p a share.

I would venture to say that Board members have so far demonstrated outright and complete incompetence for their respective roles.

Can the new NEDs turn us around? Possibly, if we can secure the rights (from STM) to pursue those smaller markets. The military applications must be the most promising I would argue.

@TerrorWit. "The whole stock market is priced on potential"

Don't forget ability to deliver too. Without ability why would anyone have confidence you can deliver on your potential. NANO s record on that score has been by far the worst of any company I have ever invested in. I'm hoping that we are bought out, or slim down to deliver the Asian contract. Without one of both NANO does not have a future I fear.

Kooba. Possibly taken private?

PS the Therapist can come too!

I will sell in concert with you rgm and spend the extra 5p on a big night out 👍

Milkwood can have all of mine for 45p

Very reasonable if you ask me 🤭😀

I have held Summit throughout the darker days of developing treatment for duchennes and also ridinilazole but since the listing in the US things have turned dramatically for the better. These gains would have been impossible on a UK listing.

Having been in and out of Summit several times between $1.50 and $19.10 and done very well I finally decided to exit on Monday. This has been my largest holding and also my best performing so I have no complaints but exited on risk that we shall see a quieter period and a fall in value. Being close to retirement I can’t risk holding on and hoping for more, even though at yesterday’s close I had lost out on an extra 20%. No regrets but I shall be back.

@TerrorWit. So your answer to Feeks is that investors should rely upon their research and companies spending shareholder funds (purportedly to make a return on it) don’t need to communicate in an open and clear way.

I suggest you run that idea past the FCA, who won’t recognise it as their understanding of the market they regulate, even though in my view they fail to do so well and do not bring about fair outcomes for investors.

There also seems to be a dependency on the outcome of discussion with STM to ‘allow’ NANO to pursue those small scale opportunities.

As usual, there was next to no detail provided on that score. If it turns out STM has a legal right to prevent NANO from doing so that could be a problem for us. I have the feeling we must have allowed STM to place contractual restrictions upon us which may or may not fall away now that STM has said ‘I’m out’ [in the style of Duncan Bannatyne].

@TerrorWit. The problem with continually shouting the legal outcome was the best that could have been achieved is that most here, including myself, don’t believe it and probably never will no matter how many times it is said.

Would it not be better to stop repeating these assertions and accept we don’t all have the same opinion?

There is next to no information coming from NANO that would allow anyone to make meaningful investment decisions about its future but that is likely to change at some point, with the involvement of the new NEDs and new appointments at Chair and CEO level. If and when any meaningful information is released, it would be good if we could move on to more constructive discussion.

If

@ TerrorWit. That sounds like something NigWit might have said.

I agree TG2D. A fire sale to a display or sensor company keen on the patents seems the most likely way forward now, perhaps our Asian customer, but prospects of a decent pay out look slim indeed. Very sad and disappointing. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, and on several occasions too.

A decision to leave any role is usually made after assessing what the benefits are in carrying on v the downsides.

BT clearly thinks it is better to move on and he may have been pushed had he not done so?

To praise Brian for the position he has brought our company to simply does not make any sense whatsoever to my mind. He has been remunerated well, whilst delivering very little benefit for NANO and a stronger candidate may have brought about a very much better outcome for shareholders. Given the cards he was dealt he has played a very poor game and underperformed by all measures. So has our Chairman, despite the fact that he has agreed to defer his departure.

Laurel and Hardy might have delivered greater shareholder return had they been in charge, and for much £less too.

@TGTD As I understand it, most IP litigation ends up with a settlement that includes an amount in lieu of future royalties. That was the agreement with Samsung but it only serves to demonstrate what a dreadful settlement it was. Either our case had serious holes in it or perhaps it is even possible that someone took a backhander?