Member Info for Feeks

He can invest his fund just as he pleases, but it is risible that you should be happy to take so much comfort of his endorsement of a 9p share price when you bought at 28p just as I finally sold. Tell me who is winning that trade.

Desper-Wit not taken.

Usually a good sign when a bulletin board has so few posters. The SAW hype evaporated a long time ago so now going quietly under the radar.

I am one of the 38! Quite dry in the presentation but also very detailed.

With sincere commiserations to those who invested too early here we have a classic example of a well run businesses which is likely to remain on an upwards trajectory for now as it keeps delivering good results especially with the Translogik side of the business. My concern is not so much as what happens in the next 1-3 years but whether SAW will develop fast enough to support the share price in the phase which comes after, especially if the share price is by then 250p+

' Sorry everyone it looks like they've thrown in the towel so they can concentrate on ....

..... our attempt to delay the future collapse of the organic business '.

Dots aren't good enough..... or just too expensive? That would explain why Samsung were happy to "use now pay later".

So "thrown in the towel" one minute, transformed to a great deal the next... something not stacking up. It sounds rather like selective memory disorder...... All of which is highly reminiscent of what the judge encountered when our dear Terry was questioned in court about the working timesheets which were submitted to support his claim for repudiatory contract breach and damages. The timesheets purported to be contemporaneous, but in fact were shown to be anything but that, because the figures had in fact been retrospectively altered/ inflated!

I take all this into account when assessing whether your contorted interpretation and memory of events is likely to be reliable.

The settlement guidance was abundantly clear. Everything was clear until the obfuscation of the settlement RNS. The market reaction was spot on after the first. It was fill yer boots time for anyone who believed in the management. You didn't receive the settlement news as positive for tbe share price. Paraphrasing your words here, we were the dummies because we should have realised, just like you claim to have done, that the Board were sending out a 'message' to Samsung as this was part of their litigation tactics to get the best value settlement offer.

If you are right about this then it is every good reason to never again trust the Board to give you the real picture.

Totally irrelevant, Terry! Nanoco did not lose. The Board agreed to settle. And settle they did on terms that they were happy to agree. No need for guesswork when we were told what to expect about the valuation metrics of a settlement.

I am far more concerned to know how a spoon like you could so confidently IGNORE the company guidance without being wrong.

Terry, I really hope you are taking cues from management because once again you failed to answer. There was a settlement. What were investors led to expect would be the outcome of that scenario?

Terrorwit

You really should stop projecting your straw man arguments on me. It is laughable for you to think that I am a bitter person. I am certainly a committed person and it has served me well in life. I am here for all the reasons I previously stated but it is mainly because I think your views are hypocritical and misleading to others, not to mention a joke. I choose to challenge them.

I was always expecting to be given a straightforward explanation of the risks from management, you see. I am eager to learn exactly what you believe I had misinterpreted. So, please tell me straight, so I can put my mind to rest, rather than mock my ignorance: What company guidance was I supposed to follow to allow me to correctly interpret the omnishambles of the twin settlement RNS?

Until you have educated me please don't be surprised that I lost empathy with the board. My view is they should have taken time to issue plain speaking statements to their loyal retail investors when they changed tack on the litigation because that is what they want us to believe did happen, or don't they? But clearly it didn't suit them to do that.

Terry, sincerely, I have enjoyed sparring with you. Good luck with your investment! I leave you with this to ponder:

"Humanists are people who shape their own lives in the here and now, because we believe it's the only life we have. We make sense of the world through logic, reason, and evidence, and always seek to treat those around us with warmth, understanding, and respect."

You claim to subscribe to this philosophy. Have a good day :-)

This is certainly a strange conversation to be having Terry, as we all know you are the person formerly known as NigWit and GigaWit. You admitted this after accidentally revealing your true self, though you seemed to be having fun with the deception and did not seem too concerned at the time about hiding your re-born identity on this Board.

You seem utterly fascinated with calling out genuinely disgruntled investors/ former investors as narcissists simply for expressing an alternative view (a popular one at that), when you might just be smart enough to realise that the level of antagonistic feeling displayed by a previously loyal retail investor base is, in fact, totally understandable.

Even if you fundamentally disagree with that position, you will always fail in life if you cannot see that there is a cogent counter argument to your own in this case. Hamoodi’s litigation case itself already hints at that much being true. It is not a stretch to believe that I am not a fantasist who ran away with my own fairytale prediction of value devoid of any connection to the official company output: transformation value / fair value etc… with “multiples of the current market cap” providing the relevant benchmark, not to mention guidance on low/medium/high damages models. This instilled confidence amongst investors of a much better outcome than the pitiful $150m they accepted.

One more point, the company indicated it would reveal any significant change to its litigation strategy if such circumstances came into play. It knew of the court judgment for months whilst also being aware of the postings on this board, but it chose to remain silent instead despite a runaway share valuation.

“My recollection is that NigWit and GigaWit both warned you over and again as the settlement approached that the numbers would be nowhere those you constructed”

You became knowledgeable about a niche court judgment which somehow landed in your lap. It is very difficult to imagine that you discovered this unaided, let alone that you were equipped to interpret its true meaning in relation to the Nanoco litigation. I genuinely mean no offence by that, but the fact is that you do not profess any expertise in US patent litigation yourself.

Were you even the company mouthpiece used to disseminate a calming message which was intended to take the sting out of the problems created by its own wayward investor guidance….? Were your rantings a nudge and a wink code that clued-up investors were supposed to cotton on to…? That’s what it increasingly looks like, especially given the ‘clear as mud’ twin settlement RNS messages. Though if my suspicions about this are indeed true, their choice of vehicle for the message has been the proverbial car crash.

Good post Nanono. It seems investors have been let down /led astray/ given false hope by far more than just cancellation of the STM orders.

My primary reason to sell post-settlement was that management had shown themselves up as people not to be trusted and it turns out that this was the right judgement call based on all the facts of what had occurred. It has saved me from incurring a sizeable loss.

One more post from me is probably all I want to say for now.

> $1bn (oops!)

No that was Terry's sky-high prediction. Personally, I never once speculated on Nanoco negotiating a recurring license fee. I anticipated that it would receive a one-off lump payment instead. I considered then (and still do) that >$1m would represent "fair value" solely relying upon BT's retrospectively wayward investor guidance, namely that the ONLY acceptable settlement terms to Nanoco would be a meaningful offer to reflect:

- All past and future sales

- Worldwide IP sales, not just sales in the US

- Potential multiplier of up to x3

I am sure that many others will agree.

Ps. My valuation was way below your $750m plus recurring annual $100m license fee.

Yes the settlement should have been very much higher for it to remain consistent with the company's own guidance of "fair value". Period. Don't you see the fatal flaw in your argument? You seem to be in perpetual denial and will remain so whatever bad news next comes your way.

By way of reminder there were no "trolls" on this BB until BT alienated a whole gang of loyal, and clued-up retail investors who refuse to have the wool pulled over their eyes.