Member Info for ddubya

@TerrorWit. Once again it seems to be you who does not understand much.

There is little point in endlessly repeating both your insults and previous utterings.

@Terrorwit “…I don't think anyone but greedy forum fools think his directorship has been anything but a huge success.”

You would have to be blinkered to reach the conclusion that Brian is leaving entirely of his own volition. When execs leave they normally agree the press release, we rarely have all of the facts, including whether they were ousted, or guilty of misdemeanours.

By what measures do you assess BT has been a “huge success”?

@TerrorWit “ I'm just an ordinary person who's had the misfortune to find themselves involved in commercial litigation a few times.”

So more than a little like NigWit then.

You are right that litigation can be stressful but sometimes it is necessary and just cannot be avoided.

I thought BT would do better but the market reaction seems to suggest this an opportunity rather than a problem.

Let’s wait to see where he goes before judging whether he was pushed or not. “Cool”? Not seeing that just yet.

What would Terrorwit say?

I am guilty of obvious speculation but if STM wanted NANO on the cheap, pulling GEN 1 materials would not be a bad plan?

Agree Kooba. Reality is the Board’s past (and poor) performance has undermined its credibility when presenting a recommendation for future voting.

@Kooba “ …at some point a takeout must be on the cards…”.

I find this a credible possibility and have said as much before.

Unfortunately, if it did come about the purchase price would typically be pitched as a factor above the current share price, unless competition drove the price higher.

At current levels we probably would not realise anything like the true potential of our asset, yet if so minded, Directors could still milk a keen purchaser through various means, including bonuses to stay on after purchase, earn out and golden parachutes, all in addition to their shareholdings, most of which was ‘free’ under LTIP.

Obviously, creating real share value could be even more lucrative but could take much longer, so their interests are not truly aligned with shareholders.

Hopefully, BT does not have that route in mind and Gen2 demand will generate traction first but I do see this as one of the biggest risks we face.

Good luck all. There are interesting times ahead of us 🤔

Thanks for more insults TerrorWit and what do I owe you for that consultation?

I am largely a happy investor thank you, although I do still have a few that have performed like ‘dogs’ in addition to NANO. It’s the overall portfolio return that matters.

Good morning TerrorWit😀.

At least that’s one question you have answered, even if you remain faithful to your normal style of insults. I can’t say that you have got it right though 🤭

And what would TerrorWit say?

@TerrorWit/NGR. When reading your posts I really do sense a strange sympatico is in play. The difference in your thinking is less than the width of a cigarette paper.

@TerrorWit. Ultimately, as a shareholder the main measures of success are share price and dividends. I don’t expect many PI shareholders are thrilled by the ‘success’ delivered to date.

I’m betting Peter Jones is your best mate TerrorWit?

Thank for that your less than constructive response TerrorWit.

Actually, I am a little jet lagged but not so much that you have convinced me you know your way around either the MAR section of the FCA Handbook, or the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules Sourcebook (DSG) which you have not mentioned.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DTR.pdf

Had further orders been confirmed as cancelled, I agree NANO would need to issue updated guidance but it should not be inferred from the RNS that further orders cannot or will not be cancelled at any point. The reality is that firms do exit 'in stages' to lessen the impact and keep options open. Confirmation of cancellation could come at any point before the October update , and potentially even afterwards but obviously, I do hope for a more positive outcome. Who really knows though - that's part of the problem with NANO.

@Terrorwit. Can you please direct me to the relevant section(s) in MAR that you rely on when you say “… had Gen1 dots been cancelled that would be what the RNS stated otherwise it would not have complied with MAR.”

Yes T I did ask for his username 🤣

Received no answer of course and there is more circumstantial evidence emerging to suggest he might be one of two ‘Halfwits’

@Terrorwit

“I am the only one who's had relevant experience of commercial litigation.”

How pompous are you? Please do tell us all what direct experience you have of Commercial litigation and in what capacity. I will bet quite a few of those in the board have the same or more experience.

It is not one of my favourite terminologies either T but it is firmly embedded in today’s business jargon, especially for project management.

It will probably be superseded with something more ‘now’ in the coming months and years!

I think BT refers to delivering to the Gen 2 milestones T, which if so might also support the view that Gen 1is being set aside for now at least?

I read the RNS the same way as you do FlyingHigher. This statement does not appear to shout delay alone.

The most likely scenario's are that the OEM are waiting for Gen 2, or more worrying they have hit a technical snag of some form. Anyway, it seems like the OEM's decision has been made. Is any or other OEM likely to commit either until they have a good understanding of what has gone wrong. Perhaps notable by its absence this time is that we have not heard NANO say the decision had nothing to do with its performance?

Unfortunately, NANO has become the gift that keeps taking, and it gives me no pleasure to say that whatsoever.