Member Info for TerrorWit

This has gone full conspiracy, which probably means the outcome won't be what forum posters expect. Personally, I think that the more emotional and irrational posters try to rally support against the company the more the huge, silent and sensible majority will turn out because they can see there's still plenty to loose.

Why does someone with no shares seem more upset than someone who still owns them?

The difference is that some people invested in an outcome, whereas others invested in a business. Outcomes disappoint. Businesses adapt. The delisting is an adaptation, which may explain why some former shareholders seem more upset about it than some current ones.

Being quoted makes running out of money before the company reaches sustainability more likely.

This reminds me of something I observed on another share forum a few years ago.

A small group of very active posters became convinced that the board was acting against shareholders’ interests. Over time they dominated the discussion so completely that many dissenting voices simply stopped engaging.

They attended the shareholder meeting expecting the vote to go their way and gave the directors a thoroughly robust reception. However, when the votes were counted, more than 95% were cast in favour of the company rather than the forum campaign.

Undeterred by this minor statistical setback, they promptly adjourned to the nearest pub where they reassured one another that they had been right all along.

I wouldn’t assume the vote is unwinnable.

The directors, Employee Benefit Trust and any supportive major holders already represent a meaningful block. With historically low shareholder participation, the outcome may be decided by a relatively small number of motivated voters.

For example, votes were received for only around 17.6% of the issued share capital at the 2026 AGM, and around 32% in 2025. In other words, a relatively small proportion of shareholders typically engage in the voting process.

It is also worth remembering that forum posters are not necessarily representative of the register. Those most strongly opposed may already have sold or may sell before the vote, while buyers at current levels are, by definition, willing to hold into the proposal.

I would also be surprised if the board had put this forward without first considering likely support from significant holders. That doesn’t guarantee success, but I don’t think it is safe to assume they cannot reach 75%.

Whether there is a block buyer or not has little bearing on the underlying investment case.

Ultimately, the value of the company will be determined by whether management succeeds in executing the strategy and converting the technology into sustainable commercial revenues.

As I have always maintained, that is the question that matters.

Laura,

Fact:

* There are recurring larger trades.

Fact:

* No corresponding holding announcements have appeared.

Inference:

* Therefore the activity may be more fragmented than some posters assume.

The “block buys” could simply be one or more institutional brokers who hold shares on behalf of tens of thousands of private investors, consolidating numerous smaller transactions into larger reported trades.

I honestly think the most straightforward answer is that it makes little sense for a company of Nanoco’s size to remain on the stock market and bear all the associated costs and management overhead.

People see a listed company and assume it must be a large organisation. In reality, Nanoco is about the size of many privately owned businesses up and down the country — a

a small manufacturer, a successful strip mall restaurant or a specialist consultancy.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one. The board may simply have decided that the burden of being listed outweighs the benefits.

One thing I have noticed in this discussion is how quickly we move from facts to conclusions.

For example:

* The company wants to reduce costs.

* Therefore they must expect major delays.

Or:

* The company wants to delist.

* Therefore there must be a buyer waiting.

Both may turn out to be correct, but they are still inferences rather than established facts.

Perhaps the most useful discipline is to separate what we know from what we are assuming. Otherwise it becomes very easy to mistake a plausible interpretation for evidence.

Nanonano and ValueforMoney,

Isn’t there another way of looking at it?

Whilst it is true that optionality may reduce over time if commercial agreements fail to materialise, it is also true that reducing costs preserves cash and extends runway.

In other words, the proposal could be viewed as an attempt to increase optionality rather than evidence that it has been exhausted.

The company may or may not succeed, but “they have run out of options” and “we are back to being a start-up” both seem to me to be stronger conclusions than the available evidence currently supports.

What if management are simply being prudent?

Previous experience suggests delays are almost inevitable in this sector. If so, an additional £700k p.a. of runway could prove far more valuable than it appears today.

£700k p.a. isn’t trivial over three or four years.

And the AIM route only makes sense if there is a meaningful benefit to remaining listed. If the board’s view is that the company no longer needs a public listing, then AIM simply becomes a cheaper version of something they don’t believe they require.

There is currently no evidence that a sale is lined up. On the contrary, management have consistently said that the best return for shareholders comes from executing first and then pursuing strategic options from a stronger position.

