Member Info for Nanonano

I'd say ARM, NVisia and AMD are pretty well known out there.

I'd compare Nanoco more like a ASML or Shin-Etsu (who I think may be the Asian customer) albeit at a much smaller scale.

I wouldn't expect Nanoco or any other QD maker to be a household name. They're a step up from raw materials in a supply chain, so pretty much invisible to consumers.

BT says he has no influence over the share price, but the information conveyed by the company and the authenticity of that information does greatly influence the share price.

This company is just far too secretive. It took a potential board shake-out for them to even reveal the materials they were working on.

Https://displaydaily.com/samsung-display-to-give-parent-company-4-2-billion-in-dividend-payout/

"To have a cgt bill you would need profits.."

Sorry my mistake, I was referring to dividend which outside of a tax free wrapper is taxed as income not cgt.

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.

Did it involve some cocoa tins and a ball of string?

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.

That's my own business.

Https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/artilux-announces-groundbreaking-gesi-spad-research-published-in-nature-journal-302068638.html

I was mistaken, it was 18p a share. A penny out.

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 find it hard to envisage they're going to be able to buy £30m worth at 24p. We'll see I guess.

We'll have to wait and see. One has been in the post for about six weeks now, and the other is due to start in April.

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.

Https://www-thelec-kr.translate.goog/news/articleView.html?idxno=26569&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp