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.
It is articles like this which show why the SP is struggling to really gain the traction the potential upside should support. Those outside the current shareholders have extremely limited view of the real upside potential and see a company that has failed to deliver any meaningful commercial deal despite many false dawns. Hopefully us longer term investors who have kept the faith will be amply rewarded in a matter of weeks.
Amerloque, whilst I understand the bad feeling towards Samsung, totally justified in my view, to then cut Samsung out from any future business relationship would be “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face”
Like it or not Samsung are and will remain one of if not the biggest potential customers for Nanoco technology. As has been described many times in the discussions on potential litigation outcomes the biggest potential value generating item are royalties on future Samsung sales. Currently this dwarfs all other value generating options, including STM etc.
We need to accept that for shareholders benefit Nanoco need to come to a working relationship with their largest potential customer.
Mr Nakhla, insider trading is dealing when in possession of any news not known to the general public. This is not time bound, nor necessarily limited to employees or directors. Thus in my view his knowledge of the current state of the business and particularly of the trial preparations, including any knowledge of any settlement discussions (or not) would constitute inside information. Thus in my view until such time as it is made general public information, or time has passed sufficiently to make any information he may be privy to to be outdated, he would be guilty of insider trading if acting on that knowledge. The fact he has resigned does not mean that he can immediately trade without such restrictions.
Westhamptin, I agree with your view on the rather childish bickering that spoils an otherwise good board. I also welcome all views, they are just that - views, be they positive or negative. What I do not appreciate are personal attacks on other posters, and I wish the various posters would continue to post views as just that but cease personal comments about other posters.
I personally stopped posting for some time when I was myself attacked, and called absurd, for simply posting some downside risks countering some other views.
The resignation could be due to many reasons, including personal reasons he does not want to disclose. He will still be bound by insider trading restrictions for some time, certainly until after the court case, assuming no further delay, as he will be aware of elements that are not public knowledge at this time.
Kind, I cannot see this as a potential scenario at all. There is no way S would even discuss a US only settlement, if they entertain proposing a settlement they would want it covering their global exposure, anything else makes no sense.
I believe they will have offered a settlement but not at a level acceptable to N, but there is still time for that to change.
On the basis of several comments on what would happen when the US investors came active today, and the reality of the share price reduction over the last hour, one could conclude they have a lot less confidence in the outlook that European based ones.
Personally I think it is a waste of time watching the share price and inferring anything from it at this time and will bide my time until the case concludes or a settlement announced.
As has been stated many times before, it is not Turcan himself selling, it is LOAM and they have to notify because of the close relationship with Turcan.. There are 101 reasons why LOAM May decide to sell (a relatively small portion of their holding). Most likely one of their clients wants to take some profit ahead of the court case where there is a risk, however small, that N could lose and the share price then collapse.
One key point that NigWitty’s post includes from the Edison view is that Nanoco could not have supplied the volumes required hence the reliance on someone like Dow in the supply chain.
If you are ignoring the Dow aspect then you have to factor in a very significant cost to Nanoco of a new factory, well beyond Runcorn capacity, which would have been way more than Nanoco could have possibly funded. Nanoco would have been reliant on a third party producer, therefore making the Edison estimates quite reasonable.
NigWitty, for what it is worth I think your postings have been spot on and investors need to be realistic on potential outcomes. I, like many, feel Nanoco have been treated appallingly and deserve huge recompense but that is not a basis for investing.
Unfortunately when I suggested a conservative view, totally aligned to what you have since said, I was accused of being absurd among other things by more “optimistic” posters and so decided it was not worth sharing further thoughts if I was only going to get abuse.
These forums should be for sharing openly different views but some posters do not seem to like it if anyone is not aligned to their own view.
As a long term holder myself, with no intention of selling soon, I am as keen as anyone to see proper reparation for the wrongs that Nanoco have been subjected to.
However having worked in multinationals for over 30 years and with experience of litigation cases I still caution some of the figures being thrown around.
How often has the “added value” rather than normal royalty fee been used in setting damages? That is partly what the willful infringement is there to cover, but how often has that been more than 1.5 times? The only hard facts are that had Samsung been honest they would have got a license fee of around $10-12 per unit and they have sold 28m units.
I sincerely hope I am under calling it significantly but I just do not see the precedent for a multi billion dollar settlement and personally would prefer to be conservative with the hope of being pleasantly surprised than pin my hopes on anything so large as has been suggested.
There is a reason the share price remains where it is, and even with all the uncertainty if people seriously thought a $4bn settlement was even remotely likely Nano would be valued at more than its current £120m.
Some wild numbers being quoted again. From my perspective a reasonable assessment of likely damages would be $10-15 per unit (as previously stated as likely royalty range) so say $12 per unit times 28m units equals $336m with willful infringement putting a multiplier of between 1 and 3 so a conservative 1.5 (very little track record of much higher multiples) equals $504m. I would assume then Nanoco would get about two thirds of this so say $335m or £270m
I think this is a reasonable proposition plus an ongoing license fee.
If and when we get a further commercial deal with STM confirmed I still think we are looking at a share price of about £1.50.
I suspect Samsung will try and settle at the $150-200m level in which case we could be more like £0.80 - 1.00 share price range.
Still a very nice return but let’s not get carried away again with talks of multi billion settlements.
As a Spurs supporter last night was one of the most satisfying for a very long time. The Gooners blowing it and after years of patiently holding Nanoco finally looking like it will deliver on its promise. My 357k shares may not be the largest but at a 17p average life is looking good. A season ticket may be a nice reward.