Member Info for HenryHistorian

@SteakandAle: Don’t believe this at all. Given Brian Tenner’s talent to “overstate” things he would have announced this from the rooftops. And if they had agreed to something like this they could have mentioned it as a one liner without giving any details.
Much as I hate to say it but Samsung have stuffed Nanoco.

Unless we get more money out of them than we extracted from Samsung it is not even worth the bother. Sorry but just don’t believe any of the fluff Nanoco puts out.

@Gigawitt: Risky litigation: Yes so risky that Nanoco found a litigation partner to fund their case, yes very risky to have a 47-0 win at PTAB…. the final hurdle was the trial and yes there was some risk involved but the fact that Samsung approached Nanoco for settlement shows that Samsung’s lawyers clearly thought that the weights of risk were stacked against them.

Oh and let me draw your attention to one thing: 45 million Quantum Dir TVs have been produced in the past. So divide USD 150 million with 45m and you arrive at USD 3.33 as license rate for past TVs produced. Now I seem to recall that the range of license fee per TV in various broker reports was given as USD 10-15….. so from that angle Nanoco didn’t even achieve lower range but bread crumb range for its tech - and this from an IT giant that could easily have paid say USD 300m to settle this.
Oh and one more thing: In my crude calculation above I didn’t even include future sales…if I had done this the picture would have been even bleaker.

So for your benefit GigaWitt again my basic conclusion: Nanoco caved in and the financial terms of this settlement are underwhelming given what could have been negotiated by a better management team.

@NGR: You wouldn’t believe it but there at least four/five people on this and the other board that will contact the FCA.
Oh and first time that I think I have to do this as the whole thing here just stinks to heaven.

Baoxiou: Share your concerns with the FCA. I will also write to the FCA tomorrow- not so much on LOAM but more on the messaging by BT that not by a mile can be reconciled with the settlement he accepted.

Whether the FCA will act is up to them but the grave concerns of quite a lot of investors must be voiced to them. Especially small companies are dependent on retail investors and this is why it is so important that behaviour that destroys this trust is highlighted to the authorities and sanctioned by them.

Like you and others I think BT has no integrity left,

@GigaWitt: So if Samsung could have continued with a court case for years why did they approach Nanoco for settlement? Was is the realisation that in 2024 they might have faced injunctions in Germany and the UK etc…
Again why were so many well researched people here clueless when they tried to find out when BT ever gave lower guidance??? Because BT has misled investors - this is the crux of the matter not the amount itself but the massive gap between all the fine confident words and what turned out sell out to Samsung.

@GigaWitt: Come on you fully knew that B Tenner wanted to have a fair GLOBAL settlement not one that barely covers past US lost revenues let alone past GLOBAL revenues.
It is extraordinary st what straws supporters of this settlement are clutching.

Correct Nanonano and here again this massive trust gap and trust problem. Brian Tenner must have read these Edison reports and must have known what kind of message phrases such as USD 200-250 million lost inUS (just US not even global) revenues would send out but at no point did he correct or dampen expectations- quite on the contrary.

If in future no one believes him or for that matter respects Edison there is a reason for this.

Anyway trust Brian Tenner at your own peril.

That is the problem here. The last trading update was almost entirely devoid of hard figures and hard timelines as to be pretty unusable for an analysis of how Nanoco is doing as a business.
The only positive thing is that we are funded for the next couple of years but as of today that is all and quite frankly that is not enough.

@Feeks, Crow2 and others:

Hi Feeks, Very legitimate question and here my honest answer: I read the latest settlement RNS with consternation at ca 7.20am and was very disappointed by it and thought others will not like this either. At 8am on the spot I tried via Hargreaves Lansdown to push a sale through for the totality of my holdings as I thought I might still get out in the mid 30p range. It turned out that Hargreaves didn’t allow me to push the sale order through. I have up had breakfast and by the time I had finished breakfast the share price was in the 20p range.
Now I was and am still very angry and disappointed by the huge and deep gulf between Brian Tenner’s messaging to investors and the settlement he agreed and had the guts to try to put a positive spin.
So I am holding merely as I was unable to get out at a price I wanted to get out and also as I know that only realised losses are real losses…in a way.
I also know that investment decisions should not be taken out of a sentiment of anger or disappointment (thanks Crow2…but I had been thinking along your lines).
Now I FOR THE TIME BEING am holding but only through gritted teeth. I am fully aware that Nanoco is a well funded company now (so that is a big plus) but I am also painfully aware that as an investor the CEO of “my” invested company is perfectly fine to paint and maintain a misleading picture to investors (big big minus point).
I will research some investment ideas and will decide but one thing is certain: I will not be an intermediate term holder of a company that is led by a management team who has so badly let down investors on the first big test also known as Brian Tenner’s “first major infection point”….