Viewed through that lens, the proposal looks less like a rush to sell and more like an attempt to improve the company’s flexibility and optionality while it executes.

Anyway, I think shareholders should be concerned not with how the shares are traded, but with what gives the company the best chance of success, because ultimately that is what will determine what their participation is worth.

At the moment many shareholders seem to regard voting against the delisting as the safer option, but my question is: what happens next?

The risk of a failed delisting is not simply that nothing changes; it is that the company may eventually require additional capital on terms that are unfavourable to existing shareholders.

A simple analogy would be a house.

If the local estate agent closes down, your house doesn’t disappear.

It just becomes harder to find a buyer because the usual route to market has gone. The ownership remains intact and you can still sell the house another way.

Laura,

If I may, two questions, since you have made the same assertion on several occasions now:

1. If a buyer is genuinely waiting in the wings, wouldn’t the absence of any publicly disclosed irrevocable undertakings from other major shareholders tend to argue against that theory rather than support it?

(It doesn’t prove anything either way, but I would have thought strong shareholder support might be more likely if there was confidence that a superior alternative was available.)

2. If you believe someone will buy the company, what evidence are you relying on beyond the fact that you think the IP is worth more than the current market capitalisation?

Milkwood describe themselves as long-term investors focused on capital allocation and shareholder returns.

That doesn’t tell us how they will vote, but I think it does make it dangerous to assume they will automatically oppose the proposal simply because they have disagreed with management on other issues in the past.

The question for them is likely to be which course of action creates the most value, not whether the company remains listed.

https://www.milkwoodcap.com/

The absence of TR-1s doesn’t really tell us that someone is building a stake. It may simply tell us that nobody has crossed a reporting threshold.

If anything, I’d have expected a genuine takeover build-up to eventually generate TR-1 notifications.

One possible interpretation is that a publicly traded company is often under greater pressure to demonstrate prudence and protect cash, particularly if it is relatively small and loss-making.

In a litigation or IP dispute, the other side can see the published accounts, the cash position and the likely costs of a prolonged legal process. That may encourage low settlement offers if they believe the company has limited appetite for a lengthy fight.

There is also the wider issue that public companies have disclosure obligations, governance requirements and a constant market focus on short-term cash consumption. A private company may have more flexibility to pursue a long-term strategy or take a tougher negotiating position.

As for LOAM, I would be cautious about reading too much into the appointment of a board representative. A major shareholder placing someone on the board during a high-stakes litigation process could simply reflect a desire for oversight of a strategically important and potentially expensive decision.

From LinkedIn

About

Jalal Bagherli chairs the board of Probe Test Solutions Limited

(PTSL) a private high growth semiconductor test equipment manufacturing.

Jalal also chairs the board of LSE listed Nanoco technologies.

Nanoco develops and manufactures Quantum Dot material for use in displays and imaging devices.

Previously, Jalal was Advisory board co-chair of Williams Advanced Engineering (WAE)/Fortescue, focused on accelerating the electrification of performance cars as well as other transportation vehicles using the latest battery technology, fuel cells and green hydrogen.

With 16 years of experience as CEO of Dialog Semiconductor, some of Jalal's professional highlights include the creation of new design centres in seven countries; successful negotiation of a strategic licensing deal worth $600m to transfer IP and resources to Apple Inc; equity raising in European capital markets along with acquisition and integration of several chip companies in the US, Netherlands, Korea and Germany totalling over $1bn.

Jalal also led the company to become the world leader in Power Management products, used for all Apple devices and the expansion into new product lines for Connectivity (low power Bluetooth/Wifi), as well as Power Conversion and programmable Mixed Signal products for Mobile consumer and IOT markets.

Jalal led the strategic M&A deal resulting in the sale of Dialog semiconductor to Renesas Corporation of Japan in August 2021 for $5.8bn

As part of his extensive achievements, with Dialog Semiconductor, Jalal has won several industry awards: GSA awards for "Most Respected Semiconductor Company" ($1bn-$5bn) and twice for "Best Financially Managed Semiconductor Company.

Yes, Jalal is a serious individual.

He is one of the reasons I have continued to hold despite all the disappointments along the way. For someone with his track record to get involved in a company of this size has always suggested to me that he sees something worthwhile in the IP and its long-term potential.