Member Info for HenryHistorian

Ecclescake: Based on the first now infamous RNS given all the prior communication an experienced fuind manager would have sold some but retained the majority as nothing absolutely nothing pointed out to the fact that Nanoco had sold out the IP and past and future damages for bread crumbs.

@ecclescake: Please be serious here. Based just on the first RNS some profit taking by LOAM and others could be expected but not the concerted sell-off by LOAM. You still need to believe in the tooth fairy to believe that everything was above board.

@peregrinetrouser: I am in a similar position like you and here me honest observations/remarks.

Do not blame yourself to be "too trusting". Like you I had noticed the LOAM sells in 2022 and was a bit concerned by these for two reasosn. First of all I was asking me slightly whether LOAM had knowledge that others wouldn't have given Henry Turcan's involvement... Secondly, I was worrying by just having so many shares that if LOAM could drive down the share price for purely technical reasons.

However what you and I had not assumed that the CEO was basically intentionally misleading and massively overramping Nanoco. Even if you can except a little bit of froth from a CEO about his/her company you and I others can expect a CEO to honour his words given in a presentation to investors that he will not agree to a settlement that would not result in a multiples of current value.

Apart from that Tenner knew that an equity raising at 37p would be considered by many as the base line with regard to value after the settlement.

Also the equity raise was done to be fully funded and not to be under preasure if Samsung tried delaying tactics with appeals etc - this is how Tenner sold it to investors.

Let us face it: Tenner and the BoD are morally corrupt and morally bankrupt and the sooner Tenner and Richards are gone the better.

I think one can only applaud this move against Lombard Odier Asset Management. The EGM was an attempt to hold Tenner & Co to account. It failed but that was more due to apathy rather than there not being a case to be made and heard.

If Tenner and LOAM have nothing to hide they should feel very comfortable to appear in court.

@NGR: The person that ramped and pumped was the lying and deceiving CEO of Nanoco.

@NGR: I think apart from Brian Tenner and Richards you are the only one of this opinion. We got the breadcrumbs of breadcrumbs from the table of Samsung. It also stinks to heaven that Tenner saw all the media reports stating USD 500m as a potential sum (this amount was stated twice in The Times) and he didn't do anything to guide to a much much more modest range which by that time he was happy to accept.

This together with the Edison reports - commissioned and paid for by Nanoco - gave out entirely different and in the end highly misleading ranges.

Tenner has systematically and intentionally misled and deceived shareholders and if this man had only one single ounce of integrity he would step down - but he doesn't and this is why shareholders need to push him out in 2024 by the latest.

@NGR: One needs to be severely myopic not to see the fault with Brian Tenner.

Let me recount here in short:

1. Conducting an equity raising at 37p whilst he and the board must already have known that they would be willing to accept a low amount as settlement from Samsung - one that would never warrant an equity riaing at a price level of 37p

2. Lying barefacedly at shareholders by stating in a video presentation that he would only accept a settlement from Samsung that would be a multiples of value - this at a time when the share price was much higher than it is now

3. Paying for research from Edison where values for the US part (we are not even speaking here of the global part) of the damage were stated that were so so much higher than Nanoco accepted.

So let me repeat it here clearly: BRIAN TENNER AND THE BOARD OF NANOCO HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY AND INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED SHAREHOLDERS. NO ONE CAN AND SHOULD TRUST THEM AGAIN.

@NGR: Brian Tenner is replaceable - the CEO of a major asset management companies used to say "The graveyards are full of irreplaceable people". The notion that no-one can step into Tenner's shoes let alone do a better job than Tenner is ridiculous. Nanoco has other executives that can quickly fill in a new CEO on the state of things....

I don't think Tenner merits staying on for much longer due to his systematic deception of shareholders in 2022 but grudgingly I will give him another 6 months to stay in the post.

Oh and before you and others point out that the tenure is not in my hands as an individual I am fully aware of this but collectively the shareholder base has the power and if it becomes apparent that the ever so imminent commercialisation is just another empty Tenner bubble you can be sure that he gets booted out.

LordWM: I wouldn't but I also note that surely if they (the directors) wanted to they could have found a window between Feb 2023 and now...???

...as the broad market by refusing to buy in at the lowly price of 17.6p shows clearly.

Even the very optimistic and excited board does not seem to be able to find GBP 20k or so to show their confidence...

@Trickymatters: The only one embarassing him here is you by categorically refusing to acknowledge that

a) the Samsung settlement was woeful - and on top of that light years away from all the noises and promises that Tenner made

b) the brazen attempt by management and board to pretend that the settlement was satisfactory

c) that the broad market is in agreement with troublesome's and my assessment of the past and present situation.

