Member Info for NGR1616

Oh Kooba. It would go up c.12p then down c.12p not only the down 12p you seem fixated on.

Nanoco simply doesn’t qualify for a Nasdaq listing currently on a couple of fronts. They’d need to change the shares in issue to increase the SP above $4 but even then they have had negative cash flow in the last three years which disqualifies them as far as I can see with 2 minutes of research

Kooba re the dividend you need to understand arbitrage. Once the mechanism is announced then technically minded investors will identify a profit which will push the price up by nearly equal to (but with a risk %) to value of any dividend and trade either side of the execution to profit even if the margin is small. So whilst you say “as it stands” …..as it actually stands the return mechanism hasn’t been confirmed so it’s not actually a true reflection. We can only make such comments once we know the mechanism and I suspect the sp would rise into it if indeed a dividend payment is the chosen path.

I believe they haven’t pressed the button to mass produce yet. Just my opinion

Says it’s “dull and disactionary” …, the from the fool who posted this

“ images of his fat **** to stick on top of the 🎄 christmas tree no doubt together with a few self penned happy christmas cards from santa containing bonus cheques and oodles of free shares for doing nought!

'dear bwain, a few gifts from santa for all your hard work and endeavours this year, love ❤️ bwain, sorry mean't 🎅 santa..'

For every seller there has to be a buyer. That is irrefutable. However the reporting of trades is inconsistent. I have bought and sold shares and sometimes it's reported precisely as I transacted i.e. the number of shares and price match, other times the transaction is skewed and it might appear lost or indeed rolled into another. It's simply not an exact science and guessing on here 'what's happened' is not productive. Same goes for the sell or buy reporting, that's inaccurate as well. Your trading platforms discount can move the trade above or below the midpoint and report the trade the opposite of what it was. As I said the other day, the only true indication is a move in the price backed by volume. The rest of the time it's the MM's profiting on the spread. Low volumes widen the spread typically in my experience and give a false indication of the sentiment.

Currently only a single sided manual trade reporting model is supported by London Stock Exchange. One of the two parties who participated in the trade will report both sides of the trade to the system. Exactly how that works and how it is determined who reports is subject to interpretation and the throwing of chicken bones. I suspect an Autotrade via SETS it's done.....automatically, but with an off-book transaction there is the chance that one, both or perhaps even neither report it properly hence you see corrections as they balance post trade.

There are also dark pools.......

All just my opinion I hasten to add.

Never said anything of the sort. Stop spreading lies and fantasy. You're completely out of your depth.

Oh here’s mr second guess again pontificating about stuff someone else told him about 5 minutes ago. Comical

Tomorrow

You’re simply exposing your ignorance again. The company is now what it wasn’t before.

(in business) a time of significant change in a situation; a turning point.

The business has crossed an inflection point and is poised for bigger things. It’s that simple. You’re obsessed with rehashing your flawed interpretation ad nauseum and it’s been done to death . I appreciate nature abhors a vacuum, you don’t need to fill it by posting the same nonsense weekly.

BT and CR are intelligent people able to contextualise what the inflection point means, the end of one phase and the beginning of another.

The fact you can't grasp this simple premise after all this time doesn't surprise me as you incorrectly reached the conclusion it meant an instant change. I'm also not surprised that you still hold this view where others have understood it.

Why? Well I don't think I need to say anymore do I?

Exactly. Every trade has a sell AND a buy side. The only true indicator is if the price rises or falls backed by volume. The rest is just noise.

Now you've flipped from SWIR to CFQD's for which we have identified and pursued successfully an infringer.

I had to post after reading the latest musings of that particular poster over n ADVFN. I just can't let this nonsensical stuff lie unanswered but I can't respond to it over there.

Here's a snippet (forgive the lack of punctuation, I'm copying his words etc)

"It's brilliant how many firms blame their customers if they don't get any orders....answer....virtually none!"

He goes on to describe examples of BP, Shell for customers not buying petrol or Vodafone or BT broadband or Lloyds HSBC for not using services. (Q. at which point does the penny drop that everything he's trying to make comparisons to are mature businesses with established supply chains and an essential user base needing the 'commodity' services? where ironically petrol and broadband are at threat from new tech? A. clearly it doesn't)

He concludes that "any customer" that "blames their customers doesn't deserve to be in business, period!" [he missed the period]

He then advises (I kid you not) that we should stop "pointless and fruitless" discussion about the supply chain, effectively dismissing without prejudice, the whole premise of the supply chain where it is particularly relevant here in emerging technology.

Kooba is just as bad. Suggesting in effect that a company should be entering the market with it's new technology with more than one customer.

If only business were that easy.

(PPE than grumbles on about settlements and Turner Pope and ............yawn)

Don't listen to these people.

Of course the share price will rise.

It’s to sense movement…..

🥱

If for example a ferry company ‘builds’ a new vessel to add to its fleet its value is added to the asset column but its value is amortised each year (EBITDA) for perhaps 25 years until its written off. It’s similar here. The Samsung payment is an asset that needs written off over time.

Yeah always good to train your staff on a new product then wait months to launch it so they forget much of what was taught but not learned.

I suspect a long term buy back