Member Info for Feeks

No saleable product.

Darth -
An incoming fluffy RNS or two will be the short term tactic. It is what every CEO on AIM uses to raise expectations and keep pie-eyed investors happy but the longer term problem for companies doing this is that impatience sets in when nothing is delivered. BTW I do of course realise that Nanoco is not on AIM, but right now it feels like it. The big plus in Nanoco's favour is the money which keeps it alive but I would not expect any of it to end up as dividend, or not much. It will be needed to keep the business afloat and current management will hope to retain enough investor support to be the ones sailing the boat. My prediction is that nothing comes of anything and sooner or later the doubts here will magnify. I've seen it so many times with other jam tomorrow stocks I would not expect anything else. I put N in that category now as it has shown its IP is not as valuable as everyone hoped it would be. Lifestyle business.

BT wil discover he made a major error by revealing that the company had beaten its onw low-end expectations by three times. Pulled the rug from under his own feet with that one! But this is what happens when a person is scrabbling for a way out after backing themselves into a corner.

HH
I sold out but you are holding. I do not wish to be associated with the company. What is your reason to hold?

Don't expect to be treated as a credible poster if you cannot answer what you claim to be simple and obvious.

The right thing to do would be to admit that you got lucky on a hunch. We all had the same hunch. I chose to stick with the only company guidance I knew and it has cost me. Silly me.

Nope, that's not an answer. As you can't answer please can someone do it for you. Where can I find any reference to what the company has guided other than BT's pantomime performance at the investor Q&A? This misdirection is a point of seriousness - playing around with other people's livelihoods just to secure one's own.

" 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"

Gigs you get no credit for being "right" until you can answer my question. Go on please try. You are full of bluster

"You misled yourself and you're cross with yourself really. If you want to blame anyone, blame the likes of Feeks, Hawi and Sammy88, although you didn't have to listen to them."

Gigs - now you are pointing the finger of blame at people who chose to take BT's words at face value. Ironic.

You cannot answer me Gigs. You ought to be able to as it was the key line from the key RNS. You cannot answer my question and that is direct proof investors were misled.

HH I wouldn't put it quite in those terms. £70m or whatever is a lot of money and it guarantees Director's pay and a shot at hooking future development / production contracts (IMO no better than a moonshot at this stage).

At any stage they could have told us that would be regarded a transformational sum. But didn't.

All the while the company was setting unrealistic expectations in full.knowledge it was satisfied to settle for much less. That is an incontrovertible fact. BT was the chief fluffer, the same job as Edelman did before him.

Mattyboy. The company is cash rich. That's nice but it's no better than a cash shell IMO. Sensor development is way off commercialisation. One certainly cannot trust management to tell it like it is.

Gigawit - you haven't understood a thing. I predicted you would claim to be right if the award was low. Answer my earlier question and I might be prepared to give you some credit:

What company guidance?

NGR - sorry, but low end of what...?

He referred to somethimg that the company had guided. Arguably, it was reaonable to take that guide as Edison's 'LOW END' QD-film pricing model, just as I and many others did.

Nanogeddon -

Yes. And BT won't be able to point to any. Company guidance is not guidance if it remains locked in a Boardroom cabinet.

Would anyone have invested large sums here if the company had revealed its conservative estimate of the true value of the litigation. That's all you need to know.

Tornatodtony - perhaps true but BT definitely linked shareprice value directly to the immediate litigation outcome. Value was not pinned in some later hope of success with the organic business.

Nanogeddon -

The only other way to look at it is to assume that Nanoco DID obtain what it genuinely considers to represent 'fair value' for the patents. We do not have a proper handle on total global historic and future sales but the number is probably a minimum of 150m. That would indicate the IP for display QD's is worth no more than one cent per display. That's not a valuble business.

And if Nanoco DOES now sign a deal with another manufacturer in the low dollar price range then that will reflect very poorly on the current Samsung settlement deal.

The company announcement on 6/1/23 failed to mirror the previously stated company intention and was issued without giving any qualification. So it appears that all along BT was playing bluff with shareholders as a negotiating tactic for his fight with Samsung.

Rather than putting out riddles the company could easily have done one of two things:

1) Given investors a true value range for the litigation so they could harness their expectations at the low end; or
2) Given investors no information about this at all to ensure that nobody could be misled.