Again what the future holds neither you nor I can predict - but you should maybe understand and accept that many shareholders have for very understandable reasons have become more sceptical and distrustful of Tenner and the board.

@Troublesome: I rather like your short sayings.

Is the latest one an allusion to Charles Dickens… I was just wondering…

Right now I can offer another one up:

It was the best of times*, it was the worst of times**….

*Tenner & Trickymatter, Intrusivethought camp

**Troublesome & Henry camp

@Tricky: You are a complete and utter joke. The total amount that Nanoco will receive is absolute peanuts for the commercial gain that Samsung had from “borrowing” our technology. A very large part of the amount that Nanoco will receive is also due to a sale of IP - so not even on that should we crow about the amount.

Oh and just look what the share price looks like - it totally cratered you half wit. So whatever we receive as payout next year as dividend is actually not really compensation for the real or paper losses that many people have suffered.

Oh and given that the price is so low where are the director buys …. where are they? Where is a buy from LOAM??

Anyway Tricky please go back to your cell and put the straight jacket back on.

@Intrusivethought: I guess the markt is clueless as now Nanoco is down at 17.4p - fantastic inflection point in value. Look I will not argue with you any longer. Most of the debate is so childish here.

Fact is Tenner overhyped things and misled investors, some angry and disgruntled investors tried to hold him accountable and failed. Right now after having signed away a good part of the business the fate of Nanoco hinges on imminent commercialization. Maybe Tenner can redeem himself by a) achieving this commercialization and b) honest and transparent communication around it and most (including me) would acknowledge this - however only wilfully blind people can right now paint a rosy picture.

I think this is an honest appraisal of the situation and all we can do is wait for tangible news.

@Intrusivethought: Nanoco's technology was already validated by Samsung "borrowing" it. This kind of validation is valueless as we got peanuts for it. Other companies will not look to Samsung - they all will look at Nanoco and see whether they like the technology - or not.

As Samsung was by far the most omportant infringer quite honsetly the meagre amounts we might wring out from the small fry is not worth - after the hefty bills of lawyers have been paid.

With regard to infringement Samsung was the big fish and that got away scot free.

@ddubya: Correct - and right now this is exactly my stand: Nanoco technology is very good (otherwise Samsung would not have "borrowed" it) but the quality and integrity of Nanoco management and board is dire.

@LordWM and intrusivethought: Very disappointed in both of you. To label others on this board just because they don't share your views is just low. I would also vernture that you have an agenda here and that is to paint a rosy picture in order to lure private investors in.

Let us face it you speak about more buys coming in than sells yet the fact is that the share price now is at a measly 17.5P and even LOAM don't get in at this low level - despite this "incredible price". Makes you wonder....

Intrusivethought: One can have the best technology in the world - if you cannot defend your IP or cannot strike deals where you gain COMMERCIALLY from your world class technology than you are toast as a company.

So to make it clear here: I want Nanoco to succeed (as I still have some holdings here) but at the moment there is absolutely no basis to know whether we will - and I and others are now much more wary as all the hype of the CEO surrounding the first inflection point in value proved to be hollow words.

@NGR: I don't think I am in the 10% minority. Consider that many Nanoco shareholder who feel adn think like me have sold their holdings after the Samsung settlement debacle and therefore wouldn't bother to vote. Than there is a bit of apathy...ie some people are unhappy with Tenner but wouldn't make the effort to vote against him, other people would be against Tenner but might not be sure about TH replacement team and still vote for Tenner (rather the devil I know than the devil I don't know..).

I think you are mistaken if you take the voting result as a true reflection, ie a 1:1, of support for Tenner.

@NGR: Let us first await an RNS on this as this comes first. I will read this RNS and than judge whether it is written in a clear manner with some hard numbers/data points - if not I will not even bother to listen.

You have to understand one fundamental point NGR. I have been investing my own monies for over 6-7 years and have never had the experience where a CEO basically lied to his shareholders and afterwards tried to sell a debacle - and the Samsung settlement is a debacle - as an achievement.

The problem for me and others when watching any future Tenner presentation is this: I and others would be watching and listening and asking ourselves: "Is he now lying?" "Is he now telling the truth?"....

I have sold most of my shares and took a hit but that is okay as I can take it - the feeling/knowledge that I had been "had" by an unscrupulous CEO and board is what hurts me more than the money.

@Nanogeddon: Thank you for stating how it is.

And this is the reason why I will not attend any investor presentations by Brian Tenner any longer. Someone who has lied and so blatantly and oviously lied to his shareholders just cannot be trusted. It just would be a waste of my time - and if I want to listen to a fairytale I would rather open a book by Gebrueder Grimm or Hans Christian Anderson or indeed watch a Disney animated movie.