Member Info for Nanogeddon

Or c) they have integrity... Every heard of that Tony?

"Then there’s simple negotiating tactics. As I’ve said many times before you don’t tell the other party what you’d accept until it comes to accepting it."
Then why, NGRwitty, would you allow someone to know the value you were willing to accept if you knew they would be able to communicate that value by selling in the open market?

As you have noted today - LOAM's selling price indicated the value that they knew.

Sorry to hear that you got burned Steve. I am just trying to bring balance here. My average buy price is low and I did not buy after the RNS's this year, so I don't have an axe to grind as such.
LOAM did not do anything illegal as far as I'm aware. Henry Turcan from LOAM was on the Board of Nanoco up until 12 Sept 2022. The first trial date for Nanoco vs Samsung was 12 September but it didn't go ahead. The BoD would have decided their strategy for settlement prior to the 12 September trial, because it is known that Samsung often settles on the days coming up to trial. Turcan suddenly left the Board on 12 September, probably because he wanted freedom to trade for LOAM?

Turcan didn't really do anything wrong. My issue as I've said is that BT was telling everyone a different story to the one he has allowed Turcan to be privy to.
The RNS's this year aren't really the issue although 6 Jan was misleading. The issue I have is with the misleading communications in all of BT's presentations in the months prior to the settlement announcement.

Henry, don't worry - NGRwitty does get it. He is trying to mislead new members on this forum, and every time he does so I am simply going to cut and paste what I have written before...

The issue is not BT's strategy in settling. The issue is not how much he settled for.

The issue is the information asymmetry that BT caused between those trading the shares.

The issue is that BT knew that LOAM knew the value of the company, and yet over many months PRIOR TO the 9 Jan settlement RNS, BT had been telling shareholders that Nanoco deserved hundreds of millions/billions and he wasn't settling for less than this fair value. BT had effectively told LOAM that Nanoco was worth 25p to 30p (and BT knew that they knew) and over months BT was telling everyone that Nanoco was worth several quid.

BT created an asymetry between the insider knowledge that LOAM was able to trade on and the knowledge of everyone else. That's why it was so easy for LOAM to sell for 70p at the expense of others. This misalignment of information was exacerbated by the misleading RNS on 6 Jan. It's great to have perfect foresight!

Did LOAM know the value of the company was 25p to 30p? Of course! Aside from a commercial contract, Nanoco could never have been worth more than a few million quid over and above the $90m settlement proceeds, because Samsung were always going to settle at some point and they were never going to mistakenly start their offers above $150m, AND Nanoco had decided in their strategy that they were willing to settle for $150m. In light of this, it was never possible that the settlement could result in a share price above 25p to 30p.

LOAM aren't the clever people. They were on the inside.

"Henry. Politely, go fk yourself."
NGR you are full of crap. BT capitulated. Listen to his presentations again and stop trying to defend the indefensible.

I still hold almost all my shares, but I (and I hope others) are going to be a thorn in Nanoco's side on this chat room... Because I will not sit back and let BT think that he can boost the share price of this company simply by spouting more hot air again.
We need contracts, and and I don't want to see any confidence here until we get them.

Sorry Gotta rewrite this:
Tony, you are right in that BT had to play hardball with Samsung, and one could say to themselves that it's very difficult to play hardball and AT THE SAME TIME COMMUNICATE A REALISTIC SITUATION TO SHAREHOLDERS.
However, you are missing 2 points:
1) Samsung knew that they were going to suffer as time went on because of a potential injunction.
2) LOAM knew the value of Nanoco, in light of the fact that they knew the settlement amount, and therefore LOAM were communicating to Samsung ALL ALONG that Nanoco were willing to settle for a small amount, though the price that they were willing to deal at. LOAM have been the main driver of the share price over the past couple of years.

Those patents would not have been bought by Samsung or sold by Nanoco outside of this 'settlement'. They are either a tax efficiency strategy or they were part of Nanoco's cop out for the sake of the BoD's jobs.

Tony, you are right in that BT had to play hardball with Samsung, and one could say to themselves that it's very difficult to play hardball and at the same time negotiate with Samsung.
However, you are missing 2 points:
1) Samsung knew that they were going to suffer as time went on because of a potential injunction.
2) LOAM knew the value of Nanoco, in light of the fact that they knew the settlement amount, and therefore LOAM were communicating to Samsung ALL ALONG that Nanoco were willing to settle for a small amount, though the price that they were willing to deal at. LOAM have been the main driver of the share price over the past couple of years.

And PVX, it was as a result of them having legal inside information. Henry Turcan was on the Board and no doubt knew the settlement that Nanoco were willing to accept.
That's legal and fair enough.
What is NOT fair enough is that BT was creating a informational asymmetry between LOAMs knowledge and ours by spouting LIES about what we were owed by Samsung and what he would not accept in terms of settlement.

PVX there are only 2 large players. LOAM and Hamoodi.
HL is not a fund and nor are the others. They are the sum of the private investors who use their platform, like myself.

PVX, the market is made up of large investors like LOAM (who had knowledge) and 'Others' who didn't have knowledge. 'Others' where wrong because BT misled them. LOAM were right in that whilst they knew the company was only worth 25p to 30p (based on their own appetite for risk) they also knew that 'Others' had be duped by BT and they could make ****load of cash out of them, so they allowed the price to rise on the misleading 6 Jan RNS and they skimmed off the cream. They then continued to sell down, knowing the true value whilst no-one else did.

Now admittedly, the company might be worth more than the current 23p, but LOAM doesn't have the appetite for more at the moment, and no one else appears to either.

By all means buy, but this is a gamble and there is only one thing positive I believe in at the moment and that is LOAM aren't selling and Hamoodi recently added... However, they are not willing to drive up the price from it's current level.

Why do you say May PVX?

PVX, it's clear that the market IS valuing Nanoco's prospects at £2m. They might be crazy, but that's what the are doing. Because £2m is the difference between it's Market Cap and the certain cash. You could add a bit more to account for a year of discount on the 2nd tranche of $75m, and the risk of Sterling rising against the US dollar over the coming year...

Bear in mind we are burning £200k a month, so you can also knock 0.5p off the share price every 6 months that they sit without a commercial contact... actually make that 1p to allow for an increased lack of confidence over time.

Sorry to say, but it doesn't work like that MSA. The payments are priced into the companies valuation.
Market Cap of the company is £76m. Cash value of the company is £74m.
The £2m is the value that the market (influenced largely by LOAM) assigns to the future prospects of the business offset by it's fear that the BoD will just dwindle the cash away.
The market has lost all confidence in the Brian Tenner.
But on the bright side, LOAM thinks that at £2m it's worth a punt.
Also on the bright side, it's hard to envisage the share value falling much from here.
Our best hope is that Samsung reneges on the payment over the weekend and we go back to court... or that that it was just a bad dream...

Thanks Nanonano. I wasn't aware. Some encouraging news at last!

"Executive's of the company are expected to build up a shareholding reflecting 200% of their annual salary."
Where do you get that from?

"So he’s not buying shares! Why should he? Just to appease you?"
No. Because he believes in the huge potential for profits. If he isn't doesn't care about maximising profits for his family, then how is he the right man to maximise profits for shareholders?

"I'm not sure but as we have an update due in in a few weeks it is probably a closed season now and Board members probably can't deal in the shares."
Can the chairman deal in shares, but not the Board?

"You guys really are missing the important bits…."
NGR, please could you comment on the German case and potential injunction? Just to ensure that you are presenting a balanced view?