Member Info for ddubya

Perhaps Apple made a low offer, after contract cancellation (presumed partner) hoping to collect NANO for the square foot of £Zero, having decimated our share price? If so, they could easily have recovered the capital cost of Runcorn from the saving. And perhaps there are now growing sales via Way Hong? It is all speculation but I think we shall have news this month, although possibly not the best and final offer.

Very interesting twist to this tale GrdianAngel, and presuming Wah Hong is still using NANO CFQD, we would see a very decent income stream soon. That would certainly help create value in both BAU and a Sale environment.

NANO has kept the lid on the name of it American partner secret for over two years and also the names of potential bidders. It scores very well in terms of confidentiality. If there is a leak, my guess is that it comes from elsewhere, just like the press speculation on Apple. And recent gains might flow from stake building news alone.

Whatever the cause, we are moving north and gathering pace. Here's hoping all recover at least their paper loss and hopefully a lot more besides. If you got in at a very low average, I don't mind admitting to jealousy (but well done).

What would make me smile rather broadly for weeks is a purchase price well in excess of ME's exit point. NANO has surprised on many levels so why not in that way?

I am guilty of looking at NANO whilst try to work at the same time. I am a bloke so cannot multi task. It is the EU and Commission I am questioning of course as it is their Directive. There should not be uncertainty around whether a ban applies or not. If there has been an announcement to clarify the position then I have missed it.

Yes wellwell :) I’m blaming that one on spellcheck!

If an RNS were about to drop, I would not be at all surprised if permission were obtained to announce either out of hours or according to opening of the bidders home market. Who knows but neither do I know why a premium of 40% over the current share price would no longer represent good value? This really is not a 'normal' bid where value is determined by reference to a multiple of turnover or profit. The value (if it exists ) is in what we cannot see (and cannot value) - a very different circumstance applies here and it is about the potential value NANO can offer the bidder.

On another matter, what on earth is the EU doing/thinking?

CEO’s speak to each other regularly and mergers and acquisition is part of business, so certainly not unethical. I suspect Nige just used the wrong terminology in his post.

I am more than comfortable with the Strategic Review approach taken by the Board at this stage, when it has just banked the last contractual payment from the US partner (prob Apple) and before the cash burn guarantees a fire sale. If the process does not secure a decent premium it should generate awareness if not an order. If not, I cannot see that NANO is a viable ongoing concern. We shall find out which very soon and perhaps even next week and my money is on a positive outcome.

Not me amerloque. Given that NANO could probably raise 2 years expenditure in a Rights Issue, I have to imagine the BoD is confident it will achieve better value more quickly in a sale. Display is quickly moving to use brighter screens than OLED permits and using HDR, so the whole market is in a state of flux. Not inconceivable that LG can see OLED is on the way out in favour of LED/Micro LED and so need to invest in a replacement.

An entirely Binary play but I sense a good outcome ahead. Due diligence could take a while though given the complexities of the science.

When all final bids are in and the front runner put to shareholders, there is unlikely to be anything that prevents bidders from upping their offers, and the Board would be obliged to put any better offer to shareholders. Normally, of course there is no reason to up an offer - it just depends upon what we do not know - the value bidders perceive NANO can add to their business.

A couple of weeks ago, the same poster claimed to know the offer value too, so a pinch of salt required. Only ‘Insiders’ have that information and I am confident he is not one of them.

Thanks for posting Nanonano. Yet more uses identified for QD - so what price will majors pay to guarantee themselves a seat at the forefront in QD science and opportunity to first to launch new and innovative products?

There is nothing to suggest who is bidding for NANO, including whether Apple is one of that number. However, neither is there any evidence that Apple does not want to rekindle interest in future ( and some that it does). Certainly, Apple was sufficiently impressed to invest tens of £m to secure the production facility in Runcorn and develop the mysterious Nano-particle - so the status quo continues - nobody on the outside knows. It’s all speculation but as long as we keep that in mind it is just fine.

Evercore is managing the process now and their success and reputation is measured on part by the absence of information leaking out.

It might take days, weeks or months, and whilst we would all like to know the outcome now, the absence of news does not necessarily signify a negative outcome and the reverse could be true.

Absolutely shoelord. I expect many PI feel the same way but are denied that option as the BoD will not entertain it. As others have said, I would prefer it were mothballed before it is sold at this price.

Meant to say - so that existing shareholders can avoid losing value their capital has helped to create.

If CF almost made it, why not get it over with a rights issue, so that the mine can be completed and existing shareholders can read lose the value their capital has helped to create.

Maybe it’s better to keep your job, a long term incentive scheme and give the business away instead?

I wonder if in a post Brexit world Boris will consider there a strong case that to give control of the world’s largest Polyhalite mine to a foreign investor is not in the National interest? It is certainly not in the interest of the (mainly) UK PI that have funded it to this point.

What has happened in SXX is unfortunately exceptionally common for new starts, particularly those on AIM.

Start up capital is raised to prove concept and cover a large % of costs. Shareholders are then locked out whilst further cash raises are carried out and massively dilution is effected. For SXX it may end with a cosy purchase at low cost, effectively wiping out many hard earned investments. And the Directors will claim the ‘standard’ defences.

The surest answer is not to invest in firms that are likely to need large amounts of cash I am afraid.
In my opinion, the market has permitted widespread and likely deliberate financial engineering to relieve PIs of their hard earned funds, and it has become common place over the past 10 years.

I do not invest in such firms now for exactly these reasons but if you want anyone to take notice you need to write to your MP and the FCA. They probably will not listen but it is worth a shot. Feint hope that evidence of wrongdoing might surface and give rise to a class action but whether there would be a return is questionable. I feel for all who have lost out here.

Agree jplay been wondering exactly the same. I had thought announcement of a similar ban by the Chinese should have been power to NANOs elbow and the sale negotiations. Not yet at least but what is the EU thinking of?

There have been many nearly moments with NANO as you say Bonzoful, yet little in way of commercialisation, hence NANO is on its knees.

If we knew why so many got cold feet at the last moment we would have better understanding. No doubt product performance has been an issue, although ME says that is sorted and we have the ‘best’ dots. If he is to believed (?) the value of IP may be greater than many suspect.

In addition, there is RoHS (behind the Chinese equivalent) together whatever value sensors and other uses may still offer.

Something not mentioned is R&D and value in the Manchester team. The existing Majors have their own teams but not necessarily with the CF experience to compete with Samsung. So I consider there still remains hope of decent value here and am holding

Regrettably so T. The SP price is unlikely to move unless:
The bidder(s) identity is revealed;
negotiations are concluded and detail of an offer disclosed to the market;
there is a ‘leak’ of inside information (how could that happen)