Member Info for TerrorWit

"Oh well Milkwood think they see something worthwhile."

-----------

Yes. Rather undermining for you and all your repetitive, paranoid delusions.

This morning a sliver of sunshine from behind the clouds and I am forced to the unavoidable conclusion that Mr Summerton doesn't read the silly stories on that abound on this forum.

Yes, I do recall that now. That must have been what he was hearing from STM so it adds to the sense that the SWIR sensors are not part of Apple's plans again, or at least if they are they'll buy from Asia for a more distant generation of devices. I'll wait to find out if there's any updated news on this in October.

TwoBad2Suriveverymuchlonger

"As Brian already disclosed is was mobile headsets he was inferring to so failure to understand the technological changes, strategic moves by key market player, and relative merits and costs of alternative technologies versus using Nanoco's quantum dots...has now left Nanoco very vulnerable."

_________

When did Brian disclose this and what do you know about "technological changes, strategic moves by key market player, and relative merits and costs of alternative technologies?"

_________

"It seems Nanoco put all it's eggs with one customer, ST Micro, and one product, hand held mobiles...a repeat of Apple!"

_________

No they didn't

-------------

"The 7-8 other customers as mentioned by him in the product pipeline being a smoke screen as they were never ever going to be of any real material value!"

_________

What do you know about these other 7-8 customers?

___________

Surely all that can be said is that STM didn't find sufficient traction to get adequate ROI whilst they are in a distressed situation themselves. We have no idea whether or not another company in with my optionality might find some viable boutique applications. Nanoco are implying they might be able to themselves.

Yes, trust was so badly damaged by winning $130 million that the CEO was re-elected three times since with >90% of the vote.

------------

Obviously, the STM situation is troubling. I don't think Nanoco would have given back £33m unless STM gave them very strong assurances (and then let them down) or unless the BoD have a robust contingency plans so I think any trust issues are more likely to do with STM than Tenner and co.

I'm going to wait and see what they do next. We get to ask questions next month

Feeks

The company never issued any advance guidance about the size of any settlement nor indeed about how much they expected the case might be worth. It would have been completely wrong for them to do so publicly during a litigation.

Any anticipated numbers existed only your imagination and were based on your google research and no legal knowledge or advice whatsoever. You have never found any examples of any company settling for anything like as much as did Nanoco in similar circumstances.

You burned yourself and you encouraged others to do the same. I could see you doing it to yourself for months before the trial but you refused to listen and instead you convinced yourself you had a unique insight that the whole of the rest of the market couldn't see.

"@TerrorWit. So your answer to Feeks is that investors should rely upon their research and companies spending shareholder funds (purportedly to make a return on it) don’t need to communicate in an open and clear way. "

---------

Ddubya

That's not anything like what I have ever said but, anyway, the company have always been as clear as the circumstances have permitted whilst posters here wanted certainty in sensitive situation.

The fact is that there are always two parties in a litigation and most times both think they're going to win or it wouldn't be happening in the first place. However, at least one is going to lose. Anyone who thought, as did Feeks, that it was a one way bet to a massive sum was on cloud cuckoo land and was told often enough.

What's more, if you didn't think the guidance was clear, why didn't you sell? There's no way out of the conclusion that, if you risked your money on a big win and it didn't come out that way for you it was your lookout alone.

Personally, I think they worked miracles so I now wait to see how they're going to get over the next hurdle, which looks to have been unexpected.

"I was always expecting to be given a straightforward explanation of the risks from management."

Feeks

The risks are outlined at the end of every RNS ever issued and you are supposed to do your own research and take advice. All you did was confirm your biases on Google and shout about them a lot.

The situation with STM is that they didn't get any big wins and are under pressure themselves due to falling profits so they can't afford to continue just for the smaller applications, which may still be lucrative for someone who's in a better position, perhaps the Asian customer or perhaps Nanoco directly. I expect Nanoco and the smaller customers will wish to talk about this but that first they need to release any NDA's between with STM. This may be intricate and take a while, I imagine especially where defence contracts are involved.

It does seem that smart phones are most likely not going to be a future application, at least for now, otherwise STM would have gone on, so for now the potential for Nanoco must be reduced. However, it has not evaporated so much as atomised.

Feeks

Among perpetual whingers I think being a "spoon" is a good thing. If the rest of you can't accept the risk they took didn't pay and can't the lessons and move on I'm delighted to be the one who can.

Another problem here is that none of you have any empathy with the position the BoD found itself in due to Samsung's infringement. That's why you got carried away and thought you were entitled to much more. Now you've wasted nearly two years dwelling on it.

Call me a spoon again and prove me right.

I read this elsewhere today and found it insightful on the subject of trolls.

