Member Info for Gary37

Has anyone been able to discover the reasoning behind Glass Lewis's recommendation? And I mean their actual reasoning and not what we might infer. All I can find is the Nano RNS stating the recommendation in favour. I can't see anything on GL's website, but then I might be looking in the wrong place.

This has been my second worst ever investment both in terms of % and £GBP having bought my first tranche in August 2013 (I must at this point take slight issue with the poster who complained about the BoD's value destruction: the shares were at one point comfortably above 150p - which I think you referenced - so it is even worse than you suggested).

I have reached the point where there is so little value left that I wonder what difference it will make to me if Nano remains public or delists. Yes, I understand the valid points about governance, accountability etc. I also wonder about the motive of some of the more vociferous proponents of a 'vote no' who have appeared on this board from nowhere. Have any of you bought recently in the hope of defeating the BoD's proposal and seeing a quick share price rebound before cashing in never to be seen again, leaving us longstanding holders to our fate? Hmm.

I confess there is a lot I don't understand about the BoD's actions. They must have known the proposal to delist would cause the SP to crater. If they did indeed reject a potential sale because the offer was too low, how low can that offer have been if they thought delisting offered better 'shareholder value'? Or am I just applying 20/20 hindsight? Is saving £700k really such a game changer as to justify this further SP destruction and why did they not even refer to an AIM listing as an option they had considered but rejected, with relevant reasoning. In my view this should never have been on the main market (and it was often referred to as an AIM stock by posters on this board) but I thought the BoD must have known what they were doing (better access to capital etc). More fool me.

In the absence of any TR-1's (so far) is seems no single entity sees an opportunity to buy in quantity to influence the decision one way or the other. Milkwood has been silent (but no reason they shouldn't be).

You would think the BoD would not have proposed a delisting if they were not confident of the outcome. But I don't know how you can be confident in an outcome when such a huge percentage of the shares is held by individual investors. Is the assumption that most won't vote so apathy wins? And how much silver is crossing the palms of highly paid advisers to fund this little escapade?

Sorry, this has become rather a thinking out loud ramble. But I would genuinely like to know if anyone can answer the question posed at the start re GL. I will then have to decide how to vote.

Thanks Kooba, with regard to ISA holdings. It seems your ISA provider is required to move your holding to a general trading account on delisting. So you crystallise your loss (in my case) and lose value from a tax efficient wrapper.

It is also unclear if you can continue to hold an unlisted Nano in a SIPP. It seems it is legal to do so but not all providers will allow it so you would need to check on your provider’s rules.

At least the SP has recovered from the early reaction and is down ‘only’ 36% as I write. So this cunning plan to delist will only hammer what little value that is left and cause an administrative headache. What’s not to like?

Congrats to Bunsen if (s)he did indeed buy at 2.5p.

You make an interesting point. Coronation’s holding has now risen to 28%, Camissa’s is steady at 15% and the Public Inv Corp’s holding has lifted to 6% totalling slightly above 49%. Has anyone else noticed all three of these entities is based in South Africa: Camissa and Coronation in Cape Town and PIC in Pretoria. So what do South Africans see in the company that almost nobody else does?

I don’t think this has been covered before (article is dated 2 Feb) and I have no idea of the implications. Maybe others do? Don’t know if this link will work but the rest of the story requires an account to read. All that is publicly available is:

Mobico said to have settled $9 million CityBus award in Morocco

UK-based Mobico Group, previously known as National Express Group, had committed to a contractual put option granted to the local partner in a joint-venture that an arbitration panel ruled was valid, sources say.

https://takyon.law/2026/02/02/mobico-said-to-have-settled-9-million-citybus-award-in-morocco/

Bigjock 36 European Express Enterprises Limited have just announced an increase in their stake from 21 to 22%

I have been invested in Aviva since 2012 and have reinvested my dividends almost every six months. This meant that inevitably some of these reinvestments took place when the shares were at an all too brief high. However, I am pleased that the current momentum means every one is now above water, and some being substantially so. This illustrates the benefits of drip feeding into the market and taking the “get rich slow“ approach.

There has been much discussion on the LGEN board (I hold and reinvest here too) in the recent past about the best approach to investing around dividend payday e.g. selling immediately before and purchasing immediately after, in the expectation the price will have pulled back more than the value of the dividend. This struck me as being somewhat hit and miss and too much like hard work. I try to keep things simple.

This time around, however, I have tried something slightly different with my reinvestment. I was in the fortunate position of having sufficient spare cash to “reinvest“ before payday this week. I took this approach because the Q1 results were so positive that it seemed to me the upward momentum would continue and thus it would be sensible to buy what I was going to buy anyway but do it sooner rather than later. I also perceive that historically there has been a small additional upward pressure after payday as dividends are reinvested. That might or might not be factually correct, I haven’t done any technical research. I bought a few days ago at 574p. When the price pulled back I feared that maybe this was a mistake (I thought you were trying to keep things simple?!) but the subsequent price movement has been encouraging. It will be interesting to see if there is any additional upward pressure at the end of the week/early next week as dividends are reinvested. Surely anybody who does not need to cash in the dividend will be looking to reinvest it given the increasingly positive outlook.

Aviva is now my second largest holding and I intend to continue re-investing the dividend and benefiting from the compound effect. Assuming the Direct Line purchase does indeed proceed, I can only see that making the company more profitable thus and more attractive.

This from my morning Alliance News briefing : Berenberg initiates accesso Technology with 'buy' - price target 775 pence.

