The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Not sure how the consultation will correlate with participation in the tender offer.
Many larger holders are likely to prefer a mechanism other than a dividend to avoid a large cgt bill, but they may still opt to retain their holding, bearing in mind the risks going forward.
I do struggle to see how the company is going to get sufficient interest to purchase 38.5% of its stock at 24p.
I think they've set the figure far too low, even if the ii's like LOAM pitch in with their full holding, that still represents less than half the amount they want to clear.
I think many PI's are in a similar position of having an average either close to or above the tender offer price, and therefore the offer is less attractive. Investors with either very low averages or those who believe the company will devalue post share cancellation are more likely to tender their shares.
Naturally if you keep your current shareholding, your percentage stake in the company will increase all depending on how many shares they manage to purchase for cancellation.
There remains risk from selling, and risk in not selling.
It came after the CEO stated it would not be necessary earlier in the year. The subsequent offer at I think 17p per share was not available to PI's, and it wasn't until the price collapsed in 2019, and was depressed through the covid pandemic that existing holders had an opportunity to average down, and that was at some considerable risk bearing in mind the company had no contracts in play and only a few months of cash left.
Worth reading that to see how far out they were. Share price forecast was a joke, just a few months later a fund raise crushed the share price, and within a couple of years when the share price was showing signs of recovery, the CEO was selling out shortly before a collapse post-Apple contract failure.
50m QD tv's by 2020 was their prediction, barely a fifth of that came to pass.
NGR1616. If you’re bullish on Nanoco’s prospects why are you intending to participate in the tender offer. For that matter do you not consider it odd that the CTO is also participating, having largely held through far more turbulent times. This sends a bearish signal to the market, no?
I think the tender offer amount is reasonable, as had the board declared a higher tender offer, then they would have been accused of handing easy money to II's that bought in at much lower amounts.
I think they should have offered a cash dividend as an option though, as that would have fulfilled their intention of offering shareholders a choice. They may well end up having to offer a cash dividend if there proves to be insufficient interest in the tender offer.
I still think that Brian Tenner is out of his depth as CEO. He was useful during the period after Michael Edelman departed, as he did a pretty good job of managing the limited finances by rationalising operations during a very tricky period for the company, and what investors thought was some straight talk instead of Michael Edelman's dreamy flights of fancy was refreshing.
Unfortunately, I'm unimpressed with the accuracy of his communications leading up to and post-settlement, and the organic growth has disappointed, taking much longer to materialise if we ever see it at all. I think his credibility has been very badly compromised to the point that his continued presence in the CEO role could be damaging the company.
A lack of trust in certain memebrs of the board coupled with scant information on commercialisation, plus fewer shares in issue could make the company more vulnerable to an aggressive takeover bid- all assuming someone wants it badly enough.
I doubt the company would have enough in reserve to fend off such a bid, should it prove attractive enough to shareholders.
Acorn didn't do very well out of ARM as I recall. Wasn't ARM was spun off from Acorn with a large share purchased by Apple who wanted the 'A' ARM changed to 'Advanced'. Initially, ARM wasn't very successful (Apple Newton anyone?), I think ironically it was Nokia that really made them successful by incorporating ARM chips into their handsets, Apple started using it in the ipod.
With regards to information, I think it's only post Samsung settlement that I recall the company informing investors of the chemical make-up in the sensor materials. Knowing earlier that lead sulphide was the material would certainly have modified my opinion on when we could expect to see high volume production.
I'm sure the company realised this would probably influence some investors too, which is very likely the reason they were coy about it. I still find it hard to envisage medium or high volume production until gen 2 materials are ready, but have stated earlier I will be happy to be proved wrong.
The delays in commercial production may be beyond Nanoco control, however it does increase risk when it comes to establishing a decent market share.
Critical patents are getting ever closer to expiry, and I am cautious over the value and validity of other patents that extend further out that AFAIK have been untested in PTAB and were not used in the litigation against Samsung.
Nanoco could easily find itself championed as a pioneer in the field of nanomaterials, but with little business to its name and which subsequently failed to capitalise on its early potential and lost the market to competitors who offered cheaper alternatives. We shall see.