Member Info for ddubya

@NGR. Unfortunately you seem set on making the point that your judgement is right and that of most others is wrong.

I am happy to admit I believed more money was coming our way but I argue that was an entirely rational conclusion based on the publicly available information.

The second RNS did warn that expectations should be at the lower end of expectations but since any and all estimates had been set by 'independent' parties such as Edison at much higher levels, I believe we have been knowingly misled. And it is the information the Board withheld and what looks like preferential treatment of certain shareholders that is responsible for spiking and tanking the share price.

I don't see the current cost of a blood test is what really matters. The value to OBD is the earnings they receive per test and the volume of tests being undertaken. Cost test will come down when it is scaled and performed in the UK and elsewhere. The number of blood tests being performed has potential (conservatively) to be in tens of millions per annum, so if OBD can achieve acceptance it will be very comfortable on a much lower charge.

Agree Henry. We are fast approaching the time that BT must deliver on his promises.

To justify the decision to give up the potential award offered by the court hearing (which would have commenced the very nest day) he needs to deliver serious growth. Does he have that ability within him, or has the Board presided over a dreadful business decision? We may find out by the end of this year.

Hedging creates certainty so not a bad thing in my view, and it is a communication with shareholders too. Here’s hoping BT has a stream of good news coming.

We shall probably never know the truth but either way the total settlement is below all expectations set. NANO noted the importance of validating the patents and pursuing infringers, giving the impression that benefits would follow. However, 10 months down the line and we have no visibility over anything that might justify that explanation.

Granted Maxi but I bet Samsung was selective and cherry picked only the patents it considered of value. It obtained all the knowledge it required from the 'sale' process held a couple of years back. Even if we say the patents hold no value, the total settlement was still very low, and paid by instalments.

@Carlos. Receiving payment in two instalments may have some tax advantages but I suspect it was not NANO's choice and it reflects either the poor bargaining position NANO was in or inept management? I can't think of anything else that makes sense but perhaps others know different?

@NGR you point to the IR and 2D prospects as the source of future value. I agree and have always felt that was the case, so this is not a question of being right and wrong. The truth is that our CFD product, which NANO hoped would be hugely disruptive for Display has more or less been stolen and returned only £4m, when development costs were far greater over many years. Neither has a single licences been pursued since the settlement, and it does not look like Nanosys was infringing, otherwise its sale would have been unlikely to complete. The NANO Board has been economical with the truth and failed to provide any valid reasons why the settlement is so far below even the lowest expectations.

Exciting as they are, IR and 2D remain early stage markets. STMicro might help us over the Starting Line but we have been set back many years and are effectively starting afresh. The Samsung case was not a genuine 'Win' for NANO and it will be 'transformational' only if new products can be successfully brought to market in volume. They may well be but I fear the real money is still some years off at present. I hope to be proven wrong and see large orders in the near term.

@Carlos. No fundamental change but unfortunately it remains more hope and expectation at the moment. I do believe there will be orders this year but also that they may be lower in value than expected and we shall need to wait until next year for more meaningful revenue. I don't see that as at all positive for 'overall' value when the dividend/share repurchase is implemented. Unfortunately, I also believe the original Display business (including licencing) is all but dead. Thank goodness I have one or two shares faring much better at the moment.

I really hope this comes good for everyone here, including myself, but I no longer have such high expectations and will not be adding to NANO.

That will certainly be high on their agenda T but i suspect it may not have received quite as much airtime as reset of their LTIP to a ridiculously low threshold and award of yet more free options. Down another 3% so far this morning!

@MockExchange. That’s the rationale - this test will save Insurers huge sums through early detection and treatment, so take up in the US is likely assured in the US. A similar argument applies elsewhere too. And, in the UK the NHS will commit to using it, although I suspect it is going to want cheaper delivery, which should be possible when tests are completed here.

All looks very promising from here - wish I had invested recently and not years ago!

@Seamanp. There have been a couple of massive spikes in price but LUCY has certainly bombed since float. That said I don’t think we should discount it. I believe it still has real potential to turn around and become very popular. Style and image is the key here, so they need to increase appeal of the frames to young and old alike.

I would doubt it too Maxi but if we continue to be valued at or below cash prior to the AGM, I am sure that many of us will not need any persuasion to vote against re-election of incumbent directors.

Hello to the new trading week and another 3.37% down at open then at 8.20 up 3.1%.

What are we to make of that?

Brian have you got any sort of update for the long suffering?

Hope it does turn into a 100 bagger. I still have another 150% to go to break even !

Yes it has happened this way several times before in BELL but we are at a stage where there really should be no reason we can’t borrow directly from the banking system. We have sufficient orders to cover a loan to purchase materials to produce them.

And the parent TEK seems to follow in similar circumstances. There is chance of a raise here but I too find the whole thing very strange and illogical.

Hello Flying higher, and thanks for the view on valuation. I would probably take 30p plus the 12p in some form of repurchase or dividend, although in the absence of orders I don’t see why the market would move from a cash valuation, which looks like the worst case scenario to me. I am hopeful that firm orders will arrive though.

I was thinking about the QD Vision sale the other day too and had reflected on its IP valuation of £70m. NANO has sold some ‘non core’ patents for what looks like good value but it received only a net £4m for its CFQD patents. These have delivered huge income for Samsung, so can anyone be genuinely pleased with that element of the settlement?

@NGR Are we nearly there yet?

Nanogeddon - A twisted variation of the share repurchase option - lol.

At the moment, anything seems possible from NANO and it feels like we might be using that honest broker RT for our marketing services.