Member Info for Nanonano

For Pi's, unless playing with very small positions the trouble with Nanoco has typically been it doesn't tend to stick around very long at very low levels, or at the higher levels. Often when the share price has gone up and you think good news on the way, you then see an RNS stating ME has sold down a chunk of stock, and investors lose confidence and the share drops. To get in the lows generally requires you have lots of liquidity to get in, plus absorb the risk if you get it wrong. Most PI's don't have that sort of cash on hand. This is why I don't personally trade in and out on stocks, preferring to buy and hold for a longer period until the company shows it's (hopefully) moving in the right direction.

Important to remember it's Evercore handling the sale process. Not regarded as a bunch to be mugged off.

Then it goes supernova and blows you kingdom come!

In the 12 range already, and not yet midday.

I think that 12p is exceedingly likely. If the Samsung dispute goes against us, just get ready to bend over.

They keep talking about parties, rather than companies, that's what makes my nose twitch. Could parties be interpreted as people with in a company for instance? I'm not a lawyer (anyone here a legal beagle?), so can't be sure how legally such a document could be interpreted, but I've learnt to be naturally circumspect when it comes to Nanoco's RNS's, especially when they're economical with information.

It's linked to by Morbox, posted at 7:05am on page two of this thread.

I see we're number one, on the list of the highest fallers. Top of the World, Ma!

One is a number, ddubya.

Can't agree that more than one bidder remains, the wording in the RNS is careful and can be interpreted differently depending on how optimistic or pessimistic you are on the company prospects.

I think a cash raise is not far off. That RNS reads to me that a poor offer(s) has been made unlikely to be acceptable to shareholders and they're going to see if they can wring a bit more out of them, but failing that a cash raise to see them through the legal dispute with the big 'S', with high hopes of jam tomorrow.

I would hope to see a better price than 25p, and am inclined to think that RG is extending a lot of risk for perhaps double his investment- plenty of other less risky investments could have returned as much or far more within that time.

I don’t find there’s much care or concern in this game.

You’re assuming he cares?

"If someone did reverse engineer Coca-Cola which must have been done and put if on to the market with the exact chemical makeup thus taste, I would say Coca-Cola would not be happy and litigation would follow."

Only if they could prove industrial espionage- Coca Cola recipe is a trade secret not patented. If it was patented, Coca Cola flavour could be made by everyone and their dog by now.

The Dow/Dupont facility is actually next door to the Samsung factory. Difficult to get any closer.

As you say hard to imagine them wanting to buy them out when they haven't wanted their dots until present, but perhaps they didn't like the terms of buying them before, or simply don't want someone else to have them- dog in the manger style.

What incentive was there for the Chinese to license Nanoco’s dots, when they could use cadmium based dost far more cheaply, and which we know perform as well if not better.

The situation seems to have changed in very recent times, with new legislation in China, and hopefully the EU following closely behind, that leaves little space for cadmium based sets. So if China really want to dominate with QD LCD screens, they probably need a cad free supplier.

If Apple had wanted to pick us up on the cheap, all they had to do was to wait, with little else in the way of orders would have had little choice but to seek another fund raise or a buyer. By investing in Nanoco with the factory and some initial orders, they bought them a bit more time.

My view is that the management team of Nanoco have been treading water for the past couple of years with promises of good things to come, but which fail to materialise. I always hoped to see some signs of commercialization in display in addition to the US customer, many had disregarded the importance of that, but with just one main customer it left the company very exposed, and thus when it fell it went down hard. Of course our wonderful CEO got out in timely fashion, how he got away with that I will never know, although perhaps it was the last straw for the bigger ii's who may then have pulled in the purse strings.

Indeed, 22 years isn't it for a patent? A trade secret lasts for as long as you can keep it a secret. Nanoco do retain both however,

I'd appreciate it if the political and philosophical discussions were taken off the board . Got precious little to do with Nanoco.