"The bitterness loop

Spoiled leads to bitter.

A sense of entitlement is a trap, because bitterness demands more evidence and seeks to maintain dominance over the other emotions.

When we’re busy looking for more reasons to be bitter, we’re not taking the time to do generative work, to connect and to find opportunities to make things better. These are the enemies of bitterness… it’s easy to make bitterness worse by seeking more reasons to be bitter."

it's from Seth Godin - look him up trolls - he's a marketing guru.

... this is because you believe you're infallible and that therefore everyone agrees with you unless they're "dumb". What we see in practice is that voting shareholders (who are all ordinary) disagree with you at least 10 to 1.

If you believe all the folks on the case including those on the litigation sub committee advising the company were acting solely in the best interests of the ordinary shareholders of Nanoco then you are more dumb than even you normally make out.

------

Kyber

You don't represent the ordinary shareholders of Nanoco but since you're a narcissist you probably think you do.

"The problem with the legal advisors and the litigation funding and the others on payroll including Edelman and the effectively the loan note holders was that they were not aligned with the shareholders."

-------------------

Kyber

Utter tripe. In adversarial legal systems like those in the UK and US lawyers are trained to act only in the best interests of their clients and they have this drummed into them from their first days at law school. What is more the longer a case lasts the more the lawyers stand to make, and, I can assure you having spent hundreds of thousands on their fees that, they are not averse to making money for themselves

All comments like yours prove is how far a few posters have become detached from reality as a result of their narcissistic denial driven in turn by their stupid stores that the settlement would be in the $billions.

Feeks

I'm the one who accepts the outcome and you're the one who doesn't and who therefore must believe that he knows better than all the company's expert advisors and who thinks the vast majority of voting shareholders are wrong. I am sure you hold these convictions sincerely but that's the problem with narcissists. It's not only that they can't accept they got anything wrong, it's that the whole concept of being wrong doesn't occur to them.

I've been to court many times. Mostly I came out on top, sometimes I settled and sometimes I lost. Every time the loser, whether me or the other side, was just as certain beforehand that they were as right as you are now. Mostly this was because they told themselves comfortable stories instead of looking at the evidence clearly.

If you continue to troll Nanoco in public you won't get satisfaction so I think you should do as you recently said and sue the company. I will come to court to observe.

Meanwhile, due to my better knowledge and experience I'm comfortable in my conviction that the legal outcome was the best that could have been achieved and that alone, despite the disappointment of STM's change of mind, leads me to the logical, rational and humanist conclusion that I am going to wait future events when the next CEO is chosen. I do so knowing the risks and that there is no comeback on anyone else and I will not act like you condemning the company in public, safe where they can't reply and from a position of total ignorance about what can happen in court if things don't work out.

"Terrorwit is sadly incapable of this and instead points to the irrelevant point about the relative size of Nanoco in such a case. It's irrelevant because it was not included in any guidance provided by the company. "

----------

What guidance? I don't recall the company putting any numbers on their expectations in any official communications. The numbers you arrived at were all your own wrong interpretations based on a few, carefully curated comments.

It's pathetic that you keep referring back to a NigWit post from the februrary before the settlement the following January as if that lets you all off the hook. My recollection is that NigWit and GigaWit both warned you over and again as the settlement approached that the numbers would be nowhere those you constructed and that they both gave legal reasons and that you bullied them both relentlessly accusing them of de-ramping and such like. Whatever they said, so far as I am concerned, the settlement was almost two years ago, I am reconciled to it and consider it was a very good result.

All you're interested in is being proved right. This because as narcissists you find it inconceivable to accept that you were wrong so you always blame everyone else and never let anything go.

"Some handback of funds would have been sensible, but I think they should have retained enough to take them through to potential commercilsation with the Asian customer at least."

------------

Nanonano

I agree but we don't know yet what contingency plans have been modeled and what the outcomes of the termination talks and discussions with smaller scale customers will be.

No Feeks. You pumped the shares because you thought the settlement would be so high as to break all records and still won't accept, two years later, that you didn't understand anything about it.

Your mate Freeks is even more of a fake. He used Google to work out that Nanoco would win $billions from Samsung totally ignoring the qualified, $1000 per hour (as much as he earns in a month) lawyers at Mintz.

Sorry it's gone wrong but orders aren't guaranteed and that's pretty much all there is to say about it for now.

"and terry i knew enough to know this management has been bull****ting for years…something you still seem to be blind to "

Kyber

Management have always been straightforwards and acted in good faith. It's just that you're a narcissistic individual with no talent who likes to compensate by making up stories and trolling people who can't reply to you.

This morning, having first consulted Google, you told us the difference between fixed and variable overheads, which is lesson one in GCSE business studies.

You're a fake.