Member Info for Nanogeddon

Don't worry. Samsung were going to use those 2D materials anyway.

"He said he’d settle for fair value right? You and everyone else on the same side of your argument have concluded that value is at least double the actual amount. He and his advisers disagree."
Disingenuous again NGR.

BT said that a settlement would have to be of the order of multiples of the market capitalisation.

And before you try to play down my point, the point in time when he most recently said multiples of the market capitalisation was when the share price was in the 30p to 40p range.

Now if, by 'multiple' he meant a multiple less than 1 - say 50% - then fair enough: he didn't mislead anyone... But I don't think any rational person could really have listened to him saying this and be expected to interpret it as a multiple of 50%.

Go figure. Idiot.

He didn't say "I promise". He did say state that he would not settle unless the criteria that I have outlined was satisfied.
And before you correct me, he did not say use the specific word "criteria" either... but he did make statements, and as the CEO of a company you should not make statements if you know that you are not going to keep to them.

You're right Henry... but I won't allow him to intentionally mislead people. We have had our fill of that.

"Only one matters and he believed after consulting with the various stakeholders that the settlement does deliver on what they would see as fair value (when balanced against risk of losing/winning/appeal/time/borrowing etc)".
The risk/reward as advised by the various stakeholders came as no surprise to BT on 5th Jan when he settled. They had been advising for years. They had been strategizing for months/years.
Nonsense NGR. Nonsense!

"It’s normal speak for these types of situations and you shouldn’t put too much stock into it."...
but it's not normal for CEO to. It is not normal to have such a disconnect between the communications and reality.
If you are trying to brush it under the carpet, then better to stop responding.

He said he "would not" settle for less than fair value, and it was in the context of multiples of the current value. Do I really have to go the the painful process of digging out again? Don't be so obtuse! You listened to his presentations also!

"At no point did he say what the expectation was."
He did actually NGR. He did more than that: His expectation, moreover his promise was that he would not be willing to settle for less than fair value of the patents, and by that meant (according to him) covering whole world and for the full life of the patents, past and future... and furthermore, it would be multiples of the market capitalisation.

And before you try to play down my point, the point in time when he most recently said multiples of the market capitalisation was when the share price was in the 30p to 40p range.

Now if, by 'multiple' he meant a multiple less than 1 - say 50% - then fair enough: he didn't mislead anyone... But I don't think any rational person could really have listened to him saying this and be expected to interpret it as a multiple of 50%.

You're a genius NGR... if people hadn't got their hopes up so much then "the share price would be higher"???!

Surely... SURELY there are some rational and sensible shareholders out there who could buy this share and maintain it's share price at the higher level that you believe it should have.

Perhaps it's the case that the majority of investors are irrational idiots? Or is it the case that those who have sold were rational and they rightly should have been able to trust BT, before it turned out he was a liar.

18p next.

19p has been achieved ahead of expectations. Well done Brian Tenner.

This certainly has been an education Henry, and I feel richer from it... not in monetary terms, obviously... but I do owe BT a huge debt of gratitude.

If you feel like a schizophrenic, because you know that a large fund (that has a good idea of the value company) is selling, but yet you believe the CEO when he's telling you the company is worth multiples of the current value...
...ignore the CEO because he is full of sht.

I like your swear words

Last paragraph should have said:

The above calc is not quite correct because the 232m shares would be bought from those with the least confidence in the company and the remaining 90m shares would be owned by the holders who valued the company more highly... so the share price might be 25p to 30p. What would you have then? An over-valued company!

ddubya, unless this company gets a commercial contract, this company will still be valued at the cash value even in the event of a share buy back.
Consider an extreme example: If they had the £70m now and used £50m to buy back shares at 21.5p then they could buy 232m leaving 90m shares. The company would then be worth £20m cash/90m = 22p.

The point is that the share is being valued at cash because there's no confidence in the prospects.

The above calc is not quite correct because the 250m shares would be bought from those with the least confidence in the company and the remaining 73m shares would be owned by the holders who valued the company more highly... so the share price might be 25p to 30p. What would you have then? An over-valued company!

They might do a buy back if it benefits their share options.

NGR is right. There will be no dividend. The Board are in this for themselves. That £70m fund is there to pay their salaries.

11.7p anyone? Anyone?

I can't think of a reason for this to bounce other than a commercial contract.

No one believes anything BT says.

There's no litigation to be done that anyone will believe can reward Nanoco.

Lol.
Team member C is my boss, and I'm Team member D.