Member Info for FlyingHigher

GigaWitt - I had suspicions on a change in perceived credibility of Samsung's case too, but I veered more towards a funding conspiracy to make sense of it. It made no sense that Nanoco would choose that option IF they were clearly in the ascendancy with the prospect of an EU injunction looming down the line.
You might be right here.

The fake RNS thread was removed.
Desperate Nanoco rampers.

Oh grow up

Nanonano is living in cloud cuckoo land with 11 other people judging by that comment.
Prepare for disappointment.

Hawi - Newbies should also consider that Nanoco are currently a loss making business valued at 46x revenues with no serious inflection points for some time.
The outcome of the litigation was the value driver, but expectations from this have been severely dampened by the company's paid PR company, who released a very conservative statement on the approval of Nanoco, who are obviously involved in the discussions with Samsung.
Previously, value was largely driven by their IP, but with Samsung likely to have on-going access to it until expiry for a heavily discounted 'world peace' settlement, this has been completely undermined.

NGR the share price got to where it did on the Apple contract because there was potential for imminent transformative revenues. Such potential is no longer there. No broker believes Nanoco are on the cusp of anything massive now.
We hope the sensing market will ramp up over the next couple of years perhaps.

This share needs more coverage, an absolute bargain! :)

Have the Investors Chronicle said much about the current plight of INL?

The assumed value of display/litigation accounts for a large part of the current market cap.
This represents an unpalatable risk.
If there is little value realised then the share price will fall to reflect whatever value the market attributes to the organic business.
If you're invested now, you assume that the litigation and organic business combined are worth £120m+.
Whether this assumption/belief is right or wrong, it's definitely a gamble and that's where investment principles come into play.
GigaWitt raises a crucial point about avoiding a gambling mentality.
It will certainly fail at some point and personally, my own principles won't allow me to get into that position by choice.

"Even if I have to buy back in at a higher price it will be worth it to avoid that risk."
This is great rationale that I share.
If we're wrong in our instincts it would be better than to ignore them and just risk it.

That's an interesting perspective, thanks Screenlearner.
You might be right!

Hawi - I'm good at Math, it's just your tone is very childish, so I'm jesting with you.
31p it is best case scenario.
The percentages won't drop in the same way in an early settlement scenario where the payout is lower.
GigaWitt is best to advise on this.
Ecclescake you're right on the differences between lost revenues and lost royalties calculations.
The lost royalties one has been maintained by Edison on the approval of Nanoco, so that's the one we should stick with.

So my prediction is actually:
Best case scenario:
$200m or £160m - £80m costs - £9.288m = 70,712,00 + organic business at £30m /322m shares = 31p.
Seems about right

On a serious note, it works out about £9.288m repayable.

They were removed due to suspected spam because guessing games are really dull. Some here seem to enjoy them though sadly

£4.725m

£4.68m?

$154m sounds realistic Tony.

Thanks to all those who converse civilly as adults, we don't need to stoop to the lows of IntrusiveThought.

You're all operating in an echo chamber, making up figures that sounds plausible yet have zero basis in reality. The only one we know is the $200m, so you either accept this or you'll be very disappointed.
As for the loan note, if not £20m repayment, does anyone know the exact amount and terms? It looks a bit weird to me because there was stuff in there about nominal value - confusing. I just want amount borrowed and amount to be repaid.