Maybe, you could also argument the costs per unit might have dropped as volumes increased. So I don't know.
Yep, Unless there is something we don't know (always a possibility) you would have thought from previous info given fair value is a minimum of $6 per display or more. So just for past sales that adds up to $300m approx, Same again (at least) for future sales? And the RNS said towards the lower end not the lowest possible value. So you could argue that $600m gross is right at the lower end and hence the settlement should be higher than that. But what do I know, I still believe Nanoco and Samsung will agree a total amount that 'works' for both of them, and then work out the value per set afterwards. So for me the question is: what would BT/nanoco consider/ accept as 'fair value'. And that is anyone's guess. But £50m suggested by some seems derisory. to me. Lots of risk here but the rewards could also be high if it turns out right.
Lombard have little time left to adjust their portfolio before the current expected date of the settlement. Given the share price and assuming 37p is their bottom line for sales then who knows whether the share price will even rise to that level next week. My guess is that they will not yet have one definite strategy for after the settlement but rather different strategies worked out for different scenarios. These scenarios may not just be based on the amount of the settlement but some of the flexibilities/limitations included along with it. Of course they may have a different strategy planned for if the settlement fails for some reason or in the case a second stay on proceeding is requested and agreed by the judge. So in summary I don't think we really have much idea at all as to whether Lombard's next Nanoco-related move will be sell, hold or even buy.
Sammy88, Many thanks for explaining your position on the second RNS. Like many others here I am not a lawyer and just saw the RNS as a rowing back from the first RNS. Nevertheless I have a (hopefully not misplaced) belief in Nanoco's/BTs competance and believe they have the interests of we investors and the company at heart, so when the SP dipped I added a small amount. Figures crossed the final settlement (amount and terms) will pay off for all investors here and especially for the long suffering LTHs (like me Ha Ha) ,
Nanonano, I have noticed the uptick in media articles about the Apple VR headset since you alerted me to our (possible) connection with this device. But I also noticed that most of the articles go back to just a couple of 'sources' and everyone seems a little cagey about whether this will be announced in the 'spring' or just before/at the Apple developper event in early June. We could do with some good news. Hope it is spring!
I think there are arguments on both sides of the high/low settlement debate. Originally I thought we would get a bumper payout as things did seem to be going our way. But, to me, the second RNS seemed to lower expectations. If that wasn't the intention I'm not sure why it was worded the way it was. However it's not clear that Nanoco meant the second RNS to lower expectations as much as it did and the wording still leaves room for a good deal. Or perhaps I'm being a little optimistic. I am still looking for a settlement that will significantly improve the SP, but (obviously) not as much as I thought originally. I guess we might also be entering 'delay' territory soon. Anyone know whether it is likely that if they want an extension this will probably be a last minute request? Or would they request this with a few dates of the original period left. Also are such extensions typically about the same as the original stay period or normally just a few days? Thanks everyone. I'm still holding by the way, but a little nervously!
GW posted the link as people requested. It is fair game to comment on the validity or otherwise of the linked material to the current Nanoco/Samsung case, but can we at least acknowledge he did present the material he considers relevent He thus has enabedg others to factor in this information or discard it based on how relevant they/we think it is.
GW, Thank you for posting the link.
Gigawitt, try playing as part of the team, in the end it pays dividends (intentional pun) . Your posts often criticise all of us here as though we are beneath you. Aren't we all in this together trying to find our way through an investment situation that is difficult to call? It is no real suprise that we have different views of what is likely to be the result of this settlement. If it weren't the case everyone would try to buy or sell at exactly the same time and there would be no market. You have given your opinion and sold your shares. Fine, that is your right and indeed you may end up having made the correct call, but you don't need to keep on coming on here and repeating the same negative view again and again and impolicitly (or sometimes explicitly) telling us all we have made the wrong call. Certainly the LTHs here know there is no sure fire win, we have experienced disappointments from Nanoco before. Who knows, the settlement might be plum in the middle of the high and low estimates so we can all say we called it right!
I don't know about 'expecting', but can I 'hope' for a retrace to £1.80?
Were you entertained? Crumbs you might be the only one then!
