Member Info for Rhambo

No ivyspivey2. No. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. TR1s are transfer of ownership, lending is a contractual arrangement and does not require a TR1

Jesus, I can't believe some of you guys from back in the day are still here, still watching your shareholding plummet. not learnt jack sjit over the past 5 years. I will never forget that glorious add to my short at the 240p consolidation.

OK two things

1) You do not issue a TR1 because you've lent your stock. You still own the stock even if you lend it. You issue a TR1 because you have crossed an ownership threshold. I can lend 15 of my 20% hypothetical holding and not issue a TR1. There is no reference to lending in the TR1, there is even a checked tickbox explicitly telling you its a disposal. So guys, please, HSBC have sold. Simple as. I have no idea who started that ******ed theory on this board but the fact half of you believe it says all I need to know about the level of research the shareholder base in this company can achieve.
2) 27,000 shares on Nasdaq is sjit volume given it's 0.70USD. It's probably higher today with people selling out before their shares get kicked off Nasdaq too, the only way is down for those shares now.

When their share is in the sjitter, a favourite target of BBMs is market makers. MMs don't care about price or intrinsic value, they care about volume. If they can't generate volume they will drop the price. They drop price because of supply and demand factors. If there is low demand for a company going bust in 6 weeks without a fundraise, then the price drops. Same reason it got pumped this week, not because it was worth anything, but because some rampy behaviour got people buying and raising the price kept the volume going...until it ran out of steam. And now BBMs are finding themselves, despite warning, getting spiked out.

The FDA will be in no hurry to rush a drug to market that has shown signs that it might poison your liver.

....called Biggus Dumpus

Another meeting is moot by then, that's just the MEETING, they still need to actually finance, organise and run a trial, the company is looking bust. Surprised sp has not cratered 80% this morning, genuinely.

This might be me closing out some of my short.

"you English"?
It might have been idiomatic, but you now get the point.

I haven't closed it, it's still running.

I was short at 3.92.

Well there's a guaranteed margin call if I ever saw one. You do realise this is out of cash within 8 weeks and going tits up?

@Nige_W As I said, I think you're smoking something strong if you think Nano's IP is worth £200m. And no, I did not say I think it's worth £3.7m, I said that's what is on the balance sheet. With no revenue coming in and no takers, the IP & Goodwill is probably <£1m if no one wants to buy it. Goodwill fluctuates, arguably it could be written down with no new takers for FY2019/20.

@Nige_W seriously you need to stop smoking whatever you are smoking. You think Nano's IP is equivalent to Samsung's acquisitions? If so, why didn't Apple just buy Nano out instead of cancelling its contract? Thought of that? Greggs?! GREGGS?! Greggs is a retailer you PLANK, companies vie to have contracts WITH Greggs.

You valuation is not reasonable, it is deluded.

@Nige_W That is some batsjit crazy guesswork/extrapolation, especially when the company have provided their own values for these in the interims. For a start, tangible assets (P&P) are listed in the interims as £4.1, so you can write down £26m off your caluation for a start. Intangible assets including goodwill are listed as 3.7m. This will include goodwill AND patents. So you can write down your estimate by a cursory £526.3m if you like too. That's also being charitable that goodwill is still intact considering its commercial viability is in question now major customers are pulling out.

Revenues ARE important. The contract was the first indication of the long term viability of this company and the fact they are being pulled puts the company's existence in a one year time scale in serious doubt if no new revenue streams are available. Until then it remains overvalued based on future discounted cashflows.

@where-is-my- Might work until the first guy who wants to bank a profit cause a share price crash and you get spiked at a high share price and end up losing. This actually happens all the time on AIM-listed stocks.

@where-is-my- Because the market is sentiment driven, for example ill-informed PIs catching falling knives on the basis of what bulletin board rampers are suggesting rather than looking at the hard numbers. However, you can only defy gravity for so long.

@hinkais Sure why not, bet your house on it.

Actually 18 months is optimistic. Cash outflow is £4.5-5m for H1 2019/9, so cash break even to 31 December means approx August 2020 for the company to be out of cash. However, presumably it might get a discounted placing away in June next year (ish) to buy another 6 months.

@Castaway
"Rhambo - can you provide any evidence that NANO is "clearly not undervalued"? - "

Certainly, the RNS releases of 9 April and 21 June this year. In the interim results of 9 April, you can see that as a result of the 'US Customer' contract win, revenues were 'substantially higher" from £0.2 to £3.2m, which is a large chunk of the major contract. That contract has now been pulled according to the 21 June release. Revenue is about to crater. That means for H2 2019/20 you are looking at revenues probably in the region of £0.5m, maybe higher depending on payment timings from the US Customer. Certainly going forward into FY2019/20 revenues without any new customers are looking to be <£0.5m. The current market cap is around £40m. This is a PE of approx 80 for a company whose growth status has been terminated and is now going to be guzzling cash (outflows were between £4 and 5m prior to the contract, and may be higher now wwith additional OpEx and CapEx to maintain the contract, closer to £5m perhaps). This basically means NANO has approx18 months to plug this cash outflow gap. Whilst this is not (yet) a worthless POS the risks associated with the lack of revenues mean this company is grossly overvalued. A charitable PE of 12 applied to earnings of £0.5m mean fair value is around 6p and falling.