Member Info for Nanogeddon

"@Nanogeddon. LOAM was very quick to fix a ‘performance’ related element to their loan notes and also to terminate Henry Turcan’s appointment as a NED. They also negotiated ann option to appoint another NED if and when they buy back in. Now you see me and now you don’t - so we know who has been wearing the trousers in this business relationship.

Not saying I have not been grateful to LOAM for their support in the past but it looks to me like they knew the outcome and became creative with the ways in which money could be made."

Agree entirely. I am just very relieved that I did not buy on Jan 6th.

"@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?"

Interesting Henry... there are some who do think that the retail investors should just pipe down... A likely explanation for NGR's similar attitude is that he is a privileged-spoiled-brat-public-school-kid-became-director-and-insider, who thinks it's perfectly reasonable for the elite to make easy money out of the common folk via inside information.

"Difficult to understand why you should be surprised noone is buying. Long term investors in Nanoco have had plenty of opportunity to buy at lower prices than currently available. And once they own a substantial chunk of the company it makes no difference to life prospects to buy more. Most new investors will wait for the cash to start flowing. Those interested in speculating on companies which do not have a commercial contract are bound to be deterred by all the mud thrown at the board for months now. Self defeating and damaging for those interested in short term returns. Of no consequence to long term holders."

And for you bonzoful... I award you substantially less than 100 points, because the board deserve more than mud thrown at them. That's not incitement of course... but I can think of many things I would like to throw at them.

"💯 bonzoful"

Can you explain why Bonzo gets 100 points please? That must be out of at 101 points at least... At least 101 points, SURELY? Because he said that it's "Difficult to understand why you should be surprised noone is buying." But you have only said (only today) that Nanoco is undervalued.

HUMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmm.... Idiot. Agree with anyone who follows your stupid narrative.

"LOAM offloaded shares and others bought them - LOAM were clearly happy to profit from people’s eagerness to invest….who can blame them."

True. But Brian Tenner set the scene with a false narrative which resulted in LOAM being able to sell at a value significantly higher than the value that Henry Turcan knew the shares were worth, and resulted in shareholders paying way over value and thinking they were getting a good deal because they were sold a lie.

Information asymmetry.

Brian Tenner should be sacked.

Any guesses as to when Apple might start making these? If they were to use our tech and were to pay us for it, when would be a reasonable time to make an order?

I would have thought we would know something by now........

"Probably less than 10% if you took out TH’s rogue 5.02% vote."

Idiot doesn't understand stats.

"It’s not an AIM stock importantly…."

It actually is unimportant that it's not an AIM stock. The board still get away with lying to the shareholders. The investors who sat inside the boardroom not so long ago still had a huge informational advantage, which they used to stiff the other investors.

"If I don't get fair value I'm going to tell Samsung to get stuffed!"

BT actually said he had got to the point where if Samsung approached him with an offer he would tell them to get stuffed.

Ah yes - nigwitt... but there was his alias that was something witty

I think it will turbo the share price to about 18p. Because the Vision Pro - if it is that - might just about pay for the directors salaries for a year or so.

But hey, the IP is validated.

That's interesting NGR, that you know no-one who who owns Nanoco shares. I thought you said you knew NiggWitty?

And he wasn't disillusioned by the Samsung debacle, but actually he was a believer in the long term future of the company.

Hmmmmmmm....... very strange.

Idiot.

anyway, even if everyone voted and if they all voted to keep the board, i'm fairly certain that doesn't imply they are not ****ed off with the behaviour of the board during the samsung debacle.

if my pilot ****ed me off i wouldn't fire him before he landed the plane.

Gonebroke, I'm not making a profound point. I am only using 'unbiased' in the statistical sense and I'm saying that the votes cast by those who did vote is not representative (does not share the same characteristics) as the population of shareholders.

It's quite simple: 324m shares in issue. LOAM own 46m shares and the directors own 13m. Number of votes cast "against" on each resolution was between 142m and 157m out of 176m votes cast. So on any individual resolution LOAM + directors represented 37% to 41% of the "against" votes and LOAM + directors represented none of the "for" votes. I think that's a fair assumption, because it if LOAM were voting "for" on any individual resolution then the number of votes "for" on that resolution would exceed 46m.

We cannot expect that we would see the same ratio of "for" : "against" votes if the remaining 148m shares had voted.

The Board could have bought many times over the past 21 months. That's how long that the commercial order has been imminent.

"It was 90% vs. You're getting really sad now Armageddon. It was 90% vs from those that voted. Don't assume everyone who didn't vote was for. I was vs the nonsense proposal for asset stripping from Hamoodi and didn't bother voting because I knew it would be an overwhelming vote for a sensible decision. As was the case. Maybe stop embarrassing yourself now."

Tricky, I did not say that everyone who didn't vote was "for". I said that the percentage of voters who voted "for" was not representative of the population as it is a biased sample. Perhaps your understanding of statistics is as bad as your understanding of investments. Idiot.

"Everyone saying they abstained from voting BT out and then continuing to complain has no credibility."

Nonsense. I said I couldn't be bothered to vote.

You have no credibility as you are so biased NGR.

NGR, it wasn't 90% against. Even if that was the % for the votes cast it would not be an unbiased sample, and would not be reflective of all the shareholders.

And lots of the shareholders who BT burned have been replaced by new (ignorant) blood like TrickyM... so the vote count isn't a very good measure of rational confidence in BT.