I don't know about tomorrow never coming, but it is beginning to feel that this settlement will never come despite the days drifting past at the same speed they always do!
According to this site, Nanoco's market cap is currently £117m. So that means if the global settlement (past and future) net of all backers fees, taxes etc is just £117m then the value of the ongoing business would be valued as nothing. So that suggests that the wider market (not those here) believe that the net settlement (past, future and world wide) won't be much more than £100m! Sounds fairly pessimistic to me.
Troublesome. I know he has been rude to you (and indeed to me) in the past, but I don't think he would have used the names he has used if he were truely trying to hide the fact that he is the one (and only) NigWitt. He posting style is a total give away in any case.
Thanks for r eplying Sammy88, I am pleased to see someone is more optimistic than me. I admit that second RNS has lowered my expectations, although before it I was expecting something similar.
@Sammy88, Your post quote about GW 'If what you are saying is true, Gigawitt, you may have just made the greatest investing mistake of your life.' seems very strong unless you believe the share price is going to increase by several multiples of its value on the settlement and not return back down for the forseeable future ! Do you believe that?
Whist I fully understand (and respect) that GigaWitt believes a doubling of the share price in just a few weeks is too optimistic, If he believes in Nanoco's long term future I am suprised that he has sold now because it suggests he thinks there are significant risks that the settlement will see the SP drop substantially below its current level. After all, even if the share price stays fairly stable there are buying and selling costs to consider if one's intention is to come back and buy in again for the organic growth phase. So to me that suggests that GW is quite pessimistic about the SP once the settlement becomes known. Of course he may be right, but each of us has to judge the risks and rewards for ourselves. I think (can't be sure) that I am a LTH for longer than him, as I think I remember when he (or his brother) first appeared on this board. I hope his pessimism is unfounded, but there are always risks in the stock market, and I admit I was surprised by the size of some people's holdings when a number of people here stated how many shares they have. GY is right in that we must always manage our risks. Whilst for obvious reasons I am hoping he has made the wrong decision here, I wish him success in his share investments generally.
I take a different view from most people on this board (I think anyway) . I'm not sure any of these calculations make any sense at all. I suspect Samsung have a figure (total) they would pay to make this go away, and Nanoco have a figure they would like to see after all costs etc. Both of these figures will be round numbers (just the way our brains work) . A compromise might have to be reached, but the numbers of sets sold, the value per set, the value of future sales, the discount rate for time are all variables that can be tweaked to make the settlement work so the numbers come out 'right'. In short I suspect this settlement will be reached top down, not bottom up. So nailing the right settlement sum may require mind-reading skills not maths. The maths will be used to justifiy what has already been agreed. So trying to mindread the parties: Samsung won't want to overpay, but financially the settlement value is small compared to their profits and their No 1 position in the TV market . Its not life or death for them. BT will want a settlement that justifies the fight and that he can sell to investors like you and me . He won't care exactly how the maths is done to get to the agreed figure. But he'll want a good story to sell or he will insist on a trial. For him this could make or break his career. So you might as well (in my opinion) choose a sum that you think BT will be able to succesfully 'sell' to people like you and me and then we should hope he sticks to his guns. So I would think the following reasoning is as good as all the maths: he will want the share price to at least double what it was before the settlement was announcement. say 80-100p per share. I know it sound high but he would then come home a 'hero' and enhance his value as a CEO. So my guess if everything in (past, future backers fees etc) Nanoco will be left net with some $250-350 m. Now where's my calculator so I can get the maths to work?
Just to quote Edison : 'However, a settlement is LIKELY to be based around lost earnings rather than revenues', (my caps) It seems clear to me that Edison doesn't actual know, just making some deductions from revious experience. So whilst I understand they will probably be correct, I don't think there was anything about this in either of the recent RNSs. Edison
are a lot more in the know than us I guess, but I'm not yet 100% sure the 'lost earnings' will be used. Has anyone else seen definitive evidence that this will be the basis of the settlement?
That message about low volume worries me a bit. Do we think the ST micro product this first new material is being used in will only be used by Apple or has it potential for other customers in the shortish term so that we might see an increase in the orders/demand for Nanocos new material number 1 appearing in non-apple products this year?