Member Info for TerrorWit

NGR

The Steve Jobs video is above their heads. None of them should be on the markets really. They’re obviously not ready to take the risks or responsibilities and prefer to act as victims rather than learn from their mistakes. What they want is to make fast, instant profits based on information that’s certain and they have no idea what it’s like operating a business that has to work for sales in a complex technical market.

Dribble

The new facility was paid from a loan provided by Apple to be paid back by amortisng it over future orders for Heatwave dots. Apple then wrote off the loan when they withdrew. If they hadn't it might well have been the end of Nanoco. Nanaco got an upgraded fab capable of turning out £130million worth of dots per year for free.

All this was well established at the time save that the company never named Apple even though the evidence was overwhelming.

BTW

I like Nanonano. He is one of the few posters for whom I have respect since, like NGR, he tries and he's genuine. However, none of his predictions around the technology have been validated so far. The rest of you are mostly bitter after hurting yourselves by not being ready for the markets.

Observe how all the know-alls react to being called out.

This board would be silent if posters would only stick to the facts, understand that there will always be uncertainty and stop trying to fill in the gaps with their own fantasies and projections.

People who write things like "I state what i see is the case and am a sceptic so i am more inclined to challenged the bull narrative…which seems to be the correct approach" are just trying to big themselves up by sounding like they're thinking critically when, in fact, they're just being critical to try and give themselves station they haven't earned in real life. You can tell who they are because what they want most is to be taken seriously and they hate being ridiculed.

Investing in emerging tech is a long, slow wait with setbacks. Everyone at Nanoco is an expert doing their best. They may fail but if they succeeds then the potential rewards are significant. They aren't helped by anyone speculating on forums like this nor by all the pathetic willy waving and lies.

This board would be silent if posters would only stick to the facts, understand that there will always be uncertainty and stop trying to fill in the gaps with their own fantasies, projections.

People who write things like "I state what i see is the case and am a sceptic so i am more inclined to challenged the bull narrative…which seems to be the correct approach" are just trying to big themselves up by sounding like they're thinking critically when, in fact, they're just being critical to try and give themselves station they haven't earned in real life. You can tell who they are because want most is to be taken seriously.

Investing in emerging tech is a long, slow wait with setbacks. Everyone at Nanoco is an expert doing their best. They may fail but if they succeeds then the potential rewards are significant. They aren't helped by anyone speculating on forums like this nor by all the pathetic willy waving and lies.

All day, every day, moan, moan, moan. Nothing nice to say about anyone. Horrid and sad.

Good morning.

If you are all so down on Nanoco and have to spend your lives on line denigrating the company and its managers in every way you can think of why are you are all still invested?

No-one at Nanoco believes your stories and they gave up paying you any attention long ago. Most shareholders stay away so you don't even get a view of what the majority think except when there's a vote but you ignore them to continue with all your trash talk.

Constantly doubling down in your echo chamber.

What sad folk.

... it seems to me that you all want the same thing, which is certainty.

The company can't give you certainty and if it could there would be no risk and therefore no profit opportunity.

You could put your money, such as it is, in a building society.

Troublsome

It's plain English so if you don't understand it that says more about you than the company. Perhaps you're tired and jet lagged.

Ddubya

No. I can't be bothered to help you like that but I will say that if a company issues guidance and then the facts underlying the guidance change that become material information that has to be disclosed to the market.

The shorter term investment case is cloudier. Range of options:

* STM have cancelled plans to use Gen1 dots (happy to wait for Gen2 or found an alternative or the market isn't there yet)

--------

We can categorically state that after years of development and validation all of which was subject to published company guidance that had Gen1 dots been cancelled that would be what the RNS stated otherwise it would not have complied with MAR.

Also if Gen1 dots been cancelled the company would have had no visibility of forward cash so would have had no choice but to cancel the remainder of the buy back out of due prudence.

"quantum dots don't perform fast enough to be used in ToF sensors"

-----------

I don't know whether or not you're on the right track after products on sale Xenon but I don't think this statement is correct generally. It's a principle in physics and chemistry that the smaller the particle the faster it reacts. It even applies in biology. I mean, imagine if elephants were as fast as flies! (You'd need a big swatter if they got trapped inside your windows.)

Anyway, quantum dots react to light in nanoseconds. Definitely fast enough for ToF sensors.

But do your own research because

"Most hedge funds fail: their average life span is about five years. Out of an estimated seventy-two hundred hedge funds in existence at the end of 2010, seven hundred and seventy-five failed or closed in 2011, as did eight hundred and seventy-three in 2012, and nine hundred and four in 2013. This implies that, within three years, around a third of all funds disappeared. The over-all number did not decrease, however, because hope springs eternal, and new funds are constantly being launched."

Shared from

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/money-talks-6

Wasn't there a single large buy (from memory, 1 million shares) about two weeks ago?

Anyway, am enjoying watching certain posters trying to guess about it and looking forwards to shooting down all their excuses when it turns out they were wrong again.

I can't see anything unusual about Cable Car here.

https://wallmine.com/fund/73t/cable-car-capital-llc

It will be interesting to see if others follow soon.

NGR - There are a lot of imaginative posters on this board but they have never been right about anything.

I expect it's just a small fund buying because they see potential.

I could give you a list of things I find odd on the forums. Your hypocrisy would be at the top. Second would be your complete lack of relevant knowledge, shared by the majority of those who post here all the time.

If you can't take being told when you're wrong on the stock market and have to respond by bullying instead I think you're the one in need of some introspection.

Okay. I've offered you the benefit of my knowledge and experience but once again you've declined it. I'm not the loser for that.

"In conclusion, you've ignored my question about a settlement of $150m compared with a low end expectation of $200m and continue to suggest it's mine and others' issue for being disappointed. "

No I haven't but anyway ....

Damages models aren't the final figure that a court might arrive at. Even if they were they would be subject to a discount for early out of court settlement since there is always a price for fast, risk-free money.

The damages models were always misunderstood on the forums. They were held out to be definitive but they are not the law only a tool to assist the court, which always has discretion to come to it's own figures, especially at an appeal or higher court.

The fundamental legal principle is that the parties should both be put back to the position they would have been in had a contract been agreed and then adhered too. That is why I considered and still consider £100 million fair and estimates, whether or not I shared them at any stage, of billions of dollars ridiculous. In other words the damages models are no more than a means by which a court can come to this figure but they aren't compulsory.