George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
I don't look that far Chique, but it could certainly be doing very well in 2-3 years, nevermind in 5 years. I like the fact it is still very quiet here. That's a good sign. 2023 will be more about news but the market is so huge and fast moving I think there will be plenty of positives to support growing interest even if there is a period of waiting. I'd say now is the right time to be bold.
Price range for my purchases was 49.30 to 49.88p
26,084 was my only sale (@ 49.16).
I was buying into ISA instead
So I think you are spot on Chique, well deduced.
Chique - I bought a load today in a few chunky slices at around 48/49p price. I don't have access to the trade info what's the balance of it showing up as?
I am not going to enter the debate but I do firmly believe that HH is correct about this.
There may be bigger shareholders than I am who are similarly disgruntled and who will wish to do something about it. LOAM still have a lot. The company cannot simply just announce that it has beaten its own lowly expectations / guidance when it kept that private. All we had we announcements about achieving a multiple of the share price on a jury win or settlement, which was the only guide until that fateful 9/1/23 RNS. Never has a feeling of glorious victory evaporated quite so fast. I do not have any retained confidence in management so I have sold out completely - at a loss.
God luck of course to those who continue to hold.
Unambiguous this time.
To some it will be seen as a fair outcome, and to others an amazing result; but to me it is tinged with a large dollop of disappointment of what might have been.
This money will undoubtedly set up the company for future success and for anyone coming on board now it could be an excellent investment. It's a growth company with exciting IP which will have NO funding worries for the next several years.
For me though, my Nanoco journey feels nearly over. I am sure one or two others who like me hoped for something better will feel the same aay. But now I will have a good think about what to do. Lastly, apologies to anyone for following my lead during the roller coaster ride and who didn't exit before today.
Echo what HH says. A huge test:
"@Screenlearner: I hold a lot of Nanoco shares and I will use how this settlement was handled and what settlement amount as test case whether I can trust Nanoco management’s messaging.
We all remember that BT spoke about two major inflection points and which would be transformational in value - well this is the first one. If this does not fire up I honestly don’t think that one needs afterwards trust that the second one will be either. At the moment the jury is still out."
I agree with you HH. I suspect the majority of investors don't just want "some" money to bridge the gap to commercialisation of sensor IP. This deal needs to bolster investor confidence both in the current management and also its steadfastness in defence of its IP.
Screenlearner, normally one would want a deal concluded before the weekend. I should think that was the notional deadline but time soon running out. Given US times are behind UK, we probably won't know the firm direction of events until Monday
buzzfludder - you just confirmed my bedrock argument - it is all a matter of interpretation. Twas always thus.
buzzfledder we have been over this.
"The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations FOR A SUCCESSFUL JURY TRIAL OUTCOME as previously guided by the Company".
That excludes everything bar the US, but the ROW will be taken into consideration for any FINAL AGREEMENT. That potential settlement value is neither ruled in or out by the RNS. We have only what is "expected", or what you might call a minimum expectation. It is open for negotiation. Thousands of posts, and that's just it. You don't don't know, I don't know. No-one does. The fist RNS was much better and we surely would not be here now had it been suitably qualified as to the uncertainty of whether a deal will be concluded in the end
Stick to the substance of the debate Gigs. You are relentless in your endeavour to make this a personal bragging contest. You must have learned a few lessons going to court, however not so much to prevent you ending up there multiple times!
Correct idontmessabout. N has a financial backer which puts it on a level footing with S as far as conduct of the litigation process is concerned. N have funding and the funders are locked in too. The funders don't just get to walk off mid-litigation! The funding agreement will be binding as to certain roles and responsibilities . Yet another very bad point from the keyboard of Gigs
lejjb that is shocking if true. Can you re-post it? We can keep pasting it. Trolls everywhere now but they don't have answers. I have always thought 30 days possibly too little for such an important contract. So a big buying opp possibly coming up, if an extension is required.
Again, why do the bears think any time is needed ? According to their simple theory of what the RNS means they have not been able to answer that
You see buzzfludder, what needs to be factored in to your assumptions is that Samsung might have said, ok Nanoco we don't want to start the trial tomorrow so we offer to pay you "X" per display to end this litigation now. What do you say? For sake of argument let's call it $14 per display being the number at the bottom of Edison's predicted "low-end" range for a jury trial - that was set out in their initiation note which surely unto God they will have discussed with N before publishing it, but even if they didn't speak to N, its the best we have got to go on (but now discounted to earnings not revenue).
N says "ok we accept", but there is no agreed historic sales number - N is not privy to that information but the lawyers would probably have seen it. BT said only the lawyers got to see the commercially sensitive information NOT Nanoco Directors, so the end figure still needs to be worked out, and N cannot be sure what it comes to, as it won't have the definitive sales figures, and hence the RNS can only refer to an "expected" value (bullet point 1). That is all perfectly plausible. It would also mean that N can say no more and no less about whether the other territories and future sales will be part of the final agreement, or what valuie will be attributed to those sales (S will surely argue the royalty value would have decreased as the worldwide sales grew massively.)
No distortion of words are required to read the RNS in this simple and straightforward way.