Member Info for Feeks

TW posted on 15 Feb - share price close 5.68p

"So what could success be worth? Enough that the market's current price of zero for the litigation asset is, in my view, absurdly pessimistic. The exact number will come from a settlement agreement or a judgment. Until then, we watch the docket."

"Absurdly pessimistic".

Care to explain?

In context, befoe you claim confidentiality, Nanoco never once said it was seeking protection of valuable sensor IP from competitors.

Let's be clear about it, as it was obvious to Kooba and others who called this right, the cost and risk of the litigation relative to the likely expected benefit would have been a strong driver to settle for both sides. Costs of £0.5m plus have been mooted. This latest suit was never about securing a huge win, and this compromise was hardly going to shift the dial on the share it hasn't. TW wrong for the umpteenth time........

More importantly, why does he paint such a rosy picture on the investment prospects of a high cash burn company with dwindling funds that has NO sensor business? Current cash runway of less than 3 years and with fundraise needed in less than 3. There is no reason to invest given what needs to happen and the dismal failure to win contracts, and endless litigation which is too expensive to get embroiled in.

Nanoco once had an IP suit so valuable that it had litigation funders falling over themselves to back it, and that they did. The settlement deal was Nanoco's single biggest chance to truly capitalise on its display tech. business and it failed preferring to pin its hopes on a long term R,&D mission that continues to pay well rumnerated Directors far into the sunset.

AI-fuelled Terry reminds me of that scene in the "Emerald Forest" when one of the amazon tribe is handed a submachine gun.

TW posted on 15 Feb - share price close 5.68p

"So what could success be worth? Enough that the market's current price of zero for the litigation asset is, in my view, absurdly pessimistic. The exact number will come from a settlement agreement or a judgment. Until then, we watch the docket."

"Absurdly pessimistic". SP today is lower.

Obviously, TW is expecting a very large windfall, which the market does not expect. Let's hope he is right for once in a blue moon!!!

To put this into its proper context, TW's various other BB output airs extreme confidence in relation to his expectation of a successful end result and narrative praising Nanoco's carefully calculated 'master' litigation strategy -v- Shoei desperation and weakness. For TW to be right about this must, the "deal" must demonstrate a very valuable benefit for Nanoco in sensing tech showing that the current SP is absurdly low. So we wait news of that - and no doubt the Board will give it a good shot with their news release!

TW now puts enormous value on the deal terms, and yet litigation against "other" display infringement was never (according to Nanoco) meant to be a high value channel was and not in fact actively persued. The dangers of total reliance on AI shown in its full glory.

I'll let you into a secret TW -

AI will keep feeding you the positive spin. It doesn't alter that this has been a very bad investment for you. But keep digging, you've got 3 more years to go!

FWIW. I agree with MaverickD. It would be irrational to discount this genuine possibility. Doesn't mean it will happen

In response to your AI dig Terry (TW), I've not been so far wrong as it happens:

I was one of the early investors who bought in to the immense prospects of the Samsung litigation. It was a good call as the shares rose 7-fold from that entry point. The settlement deal was terrible! I said they were primarily putting Director salaries first as I didn't believe in the strength of the underlying organic business. I sold up everything at 29p after the Settlement RNS, just as you triumphantly bought back in. I said it would be a slowly unfolding car crash. Right so far. I am now mainly only watching here to see whether there will be any positive changes which might encourage me to reinvest (nothing to date) and also to correct your dangerous, misleading guff.

So I am very happy I didn't get emotionally wedded to this perpetually failing company as you seem to have done.

You will be singing the praises of this company as it goes into administration, or a fire sale.

I'd say I've got it spot on.

Has generated 9 figure settlements from a 10 figure base would be more accurate. Nanoco won't survive more litigation so what does it do? Currently valued at less than cash, with a cash burn of c.£4m pa, to me Nanoco looks finished, and is a high risk bet it will pull a rabbit out of the hat. That's what the market "noise" should be telling you, but you will never admit it.

Ps. Shrewd , it's a nonsense for you to say a takeover is folly and delusional. You are talking utter rubbish! Of course it can happen and your views are wholly irreconcilable with thoughts that Zanaga mine is currently worth a good deal more than RAM is offering . If anyone is interested it sure won't take long to find out.

Lol Terry. Your base case was share price "plus". The only protection gained is for something that was not thought to be at risk. Your base case exploded in your face, so the news is pretty disappointing to investors who understand this. They don't need to hear your twisted AI driven narrative.

Shrewd, if indeed you are correct, then we have already reached "peak shafting". There is no sensible counter to that argument, and hence the SP will rise 'in the fullness of time'. All this presents a positive investment case with increasing rewards as we progress each step along the way, most especially if this mine should ever reach production stage, as I now believe it will (and I didn't hold that belief before the RAM deal was announced).

At what point did you ever acknowledge that there was a serious infringement issue with Nanoco's IP in sensing which required it to be compensated. You didn't.

"· I said the litigation asset had value -It did — in the form of a cross‑license that clears Nanoco's path in sensing".

Correct, Kooba. The material terms have been laid out.

TW -

You are now belittling investors who are disappointed with this outcome as they didn't get a windfall. You say that's their fault. But maybe it's yours? Who do you think said this:

"So what could success be worth? Enough that the market's current price of zero for the litigation asset is, in my view, absurdly pessimistic. The exact number will come from a settlement agreement or a judgment. Until then, we watch the docket."

TW your whole output is spurious conjecture. Be humble !

TW -

Look at the bilge you post here which is dangerous to anyone who should - Heaven forbid - take your advice literally. You were telling everyone that this litigation was a carefully orchestrated plan, and if you ever believed that yourself, then you truly need saving from AI.

TW - you are continually feeding off AI content which will always lend support to your thesis and promptings. The problem is that you don't specifically acknowledge this (or that you have rarely ever been correct in the past). You have got this one wrong yet again .... so maybe not a time to be using your AI friend to morph into a new position, yet again, making further bold pronouncements here.

At this point, I'd be surprised if Nanoco has enough money to survive. What about you?

"And Feeks. If you really think the Nomads and Zioc have done nothin wrong..."

I haven't commented on that issue at all, as I simply don't know if any rules have been broken - and nor does anyone. It's all pure speculation. I have very little faith in the regulators, that's for sure. especially as its a BVI company. But Its difficult to believe my shares won't be worth sub 2p if shareholder action achieves any success.

Your theory is currently being tested by the market because if you are right about this deal, there will be a separate rival bid incoming before end of June.

I don't wholeheartedly agree with that view. It's not how the market tends to work in mining shares. The first obvious value infection point will be the EGM vote and the second, Q3 2027 FID. I also recognise that FID might come sooner than Q3 2027, or that a usurper might step in to change things at any time.