What BT actually did lies somewhere in between and what makes this unforgivable is that the ONLY time he did comment on litigation value (in relation to a jury win OR settlement) it was to tell investors that the value could be worth a multiple of an already hefty shareprice, when by reference to the Board's own conservative modelling those sort of numbers were utter fantasy land.

What shareholder reaction did he expect to engender with that that sort of talk....? Clearly it did mislead investors as to what they should reasonably expect from an agreeable settlement.

BT always knew the case was likely to settle - he quoted the stats on that, and so this was never a last minute change of heart. And like it says in the RNS, the company is delighted with the settlement deal which is 3 times what they expected.

The final outcome is now impossible to explan truthfully without an admission that shareholders were knowingly burned.

The crux of it is 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"

If not Edison, if not Turner Pope, then where else does one find the company giving guidance on its expectations of a successful jury trial outcome ......?

That is still the unanswered question.

I was unsure how to interpret this opaque part of the 9/1/23 RNS when it was released. It seems at least some of those who sold based their judgement on what other privileged investors who were close to the company might have known that we didn't, but even if true that was just rumour and conjecture and not a good reason to sell.

In search of meaning I went back through all the investor presentations. I was able to satisfy myself that the company had previously stated it would only settle for fair value on the basis of global coverage and future royalties for the lifetime of its patents. BT then added further colour to that assertion by saying that it meant damages worth a multiple of the current share price.

Those were the words I decided to trust when choosing not to sell out of my investment after 9/1/23. It was the only guidance of any sort we had received from the company.

Finally, there were those who did sell out who appeared to base their calculations on Edison / Turner Pope figures, so it seems even they were misled.

* detractors

Troublesome - look at Saietta. It has been doing big deals very soon after IPO. 2023 will be straight into production. Huge markets. Total opposite of this omni-shambles.

Amazing to check in and see that so many of the former detractelors are now clinging to powder puff dreams of what the future holds. Baffling.

The question I suppose is how does it compare to other electric motor alternatives?

https://*************.net/uk-axial-flux-motors-power-clean-outboard-motors-for-boats

"In Amsterdam, for example, all new vessels will have to be electrically powered by 2025, and it is predicted that 74% of outboard motor sales in Europe will be electric by 2030.

The electric outboard motor, being built by the Saietta spin-off called Propel, is based on a 10kW “pancake” axial-flux motor – the equivalent of a 25hp traditional outboard engine – with a controller mounted on top."

I've not kept up with the board since early yesterday morning but will not be surprised if there is a vast range of views.

Henry H - seeing your post below, I feel very similar to you. I sold at a loss after an early 30's average having leveraged up at higher prices, after a 10p entry. For a long time Nanoco gains offset my poorly performing portfolio so it all feels much worse than it is to now sell out at a loss. There is no doubt in my mind that the Board of Directors have looked after its own interests above shareholders, and there is a mismatch between stated output / messaging and real intentions. It doesn't wash that they were forced into a poor deal due to a last minute panic or lack of resolve as they were working with experts from long ago and the pressure of that moment - to accept a low deal from Samsung - would always have been the most obvious scenario to encounter. That's how litigation works, and it is why cases settle. I have made that point here before.

So the truth is they did a deal that was rather better for Directors and funders (and Samsung) than anyone else and that is at the expense of long suffering shareholders have done worse than they reasonably expected ..... That is really only a problem because the management actively talked up the potential rewards for a jury win or settlement to a scale which obviously did not match their own private view of the realities. Only uninformed amateurs would not have been ready for what happened close to trial, and what you will hear will be excuses.

My decision was to sell completely as I don't want to hear any more of it, and will not wish to suffer the long wait needed for the organic growth to come through. It all feels like years away for the biggest market explosion for sensors (mobile phones) - Yole have put that out to 2027 at the earliest. I will retain an interest in events - and something may change which restores my confidence - but meanwhile I won't infect the board here with a stream of negative commentary.

It's up to you what you do next, HH and I wish you the best of luck and happiness, and so too to everyone else who holds. It's a pity we won't have our outing in Runcorn!!

But for anyone interested in reforming this enviable group of intelligent investors and might fancy a possible gathering in Oxford in Spring 2025 please take a good close look at SED (Saietta). I really like what I see and so have made an initial investment. At current prices it is arguably a bargain if you think like I do that they are on the fast track to success. Top quality management too - Executive Chairman Tony Gott is the former boss of Rolls Royce and Bentley. Loads of vids to view on Vox and proactive. I look forward to seeing one or two of you over there in future !