Member Info for HenryHistorian

@LordWM: No, I am still partially invested and I am not trying to “work” the price.

I am just shocked how many people gobble up what Tenner says. And quite honestly I was excited by past Tenner presentations and in all honesty and frankness that this CEO has a tendency to excite and then to disappoint shareholders…

@Westhantim: I read the last few posts and the central still unanswered question remains: Why did we sign away the field of business where we had achieved commercialisation by the underneath tactics of Samsung.

Wake up everybody Tenner is still leading you up the garden path and quite frankly the fund raiser at 37p was a colossal dupe of investors.

@Westhantim: Yes I was also asking myself this question.

@Nanonano: Unfortunately I fear you are giving Tenner too much credit and his messaging around two imminent value inflection points and what was the result of the first inflection point was woefully off the mark and the second inflection point turns out to be less imminent than the word “imminent” implies.

I also don’t get why one would sign away major research effort and business field and major legal efforts for a risible sum….

I still am of the opinion that Tenner and the Board has acted in a way that remains many questions unanswered and a big question mark over their integrity and alignment of interest with ordinary shareholders.

@LordWM: I love your optimism and as someone who still holds a portion of Nanoco shares I genuinely hope you are right…

…however I was also very positive about the Samsung settlement due to the positivity shown by Tenner..and the rest is history.

@LordWM: No I don’t slam Nanoco or Tenner because I want to buy more. I slam Tenner over deceitful words and assurances that proved worthless.

You can do this to retail investors but don’t expect them to forget or forgive this betrayal of trust.

@troublesome: Exactly - quite frankly it is beyond me why anyone would still trust Brian Tenner or the Board. As was demonstrated with the Samsung settlement there is a clear gulf between what Tenner said and what he agreed to.

I judge people on the veracity of past statements and on these grounds I would have more faith in a Hans Christian Andersen fairytale.

@Nanonano: Brian Tenner always had good news for Nanoco shareholders - at least good news in his opinion.

I will spare myself attending another Andersen fairytale presentation.

@NGR: Well giventhe rhethoric fireworks of Brian prior to the capitulation settlement with Samsung a picture was painted of "imminent" inflection points. Well one inflection popint was an inflection landslide and on the other positive development, ie commercialisation, they have become very quiet.

I am greatly heartened to continue to see that the Brian Tenner inflection point has turned out to be the Brian Tenner inflection landslide.

@ddubya: What angered me and still angers me is the attempt of Tenner and Board to paint the settlement which was an utter capitulation as a success. This was insulting to any clear thinking shareholders. Also interesting that all the talk about going after other infringers was just empty talk.

My advice to anyone interested in Nanoco: Stay away and find a company with better and more honest management.

We are dealing with a CEO and a board who are beyond the pale.

I voted for Tenner to be gone due to his systematic deceit of Nanoco’s investors.

@Carlos: Unfortunately I agree with Nanogeddon. The Big Boys got what they wanted: Samsung a deal that allows them to go scot free, LOAM very nice profits, lawyers nice fees, Tenner and Board nice salaries...

...and the retail investors whomare financing all this: Zilch!

@ddubya: No I don@t want any more communication from Brian Tenner - his communication in the past was wildly misleading and deceiving.

All I want from him are results and clear, unambiguous RNS - nothing else will restore some degree of confidence of investors in him and the BoD.

@LordWM: Pray do tell me what research you want to share with others? Are you referring by chance to the Edison “research” commissioned and paid for by Nanoco?? If you are let me advise you that this is not even worth the paper it is written on and can be very costly.

Let us recall these wonderful statements in past Edison reports about the lost business to Nanoco of ca USD 150m for the US alone and that this would represent only one third of the lost global business for the past!

Tenner must have read the report and the debates based on this “research” on this board and must have had a good chuckle at the poor fools who paid any credence to this narrative.

Nah dear LordWM I prefer fairy tales to this kind of research.

@bonzoful: What do you think of the board? What do you think of the communication to investors and promises made by the CEO to retail investors? Do you think as a retail investor one should just shut up/pipe down if one feels/knows that you have been taken for a ride?

@NGR: I was (and am still) working in institutional sales and client relationship roles and can assure you that I have sat in enough mandate review meetings and quartyerly review calls with clients whether they were/are pension funds/insurance companies etc to have a good insight how equity and fixed income portfolio managers tick.

Again to me all points to LOAM knowing something more than the rest due to their massive offloading after the first RNS.

After all the hype that Tenner had produced and not deflated he and others must have known what the share price would do after the first RNS.

Anyway whether anything can be proven is up for debate but the whole thing smells.

@Nanogeddon: Thank you for putting it perfectly and simply.

@NGR1616: I have worked in asset management for ca 20 years and my career was spent at some big and prestigious houses, ie asset managers with over USD 250+ billion in AUM so just cut your patronising crap.

What I pointed out is that after the first RNS where there was absolutely no hinty given what kind of settlement Tenner had accepted that LOAM hit the sell button hard (!).

Now taking some profits off tyhe table is what professional fund managers do - however the speed and colume with which LOAM did so after the first neutral RNS does raise some serious questions about whether there was, let me put it diplomatically, an information gap between retail shareholders and one institutional shareholder.

If there is ground to suspect that specific market relevant information was shared in early January than the FSA (if it is taking its role seriously) should investigate.

Clearly TH and some others think there was some underhand dealings.... see the law suit he is now undertaking and I don't think he would lightly undertake such legal action.

@ecclescake: Nope, I am just drawing very logical - if slightly cynical - conclusions from everything. The wording of the first RNS was perfect in driving the share price up and thus giving LOAM the perfect opportunity to get out very profitably.

One could not have engineered things better.

Hats off to Tenner and LOAM.