Member Info for NGR1616

Intrusivethought, I couldn't have said it better myself.

"These directors propose acting swiftly to introduce strong governance and oversee a 90-day business transformation strategy that is informed by robust dialogue with shareholders"

What is he expecting to do - go back to Samsung with "please sir can I have some more?"

What's happened has happened an no matter how much crying about it is done behind closed doors or publicly; it changes nothing.

Changing the board for one I suspect is in favour of making a quick buck to offset perceived losses rather than long term organic growth is a bad idea. It would severely dent market confidence as they would be untested but i also suspect they will undermine existing pipelines . I expect many here will bleat back about market confidence already being abttered because they hold similar grudges of perceived mis management but I urge circumspection replacing a known entity with untested ones who's motives in my view are suspect. Yes we got less$$$'s than some of the press and Edison perhaps led many to believe but at the same time Nanoco were up against a global powerhouse and successfully settled. I think it was a good outcome and ultimately all that really matters is a revenue stream with growth potential.

These shenanigan's simply undermine everything else and likely explains in part why we are valued at less than cash.

Ddubya I think you are missing the way competition works. Why buy from Samsung is someone else makes it cheaper and breaks up their monopoly?

The negative comments on here are not exactly helping sentiment and anyone who sells in the absence of news has only themselves to blame for the share price going down.

Telegraph can't be trusted....

Fair value is what stuck in my mind HH. You should check yourself in for an investigation.

Can’t you read? I’m in it for the long term. I never invested for a court case. The outcome was welcomed by me as it validates my belief in the company, it’s BoD and the technology. We now have a sound financial footing and I await confirmation of commercial orders to close the loop. If they fail to materialise (no pun) that will be the first failure of the current management in my opinion and I’d have to reassess.

that was actually 0650 - the time was adjusted for BST

I wrote
will include the lifetime patent value (otherwise there would be an admittance of 'guilt'
-will be global
-will be for component value only i.e. cost of QD film
-means we don't need to borrow (hopefully ever again)
-Monies can be invested.
-I expect no 'special dividend
-I'm guessing at around $125m total and $62.5m to Nanoco

I'm in this for the long term. Today I'm expecting the shares to drop in value. It's a PO we need now.

If you are in any doubt about what the RNS really means, wait for 16-21 minutes and you'll find out.

Chéries

Nanonano on 2nd Feb wrote “ low model based on cost of materials applies…..Edison figures are estimates…..take figures and double them then treble them you get very high figures….do I think we’ll get that? we’ll [sic] unlikely. Hopefully not as low as some are predicting either”

Now it seems these doubts and estimates didn’t exist if you read the narratives today!

I predicted net £50m for Nanoco for clarity

That’s correct because that was the message I picked up from BT - going to trial. I hadn’t fully appreciated the likelihood of a settlement. But now looking back over all the available information and communications I can accept I was wrong with that assumption and I can also understand the rationale behind the brokering and subsequent settlement and that it represents fair value when weighed against the alternative risks associated with a trial by jury etc etc ad nauseam …..

Mine are aligned to reality……

Ddubya that’s your belief. BT had stated he’d settle. So it’s irrelevant what you believe. Sounds more like hope especially when you’re now expecting the jury to find wilful in their verdict. Sorry.

Not in any cult; in reality I'm just not one of the cacophony of muppets still in denial! (not the river that runs through Cairo!)

Agreed DD.

What you describe I think is a desire for a settlement between $300 and -$750m based on conjecture and maybe some inference but ignore the chances of a jury’s influence on the outcome and subsequently the damages calculation and then appeals with more funding and impact on interest on borrowing and the IP not being validated until the process completes around the time potentially the IP expires versus -$150m now. Bear in mind too that $300m win still gets divided to the backers and loans etc.

It’s a hard drive one to reconcile. I have.

Not legally binding for one…..

All hearsay.

Edison were quoting revenue.
The settlement was income based.
Different models.