Member Info for FlyingHigher

Terrorwit- now you're engaging in wordplay with 'official communications' discarding interviews with Nanoco board members and Nanoco sanctioned guidance released by Edison. You're saying that because there was no RNS with such statements, there was nothing untoward.

That logic is complete idiocy.

Once again you make accusations of narcissism whilst disagreeing with LOAM and seemingly every other shareholder will your blinkered interpretation of events. That would frame you as the biggest narcissist out there. You're afraid of being wrong and owning up to your mistakes.

Feeks we agree with you because we're capable of reading and listening what was communicated by Nanoco at the time.

Terrorwit is sadly incapable of this and instead points to the irrelevant point about the relative size of Nanoco in such a case. It's irrelevant because it was not included in any guidance provided by the company.

Had they said we anticipate the settlement will be small compared with the revenues generated by Samsung due to our size, that would have been fair enough.

Instead at multiple points, they provided lofty calculations based on damages models that were never used.

That's wilfully misleading, unless something happened to damage their confidence in the outcome of the trial. It might be too damaging to report that though if it reveals a flaw in the business.

5.9m two days ago.

I reckon they got rid of 1m+ today.

Another holdings update imminent.

I don't think they declare below 1%.

Not long until they're out.

Yh but Terrorwit, you also had more optimistic predictions and so did Edison, who were commissioned directly by Nanoco.

I think what we were all hoping for was honesty. If they'd come out and given reasons, we'd probably have understood.

Then there was the highly suspicious warm-up RNS spiking the share price. That was unnecessary.

They could have put the second one on the first one and averted that whole drama. It's like some parties wanted a chance to get out. That absolutely stinks.

Then having guided at a majority of a settlement of at least $200m for just US sales, they dressed up $90m for a worldwide settlement as a success. If they'd said it was disappointing but here's why we did it. Again, fair enough. I think there's credence in the view that US lawsuits can literally take lives, but we were left speculating as to why such a disappointing conclusion was reached.

They then talked about the growth of the organic business, but with little consideration for the single partner risk. Well we could all read that for ourselves. I banged on about it for yonks so not an issue. I agree with you that things fail, that's business and life.

What I really cannot get my head around is the capital return and uptick in expenditure with a single partner.

If they had kept all the money, we'd now be looking at a massive cash runway and calmly considering options of another commercial venture, IP license agreement, or sale. Instead we have 20 months and the clock is ticket. The whole world can see our distress. There's no negotiating power.

15p at best for the long-suffering shareholders. Many whom rejected a 24p offer recently as a final kick in the teeth.

Patience indeed.

The share price will likely go into orbit either from increased coverage or better, a significant update.

Either way I don't see much risk at these levels.

As everyone knows from my posts over the past few months, I feel a bargain basement takeover will happen. Nanoco shareholders will be lucky to get 15p, but it all depends on the perceived value of IP.

Sony might may £100m if it gives them a significant competitive edge. That's fantasy though.

Good buy

This will jump back to 12p soon

If there was no share cancellation and buyback we'd have loads of time to prepare a new strategy.

Imagine £70m+ on the balance sheet. I never got why they did it and speculated that it was due to confidence in their commercial pipeline. Now it's not that, it looks like baffling stupidity to give your money back then have to raise it at a low share price a few years later. We'll have to issue 100m shares before long. Thanks for the payout Brian.

Just load up and hold on

Yes indeed! Very poor planning.

The real question we'd all like answering truthfully is why they pulled out?

It can't surely just be yet another strategic decision.

If the tech is good, you'd want to use it.

Sellers are now selling below support at 8.459.

The next support is 7.73p, so I wouldn't buy now. I expect that to be tested in the coming days.

If that breaches, the next support is at 6.459p.

Most alarmingly, the bottom support is now 4.276p.

We can't go that low, can we?

Nanonano I think that's the case. Samsung came to steal and destroy. Dow's involvement was always really weird. I've said countless times that I also consider the possibility that Nanoco tech doesn't work, but that they have a solid IP base.

After Apple pulled out in 2019, it was suggested that to conserve costs, Nanoco could opt to become an IP shell, but then STM came along and the same outcome transpired.

Obviously this is entirely speculative, but if indeed there has been a technical objection to Nanoco technology from the countless partners who walked away prior to STM, why did the board think this would be any different?

Perhaps after the Settlement, they should have become an IP shell also up for sale. You can either license our robust IP just proven through the Samsung litigation or you can take us out. With adequate time left on the IP and £70m+ on the books, perhaps a takeover at this point would have offered shareholders some value. I'm talking £100m. A figure Nanoco will never see again in my opinion.

Not only wrong, I'd have time for incorrect calls, it's his bizarre spin on historic facts that makes him a ludicrous poster with no credibility left.

He calls other posters narcissists, whilst being in a discussion where everyone else disagrees with him, the facts disagree with him, major shareholders obviously disagreed with him, yet he backs himself.

That's obviously narcissistic behaviour, so he's deflecting by accusing others of the same disposition.

If a company can make £100m next year by purchasing Nanoco's patents that would increase the value of a takeover. That's obviously complete fantasy though.

It all depends on how much they can make from it. It's possible Nanoco have valuable IP but are just operationally incompetent.

The only hope is that another party see value in Nanoco IP and buy them out.

I've posted before that I've found it odd that DOW, Merck, Osram, Marle, Apple and Samsung all walked away before commercialisation. Samsung chose instead to use the patented process in-house but not adopt Nanoco tech. Now we add STM to this long list.

Of course there could be many reasons for this. I'm sure with emerging technologies this is very common. However, it would be remiss of me not to consider the possibility of some kind of technical or commercial viability issue with Nanoco technology. Until someone does take it commercial (unlikely though that may be), that suspicion will always remain in my head.

Samsung have a colossal market share and Nanoco got $90m for their troubles. What would a similar course of action against Nanosys yield with this in mind? It would probably cost Nanoco to do it.

Nanosys are just the next obvious example.

Terrorwit your denial is baffling to many of us here and would be to the other shareholders who also feel aggrieved. There was an attempt to remove the board over the their misleading indications of settlement based on clearly articulated damage models. I keep making this point and it doesn't sink in. There are opinions and interpretations but your wayward claims and accompanying conviction go beyond that. I agree with your point about failure to launch products though. That does happen.

I also accept litigation is hard.

What I and others will never accept is that the company guidance ever matched their true understanding of reality or that what happened was in line with reported guidance.