Member Info for havealot

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.

I am sure there are firms in Germany who can drill holes in the ground. The advantage Igas have is familiarity with the UK planning systems and the real estate they hold 'rights' over.

Chester

Hewlet Packard certainly bought into the hype when they bought Autonomy for $11.7billion. They did due diligence but I guess it is difficult to look inside an AI 'black box'

Sorry forgot what board I was on, delete the reference to 'quantum dots' should have said that I do not profess to be an expert on immutherapy.

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.

Biggest mistake since HP bought Autonomy methinks.

Biggest con since HP bought Autonomy methinks.

Gdog

Like you, I have been getting 'hot under the collar' about this for some time. There appears to be nothing much we can do about it, which is annoying. I am surprised that the Institution Investors have not been more proactive after all they own over 60% of the shares. It may be that our esteemed CEO feel his days are numbered and is cashing in. We can but hope.

For some time now I have been under the impression that the 'buybacks' are just a means of transferring shareholders cash into the directors pockets. The number of shares in issue is not actually reducing at all.

I can't understand the desperation for an early RNS by many posters on this board, surely the longer this share remains under the radar the better. Gives more time to accumulate at a bargain price. Moreover later the news more comprehensive it should be. The last thing we want is a inconclusive update on any of the ongoing trials. Covid is not going to go away, nor is cancer.

A few weeks ago I raised a question which Burble was able to answer in detail to satisfy my concern re possible mutations. Whilst very pleased with recent news here I am still very cautious in that I have known very many false dawns in the past. I remember mentioning how my late wife died with neck cancer 26 years ago. I say emphasize 'with' rather than 'of' since it was not the neck cancer which killed her but the spreading of the cancer around the body to other more vital organs. Though no doubt the neck cancer would have killed her in the end. The point I wish to raise here is, 'killing the primary tumour may not be sufficient if secondary tumours arise in places where Modi cannot reach'. Am I missing something here? Anyone able to comment on this.

Small nuclear reactors will take a minimum of 10 years to develop and comercialise. Then there is the time required to build and install hundreds. Think also of the planning process and all the resistance from local population.

A piece on lunchtime BBC news today on imported natural gas exposing how much less environmentally friendly it was compared with piped gas. Hope all our green anti frackers were watching, quite suprised to see this on the BBC.

Burble

Many thanks for your detailed response. I think that I understand your explanation. I have always been impressed with the dedication of the posters on this board even though I have not always understood the science.

Regular reader on this site been invested in Scancell for some time. Whilst pleased with promising results so far from modi trial. I am especially interested as my wife died of neck cancer 20 years ago. Perhaps there might be prospect of some treatment at long last. I have one question of the experts on this site, to kill a tumour the v
T cells have to destroy every single cancer cell. If one proves immune to the treatment it will multiply and the tumour will regrow. What is the possibility of a random mutated cancer cell not having the required glycan protein which modi requires to function?

Thanks for both your responses. Perhaps I need to hang around here a little longer. I find the options for watching tv these days a little confusing.

I have been reading about how FAST (Free Ad Supported Streaming Tv) is the future. I would be interested to know how this might effect TRMR going forward. Any comments from our knowlegable contributors to this board.

Might I remind everyone that this share was trading at nearly 1000p quite recently. Current price is not in my opinion anywhere near where it should be. It is a price reflecting current market sentiment and nowhere near where it will be in two years time.

Do these Chinese TV's include Nanoco tech?

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hisense-tvs-volume-share-of-shipment-ranked-top-2-worldwide-maintaining-growth-for-3-consecutive-years-301614577.html

Cash is the issue with this company. Its not about turnover or profit at the stage the company is currently in. The SP is reflecting the belief that a discounted fund raise is unavoidable. Nothing that GB has said has reassured me on this point. Medical devices take time and time is money. We will know soon enough, interims due soon. Tax rebate on development costs is a red herring, costs still have to be paid.