Member Info for tbow112

Seems to me that TUNs biggest problem are their "backers". I would have serious doubts about lending money to a business whose backers clearly put their own interests above those of the company.

There seems a lot to be said for selling the whole project as is.

The most comparable of the rest appears to be Clearcell FX.

Theorist, could I ask a simple question. Is there a better rare earth project within the Western sphere of influence ?

It seems unlikely that Eisai will produce anything of importance, simply because they were apparently using Parsortix in a way that has already been well established.

Two things. These boards work best if we try to assist each other - you may live close to the AGM but someone else may live close to the factory.

And the loan repayment looks like Atherley sold shares on the Stock exchange because the company needed money and was simply reimbursed at much the same price. Theorists complaint does not seem to have much foundation.

It is obviously unlikely that the company would provide a useful answer in writing. Presumably you are not very expierienced at this investment business.

Perhaps one of those who happen to live near London and attended the AGM would care to enlighten the rest of us as to how the rather suspect loan repayment was explained.

HTtps://www.aero-mag.com/were-promoting-the-coating

What are the things that look like gear wheels in the opening photo ?

Surprised that he was not prepared to say that the return of capital was a mistake.

Could someone explain why Parsortix cassetes cannot be reused.

"Try convincing a surgeon that his surgical procedures are no longer necessary because they can be replaced with a simple dirt cheap blood test"

Surely this part of the analysis is not credible. I get the impression that the NHS go out of their way to avoid operating.

Looks like Angle has missed out again,

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/05/government-to-fund-120-blood-test-that-could-detect-12-most-common-cancers

"I'm left thinking that the advice they got on the offer was that they really should take it but realise i'm in the minority."

Given that Nanoco had set up everybody else to benefit from a premature settlement I can see no reason why anyone would disagree with you,

Maybe someone pointed out that the way the buyback was being run was contrary to the interests of all those shareholders and ex-shareholders who wanted to buy back into the company.

"Thoughts guys?"

Please go away. There is certainly something odd happening with the share price but your comments do nothing to elucidate what is happening.

"And why would anyone think a small tech company should have more money than necessary ?? "

I am surprised that you have not noticed that British tech companies have an unfortunate habit of running out of money to the detriment of their shareholders.

And it says somewhere that the £3m buyback will not start before 2x April.

"I found the BT comment about dealing direct with end users as a bit curious "

I too found the comment a little off key. If you are developing a new product you need to talk to everybody involved even if there is no direct connection - you do not want to find that a crucial supplier has gone bust just as you launch.

FWIW I have said more than once that I thought it sensible for Nanoco to retain the cash for longer and also asked about it at one of the presentations.

Nothing amazing about the comment.

It appears to me that the recent dilution can only be blamed on the FD and the company"s financial advisors. Sounds as if the auditors refused to certify the accounts unless the company raised more money.

It has been obvious for a long time that the company needs more financial leeway.

Hopefully one of the new directors has pointed out that there is a better use for the money than paying it out in some taxable manner.