Member Info for ddubya

Mr_Nakhla, I expect that you will release the outcome from your Survey Monkey on this Board in the next couple of days?

This offer is a double edged sword with consolidation on one side and a reduction of cash on the other.

The margins on trading out and then are very slim, so I have decided not to trade, even though I might later regret it?

@Troublesome - Unfortunately, the city permits that firms confer with key shareholders on certain matters without making that information public. They need to sign an NDA and also go on an 'Insider' list.

I can see the sense in it that practice as it allows firms to 'take the temperature' but it does not work so well where the relationship is shall we say more 'cosy'. Richard Griffiths and Hamoodi were once amongst the chosen few and it makes complete sense that Nigel Pickett should be since he is a genuine key player both in terms of shareholding and operational knowledge. So shareholders are not equal I am afraid.

@Ginodog. They only have visibility of shareholders on their share register, so any with more than 1M in a nominee account, which is the most common way to hold these days, will not have been contacted.

One again, NANO and Liam are being economical with the truth I suspect.

@NGR in a similar way NANO would not exist without Nigel Pickett and its shareholders.

Regrettably, successive NANO CEO have treated PI shareholders unequally. It continues to consult the II alone and organise its affairs in a way that has rewarded them and only them I am afraid.

I still think there is real potential here but I have learned through experience that the PI is not given sufficient thought. Even the planned distribution manages to ensure there is very little financial benefit for shareholders.

Money has been made for shareholders only when they exited at favourable levels ahead of bad news, if when lending on terms that provide a ‘bonus’ for taking risk that did not exist.

If PI were able to speak with one voice and act in concert, I suspect BT would be more eager to listen to us?

Regardless of the above, the answer is to secure orders, which will move the value of NANO upwards and rapidly, if volume is obtained, especially if it becomes known that Apple is involved.

NANO is in my bottom drawer but I have not given up on it. The Distribution favours those who do not reduce their holding, so I say follow the money. Good luck all.

@Flyinghigher. Given that there is a fixed amount of cash available for the tender would a higher strike price not simply mean it applies to a smaller number of shares but have a neutral effect on the net £return to shareholders?

I can see there would be benefit of a little less dilution to secure the max tender value, which might support the view that our Board would prefer to cancel as many shares as possible to benefit of those who either purchase shares and/or do not take up the tender. As Kooba says the 24p level has likely been chosen as the maximum level the market might view as reasonable, so a higher number might have attracted pressure on the SP in absence of other news?

On another point, the Board will only be returning a max of £30m to shareholders if Resolution 2 is carried, which is less than previously promised and the balance used to funds incentive schemes. That feels a little disingenuous to me.

It will be interesting to find out what the level of take up is Nanonano but unfortunately knowledge only arrives when all votes have been cast.

The more I think about it the more I now favour a vote against both resolutions. There is an outside chance the vote could go against the Board and it may be persuaded to return a dividend across all shares instead? That seems like a better bet than the current offer, which both locks in a low exit price and a 'free ride' to fund staff and Director incentives from proceeds that were supposed to be returned to shareholders. I also have a feeling that if Resolution 2 is carried, the Board will be back for even more jam next year.

However, early indicators do suggest the Board has sufficient support for the tender at least?

Yes Nanonano. It has taken a long time to conceive this return of capital to shareholders, yet now plans have been revealed, it looks rather hollow.

I freely admit I was not keen on a distribution that incurred a tax bill but the offering seems mainly to benefit the LTIP and employee scheme and those with a small shareholding.

I am very much in favour of incentivising performance but everything delivered by BT to date has been to the detriment of the PI and to the advantage of the II and LTIP.

The LTIP and employee schemes should provide benefit only where linked to an increase in shareholder value. If that can be delivered all sides make money and I am comfortable but shareholders not a cash cow to subsidise and increase the Board’s share of the business to our detriment.

It is beyond time that the Board needs to focus on shareholder value.

What NANO will achieve with its offer is to allow many smaller holders to exit at 24p and if take up is low it is likely that those who ask for more than the max % will be granted.

