Member Info for ddubya

I want to believe that backing Brian Tenner and the current management team is the right thing to do. However, PIs have received nothing but misleading info and obfuscation for quite some time.

For the above reason, we owe it to ourselves to listen carefully to what Hamoodi has to say, and get to the bottom of whether the FCA is reviewing the allegations or not?

If BT knows PI are unhappy and willing to vote against him and the Board, he may start communicating more effectively?

Nanogeddon “ …if the large return has any chance of happening at all you can be dammmn sure that this BoD will have an attitude of "shareholders don't deserve that much - how can we redirect the cash into our pockets and give them less".

Spot on my friend - we may be on the verge of success but it feels like the Board has become greedy, arrogant and most certainly uncommunicative.

So NANO commits to deliver a “firm intention” to consider a “possible return”?

The statements we each selected serve only to prove that NANO RNS often leave readers with multiple potential interpretations and very little clarity.

Good night all

Intrusive . The Settlement RNS states “The Group will therefore review options for its future capital structure… in order to facilitate a possible return of funds to shareholders.”

Not sure how the above can be viewed as a ‘firm intention’ of returning the settlement to shareholders. It represents no more than notice to consider possibility of a return.

Intrusive - the allegations were not made in Hamoodi’s most recent letter but an earlier one, and so known well before NANO announced plans to made a partial return of Samsung proceeds. Is anyone able to share a copy of the latest Hamoodi letter?

I agree that Hamoodi’s may not have the best interest of the smaller PI in mind but BT has hardly demonstrated that he does either.

If there is fire behind the smoke then the FCA should take action but we may know nothing until a Notice is published of their decision. If there is no case to answer Hamoodi or the individual making the allegation would probably hear from the FCA in reasonably early course. Perhaps Hamoodi would confirm for us?

Lots to think about before the vote.

As mentioned, I accept the RNS reference to 2025 Intrusive. However, it exceptionally vague about when ‘self-financing’ is anticipated and earlier dates had been indicated previously.

I would like to see BT step up, be creative and offer more honest information to shareholders. After all NANO has on many occasions found ways to present positive perceptions of its prospects, which simply did materialised on anything like the scale comment and publications had inferred. I don’t think it is too much to ask for.

I had thought that when it comes to the vote I would side with NANO but the more I mull it over the less deserving I believe they are of my support, and I have a reasonable number of shares. They seem to be taking us for granted and positioning a partial return of Samsung proceeds in Q1 2024 feels like it could be a sweetener to sway shareholders in light of Hamoodi’s allegations?

Accepted but our financial year spans two calendar years would it not be best to identify the specific periods intended?

I do accept the comment re breakeven Intrusive, at least in part. However, the June 2022 RNS was not exactly unequivocal and stated "...the Company expects to achieve the cash breakeven levels of revenue noted above in FY24 or FY25." Again, the RNS is poorly worded to afford several possible interpretations.

Irrespective of whether orders are almost here or not (I suspect they may be) we have new evidence of management guidance that (once again) is downgraded i.e. delay in profitability delay to 2025. Layer that on top of Edison's numerous lofty projections and why should we have any confidence in what we hear? As TH says, only selected shareholders have ever benefitted and BT chooses remuneration that does not include 'skin in the game', i.e. no cost share options and an arguably excessive salary.

I do wonder if TH could do any worse for PI than BT? The 'success' fee on the loan and also the underhand announcement of a 12 month delay in profitability has got to me.

Thanks for posting Maxi. These are pretty substantial allegations of wrongdoing made by TH. If there is evidence of them, I expect they will already have been in touch with the FCA to investigate. The letter appears to allege conflict of interest, insider trading and also provision of ‘success fees’ on loans unconnected to the Samsung litigation.

The FCA regulates each of these matters, so TH should at least be able to let investors know if and when they contacted the FCA, even if they are unable to say more.

Agree Pirate Pete. And we know BT has not been particularly proactive in responding to Hamoodi, forcing all without inside information to take yet another gamble with their investment. On balance, I remain ‘in’ yet not at all happy with the Boards performance to date, including multiple delays and failure to commercialise or communicate on progress since January.

A dilemma of BT’s own making I am afraid. Had NANO communications set expectations at the correct level, or explained any change in approach, we may have had more confidence in the Board.

Shareholders still do not have the information they need to assess NANO’s prospects following extreme disappointment earlier in the year and we are not likely to ahead of the vote either.

That said, I can’t see how ceding control to Hamoodi will help PI. It would ensure control by those likely to serve only their best interests well. And they can do nothing to alter the outcome of the Samsung settlement either.

It has been a long road in a southerly direction TopCatz but I shall be holding, including for the reasons you mention. I have confidence in TEK’s future am also disappointed by most of the past performance numbers, as I am sure many are.

I am at a loss to understand the logic of a fall of nearly 6% following an announcement of the Reebok deal. Have we gifted most of the margin to Reebok?

Yes the Board needs to be very careful not to release more good news just in case it crashes the SP again. Wish I knew why TEK reacts in this way?

NGR “…why a ned being cautious with his or her money is an issue puzzles me.”

What are you talking about? The concern is that BT has not invested. Looks like you respond before reading?

Only a NED Board member has invested in NANO in the past six months, which is a concern. If BT believed his own words that NANO has the best prospects ever, you might expect him to invest some of his not insignificant salary package into NANO shares (and not rely solely on no cost options). He has not done so why not?

Looks like BT has finally decided to buy some (and yes, said tongue in cheek).

Andrbea. So very rare for the UK to support the development of any of its companies, which far too often fail or are bought up by foreign companies for knock down prices.

In the USA firms are much better funded and supported. Very different propositions yes but just look at Tesla and Amazon.

Feels like the standard (some might say fraudulent) approach being taken. PI provide the start up capital and II buy up the share capital for next to nothing when the business is about to get serious.