Member Info for FlyingHigher

I'll be buying in here if this gets a lot closer to 20p.

GigaWitt - we had evidence based convictions unlike you. You've just repeatedly tried to cover for the obviously disappointing announcement.

In fact if it's £80m retained by Nanoco, then £20-30m for the rest of business, that would be about right.
I think we're actually getting to the right share price on that estimate just about. BUT and a big BUT, we're not likely to retain £80m.

The litigation funder can walk away with anything pre-trial. That's my understanding.
The only credible estimate for settlement is $200-$250m, discounted for pre-trial apparently then minus the funder's stake.
So we're left with....... very little! Up to $100m, which in no way justifies the current market cap.

I'd like a personal signed letter from Brian apologizing to me for all the years of missed opportunities and incompetence.

The share continues trading to let everyone out before it possibly all goes wrong very shortly.
What an absolute mess of a company.
They had Samsung by the knackers but still managed to get shafted. They can't help it.

Nanoco will be much cheaper if the settlement doesn't justify the market cap

They'll keep selling, I wonder why?

IT - Yh but it's odd timing if they could have sold at 50p a few months ago, don't you think?

Lobo you won't get a sensible answer to that question. I've tried so many times.

Gigawitt - Brian also cited measures for that transformational value that they've now fallen way short of. Transformational is deliberately subjective. He can argue $20m is transformational for a company that has never turned a profit.

I think that's a waste of time.
They can't tell you anything meaningful, they only tell LOAM stuff pre release

Loam weren't selling at the same rate though, it's notably faster now like that of a frantic panic. My point is they should have been selling in this way in September.

The organic value of Nanoco is difficult to estimate. I'm saying £20-£30m based on 10x revenue.

Why didn't LOAM sell like this back in September when the share price went above 50p?
My suspicion is at that point they believed a return at that price point to be reasonably likely, enough to deter them from selling.
Post announcement they've started selling heavily, whilst also being very close to discussions.
This in my view, makes it extremely unlikely that LOAM's selling is merely profit taking. It wouldn't make sense, they're making less profit now than in September.
I think it's more panic and the reason they're doing it slowly is because they have lots to offload.

Stas20, the reason the selling is so aggressive is much of the inflated value came from the completely rational perception that Nanoco were due a settlement of $500m+. This perception, contrary to what people falsely assert here, was based on projections provided by the Nanoco management themselves. Now if we're left with no display royalties and a measly settlement, then we're left to speculatively value the sensor business, which has no forecasts for scrutiny. Nanoco, at this point, could conceivably be worth between £20-30m on nothing retained from litigation.
The prevailing view is probably whatever is retained from litigation + £20 - 30m, so my guess would be around £100m market cap tops - 31p, but I'm being optimistic with a £70-80m retained figure. If it's less the market cap goes lower.
Scary times.
I had hoped the selling would dry up today, but clearly loam know more than we do.
They have many more to go before the announcement.
Sell! Review at 31p.

Not if Samsung have ongoing use of our IP with no royalties. They'll just gobble up the QLED market.
Nanoco might as well sell the display division to them.

GBT - your post is 100% true, but too uncomfortable for many on this forum to accept for whatever reason. I appreciate your contributions though, keep them coming!

I might be wrong, who really knows?

I don't believe ABA either. It's like those who seriously believe insider trading isn't rife. It's illegal they cry, yh but it happens everywhere. We've seen it here. Sure, a litigation funder shouldn't attempt to control the litigation, but they do. It's the only thing that makes sense here unless the BoD are complete mugs.