Adam Davidson, CEO of Trident Royalties, discusses offtake milestones and catalysts to boost FY24. Watch the video here.
'The Board is very confident in the strength of the Company's case and in an outcome that is transformational for Nanoco's prospects and shareholder value.' Statement from the Placing and Subscription announcement of 6 Jun 2022. This says it all. Yet still no explanation from the BOD on how shareholders value is to be transformed as a result of the settlement.
Troublesome
Thanks for the info. Hopefully there won't be any hidden costs we don't know about and the $15m figure should be confirmed in the next Interims in April. However with current inflation rate, by the time we get the balance, it will be worth 10% less. The more I look at this deal, the worse it gets.
Bonzo
It is not a question of belief in the company as if it were a religious enterprise. We all do our assessment of a company's prospect based on publically available information. Most of that information is supplied in one form or another by the Company. If that information is subject to doubt it leaves investors no means of assessing the company's prospects. Anyone 'believing in the Company' is taking a lot on trust. If NANCO's patents have little or no value, this company is dead in the water IMO as it is not going to compete with the bigger players otherwise. It is not as simply as selling up and moving on, the uncertainty makes even this a difficult call.
Henry,
I agree entirely, BT has no credibility in my eyes. What we retain from the settlement, after costs, is still in doubt in my opinion as we still only have NANOCO (BT's ) ballpark figure as to what the eventual costs will amount to. I put no credibility on any BT figure at the moment.
That has been the problem, many people on here have been listening to the company. They would have been better off not doing so over the last few years. Most of the information received rrom BT has to say the least, been economical with the truth. I say this having correctly predicted the outcome of the litigation in my post of 13 Jan. However unlike you I am not crowing about the fact, even a broken clock can be right twice a day. I have been investing in small cap shares for over 40 years now, I have had winners and losers over that time. However when I look back over my losers, I invarably find that the reason for many is that the CEO was believed when he was overegging or in some cases outright lying. In my mind BT has deliberately or otherwise misled shareholders and I await an explanation until then anything he says will be discounted unless accompanied by verifiable figures.
The 9/1 RNS was a panick reation by BT when he realised he was open to being accused of raising expectations which were not reflected in the agreement he had just made with Samsung. It was a blatent attempt to cover his back.
Possible future competition in search. Check out ChatGp at OpenAI.com. Microsoft obviously think so as they are heavily invested.
Rightly or wongly it is pretty obvious that LOAM are anticipating a settlement that will not support a share price much above the current level. Or alternatively they expect some other issue which will surface shortly that will effect the share price. Whether they have inside information is a mute point. I woul have expected that NANOCO's negotiating position (back stop amount) would have been decided at board level, some months ago. Is it possible that information could have been leaked to LOAM? It is possible LOAM are just guessing like the rest of us here but to sell most of their holding at such a critical time just does not look right to me. Quite intriging, but we should soon know the answer but it is unlikely to effect the post settlement share price one way or the other.
I do not believe the final agreed figure when anniunced will be based on detailed bottum up calculations. It will be a negotiated compromise between what Samsung initiallt offer to pay and what NANOCO would want. It will be an horse trade compromise figure which is what happens with most negotiated settlements. How the resulting settlement is presented is another matter.
Lets immage the following scenario. I am pretty sure that the NANOCO board will have discussed and agreed a minimum settlement sum that would be acceptable pre trial some months ago. This would be in anticipation of a late offer from Samsung. I am sure BT would have flown to Texas with the authority to settle at the best deal he could
achieve above the minimum sum. This information would be known to LOAM as their representative would have been on the board at the time the minimum was agreed. It would have made sense for LOAM to have converted this minimum settlement into a share price. They could then authorise their brokers to sell at above this assessed price. LOAM have not sold below 37p as far as we know. This suggests a minimum settlement price would be equivalent to this figure. If we assume that without the litigation the NANOCO price would likely be around 10p, the minimum settlement is equivalent to around 27p on the share price. Multiply this by shares on issue give a minimum settlement value of around £80m after costs say £100m overall as being the minimum acceptable to NANOCO. No doubt some horsetrading may have occured and if SAMSUNG had offered say £120m as their final offer
then BT would have been obliged to accept. Obviously BT may have done better than this and LOAM may not know the minimum figure, draw your own conclusions. LOAM are selling to balance their portfolio as they must be very much overweight in NANOCO however, why sell now rather than wait until the agreement is announced. That is the question.
Clear....
Been invested here since Aug 2016, so do not quite qualify as a LTH. Not really an expert on quantum dots, so refrain normally from making comments on this board. However many years ago I worked on data analysis (not called AI in those days). We used an IBM mainfame computer (before the days of personal computers). I could resist my comment below as I consider AI as being grossly overhyped to say the least. If you excluded pattern recognition, where computers can be faster than humans but just as infallible, you are back to data analysis with all the problems associated with it such as cross corelation, time trends, too many variables, accuracy of dats etc. Nothing as changed, computers have just become faster and more accessible that is all and people appear to have become more gullible.