At the moment nothing the company does seems to improve the share price. I don’t know what the catalyst for a re-rating will be but, having been invested in what was originally LOQ since before it hit the heady heights of £30+ per share (and then, of course, through its vertiginous descent), I remain convinced ACSO has a wide moat, has capable leadership and is making sensible additions (as it has long done) both to expand its reach and deepen relationships with key industry players.

Hot on the heels of the Sky TV interview there is today a piece on the This is Money website under an 'Exclusive' banner: 'Nanoco eyes new chapter after Samsung settlement and attempted boardroom coup'.

It's a long article and not had time to read it through but even if - as likely - it doesn't tell LTHs anything new it still helps raise the profile.

This is the link but not sure if it will paste correctly (I seem to recall that can often be a problem on LSE but will give it a go).

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13243763/Nanoco-eyes-new-chapter-Samsung-settlement-attempted-boardroom-coup.html

Happy Easter all.

No, troublesome, a little longer in the tooth than that.

For what it is worth, this is the feedback I gave at the end of the Investor Meet presentation:

I have been a shareholder for almost exactly 10 years, increasing steadily my holding to 300k. Having been disappointed on numerous occasions in the past not to have arrived on the oft-promised sunlit uplands I feel the current share price is about fair until someone signs an actual real life commercial supply contract. I remain excited about prospects. I thank you all for your time today. I believe in the board and will be voting against all resolutions.

I would, however, like to record one significant reservation. I feel you managed expectations about the Samsung settlement very poorly. Despite the proclaimed board experience in managing early stage and developing tech companies I believe you do not have a good enough grasp of small cap private investor psychology, and that matters. This was clearly demonstrated by not understanding the likely effects of the first January RNS, necessitating a second. This is a matter of record, not opinion, given the impact the first statement had. I also feel it is disingenuous of you to say, in answer to the question about Edison, that their opinions are not endorsed by the board. By making no attempt whatsoever to distance yourselves from those opinions, is it surprising that PIs inferred you were tacitly in agreement? It's not like you have to keep your eyes on dozens of investor relations businesses commenting on Nanoco. I hope you will manage expectations better in the future. Sadly I suspect that for a while yet genuine good news will not move the share price as we would all want it to until you have regained the market's trust. I look forward to you receiving 100% of your incentive scheme bonus as the share price heads past 70p, assuming I live that long!

Many thanks Feeks for your thoughtful post. As it happens the choice of ‘If’ was especially appropriate as it is a poem I committed to memory some two decades ago to exercise my brain and often replay it to keep it in my head.
I shall certainly be trying to keep my head, whatever the outcome of the trial.

I have been invested here since August 2013 when I made my first modest purchase at a frankly embarrassing price of £1.70, pretty much the peak of the peak. I have steadily added, done a little trading, and made a £10k profit when I bed and ISA'd a slug back in April that I had bought at 14p. My current holding is a shade under 200k at an average purchase price inc costs of 42p. This is by far my largest holding and the second largest exposure I have ever had to any one share (the largest ever holding ended disastrously many years ago).
Last year was the latest is a series of very difficult years for me and my family; I am hoping that this year will be different and that 2023 will finally see Nano and its shareholders get their just rewards, bringing something positive to all of us long term holders. I have read this board for years but have never felt I could add anything useful. However, I thought at the start of this new year, I would echo comments made elsewhere that this is by far the best-mannered and most informative board I have frequented. I find that these days people are quick to criticise and slow to praise. So I want to thank you all, even the mildly cantankerous ones, for keeping me informed (I am in awe of your resourceful research) and motivated. At times I have looked upon the regular contributors almost like a family, a family which has provided support throughout the year. I wish you all a happy and prosperous new year.

Thanks for the link W13Ken. I was alerted to the article via Google Alerts but could only access the first bit until you provided the link. Much appreciated. Fingers crossed this might get more people interested and that the HY figures on Tuesday will be positive. I have been a holder since March 2013 and thus fully experienced the share price rollercoaster Lucy Tobin writes about.

My first post so please be gentle.

I have just finished listening to the results broadcast which I found interesting and instructive. I have not heard Ofer Druker speak before and whilst I found the analysts‘ questions less than forensic (quite disappointing actually) he seemed keen to answer directly and was in no way evasive. I found it interesting that all the analysts who asked questions appeared to be from American investment houses which might or might not justify the decision to list on NASDAQ but certainly suggests that interest in the company has increased as a result of that listing.

CEO and CFO prepared remarks are available on the website and didn’t appear to add a great deal to what was in the RNS, which I suppose is as it should be.

Two key things I took away, in answer to analyst questions were:

Firstly, despite the impressive increases in turnover and profit, Ofer was keen to point out that at least as far as Unruly is concerned Covid had limited their ability to leverage the acquisition. That suggests in this segment there is more growth to go for.
Secondly, I think I heard correctly, that he saw scope for significant growth in CTV continuing at least until the end of next calendar year. From what he said it seems that significant parts of the advertising world were still just at the stage of experimenting with migrating more of the ad spend to CTV, the area TRMR consider to be their largest growth market.

Even more interesting is to see how the share price, after gyrating up and down today, has increased significantly since the call ended. I confess whilst I was in no doubt about the fact the figures today would have been strong I had not expected them to be this strong. I was also concerned about market reaction, given how recent strong figures from US peers had led to declines in share prices. As someone who has held since 2012 in the days of Blinkx I am delighted to have been proved wrong. I’m sure the share price will continue to be more volatile than historically but I am encouraged by what I have seen and heard today.