One last thing: I know that I grate some people who have entered long Nanoco positions and now try to paint a rosy picture and lure new investors in. I think one should only invest in a company where one can trust the integrity of the management. Yes management can and will make mistakes being too ambitious or not ambitious enough or missing a trend etc…but entrusting your money to people whose words turned out to be so empty and do misleading is a high high risk approach to investing.

Yours, a well meaning fellow Nanoco victim.

HH

@Tornadotony: Superficially you are right but only superficially. This settlement is a Pyrrhic victory as past research and IP has EFFECTIVELY been signed away for a laughable sum compared to what Nanoco could realistically have achieved and with the injunctions in Germany etc already in 2024 and not years away…
Now we all know that OUR (!) CEO has misled “his” investors over several months with messaging that he himself knew he would not achieve.
This leads to the logical question:
Who would trust Brian Tenner now to tell investors the truth??? I mean who in their right mind would trust him not to grossly over fluff things, not to repeat his mock sincerity act?

I can only strongly advise investors not to give credence to Brian Tenner & CO and look for a more trustworthy home for your cash.

@GigaWitt: Feeks had posed a very simple straightforward question to you - one that many current investors are asking as well.
All you can come up with is a fuddled mock offended wish washy reply. From a star investor I would have expected more…

@GigaWitt: Yes we were fooled as we actually believed what Brian Tenner said all the previous months.
Look you got one thing right that however does not give you any right to crow nor to belittle other investors who were less cynical,
Lesson learned from me: Never believe anything Brian Tenner says and I will sell my remaining shares in a manner where I will minimise my losses which should be doable.

Again my sincere health warning to anyone thinking about investing in Nanoco: Don’t do it.

@GigaWitt: BT very strongly gave out the message that he was happy to go to trial.
Yet instead he caved in and agreed to a settlement that is laughable both in retained value for Nanoco as well as in relation to the deep coffers of Samsung.
Only an utter fool can hail this settlement as a success.

Right now we know that BT has misled investors over several months.
Right now we know that instead of a very probable win with hundreds of millions of USD as compensation BT accepted a deal that is hardly fair or even a compromise for what a more hard nosed and determined negotiation could have led to.
So the company is transformed but certainly nowhere near like we were led to.
Which brings me back to Brian Tenner’s credibility which is now in tatters and quite frankly after he has misled investors over the first inflection point in shareholder value can we trust him really to deliver on the second major inflection point?????????????

@NGR: You try the same line of defence as GigaWitt…”anything before 09.01 is irrelevant…”. Not quite so not quite so - actually very much on the contrary as there were many months before 09.01. where a highly misleading messaging was given - this cannot be brushed aside or made undone.

@Feeks: Thank you very much and you absolutely nailed it and this is also why the FCA needs to take a very long and hard look at all of the communication.
It just cannot be on and go unsanctioned when a company CEO misleads his/her investors repeatedly.
If you don’t take a stand over this then on what are you going to do it???

@hellojello: Last post from me for today and I hope you don’t think I and others are whinging here.
However I do hope that you will take the time to go through all the past communication here and decide whether BT was not misleading investors. I for one very clearly recall that he said that he would only agree to a fair deal that would compensate for lost global sales as well as for the duration of remaining patents. I think you would agree having gone through all the past communication that BT never ever gave the impression that this figure turned out to be USD 150m. He also stressed repeatedly that this would be a major inflection point in shareholder value - well you can well see what major inflection point it has been.
Now I have worked in asset management for many years and also done my fair share of personal investing but such a misleading messaging I have never come across. If BT claims that in their own model they had expected USD 50m than I really wonder with what kind of conscience the company could do the presentations and sound bites they did.

@tbow: Do you intend to write to the FCA as well?

I think the more people raise their concerns in a measured but firm manner the more the FCA needs to take a very detailed look into all the communication and whether investors were misled.

@GigaWitt: No reason to get concerned. The FCA will look into all the communication and will afterwards decide. I am sure that we all want a clean and fair marketplace as otherwise the integrity of investing cannot be ensured and many investors will leave the marketplace.