It could favour such smaller holders, many of whom could exit their entire holding at 24p and potentially get back in at a cheaper price, if they wish.

It would present NANO with several problems if take up of the tender offer were very low 🙂 but also leave a rather large war chest. That might be no bad thing to be honest.

Nothing really changes until we see more orders, at which point it would be difficult for the market to continue to attribute £Zero enterprise value and the share price could move very quickly.

@Morbox. I think the idea is for 10% of repurchased shares to be held in Treasury to fund employee share scheme and the LTIP for Directors.

If everyone took up their full Tender entitlement (they won’t) that would be a lot of money. I understand that 90% of shares tendered will be cancelled.

@404x. My guess is that it is pretty much as you see it. NANO has been discussing return of capital with Shareholders since Jan 2024 making its statements ‘true’ (well sort of). It is just that they were speaking only to the select few shareholders, not the full collective. Perhaps it is only communication with preferred shareholders that NANO was seeking to improve?

It's difficult to find the right words your individual circumstances Dipper. I have averaged down to 21p so my average is not too far away from yours. My belief is that orders will come to us and that the share price will increase significantly over 2 or 3 years. We may even be bought out in that period. If you share those views then a profit over your 27p average is likely. I believe it is a mid term hold though rather than a short term profit opportunity.

However, you may want or need the money for something else, in which case it could make sense to cut your losses now and exit?

Your final comment reflects my thought and I suspect they may be buying too, to increase their effective share of the co. That's why I am not keen on taking up the tender either. There is also the market risk that more news arrives before proceeds of the tender are received.

I don't think this Board cares too much for the PI, although it is keen to have us vote for resolution 2 protecting the interests of employees and LTIP participants. Wish they had thought of the PI when they were diluting our investments.

Interesting thoughts Mr N. I am underwhelmed but not surprised by the tender offer but shall probably vote in favour.

I am sure your straw poll is not yet statistically significant but if we take the 31% (at point I completed it) and 37.5% for II, whom NANO has consulted, they already appear to have something like 68.5% in favour. It is not an especially attractive offer, I do find it difficult to envisage how we could persuade NANO to return much more in cash.

My current thoughts are not to offer any shares for Tender, accept the uplift provided by the reduced number of total shares and hope for growth based upon increased sensor and other sales, since that is where the 'real' money is.

As MAXI states, do you have any alternative proposals that may be of interest and which would be worth taking forward?

If there were ‘good’ reason for delay in payment or even a change of plan, e.g. following receipt of interest in purchase of the business or imminent orders, you would think BT could find some way to intimate that ‘all is well’ and there are no matters giving rise to any concern?

Or is delay due solely to fear of a predictable drop in SP if and when we go ex dividend?

@Kooba. I have misunderstood and I believe your view that AJBell has not received funds is correct. NANO does have them presume.

What a position to be in when the brokers clearly had expectation of receiving a distribution and now feel need to provide an update to their customers. A complete shambles.

I also hold some shares with AJ Bell.

I am looking forward to hearing how NANO reconciles the latest statement with that in its RNS of 24 Jan 2024 which states “…it has received the second tranche of litigation proceeds from Samsung after settling last year on a no fault basis for the alleged infringement of the Group's IP.”

This is all getting really strange. Why would NANO think it “has received” the money when it has not? And why would it not correct the RNS as soon as it became aware it was not in receipt of funds.

I think we have just about seen it all now😀

":Firm commitment to return between 65% and 75% of net litigation proceeds”

Not that I expect to receive it but arguably net proceeds should include interest received on the settlement amount.

There is certainly something going on BC but we can only guess at what it might be.

It does feel like BT has had a change of heart for some reason and has not prioritised the distribution, which he personally said was happening. Having fallen behind on the timetable he made public, there is a regulatory obligation to update the market at some point soon.

My guess is the new NEDs have alternative plans to Brian’s publicised one. They are likely to be better and may still involve a distribution but likely have a longer period to realisation.