Sound Energy #SOU provides an update on a potential farm-in and operational progress in Morocco Watch Now
I agree with you in principle Nige_W. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be happening. In my (limited) experience of Chinese and South Koreans, they just ignore everything that is going on around them, and press on relentlessly towards their selfish objectives. Their legal team could deploy delaying tactics for years, and eventually Nanoco might be forced to settle for a sum well below the value of their (allegedly) stolen intellectual property.
As a Nanoco investor, I would be far happier to see the company put this on the back burner, and press on with winning contracts to bring their (seemingly) valuable products to market. I would also be interested to discover what actually went on during the bid process? Were there any offers for the company on the table? What value does the company attribute to its IP? If some of this information were available in the public domain, would it have resulted in an increase in the company's MCap?
I also believe that this company could well flourish if they appointed personnel with business acumen to organise the sales and marketing of its products, and put a strategy in place to bring its intellectual property and products to market. Regards.
I agree with BeingTheBanker's opinion of the current situation. There has been no significant progress or development within the company since I have been invested, although I remain hopeful of a significant profit when the patent infringement legal action with Samsung is resolved.
Perhaps it is better to set my NANO shares to one side, and concentrate on my other investments for the time being. They, at least, show signs of "life" and there is constantly emerging information, which suggests that these companies are progressing with their development. New products are in the pipeline, significant new contracts are being won and share prices are rising. With Nanoco there is none of this. My investment here appears to hinge on the eventual settlement of the aforementioned court action, which could be tomorrow or in several years time?
Like many other Nanoco investors, I realise that I should have sold in mid February @ 30.05p, when the opportunity was present, albeit for a short time. A subsequent buyback following the share price collapse, mainly due the Chinese virus, would have realised another subsequent profit when the share price eventually rose to the present level. The opportunity presented itself to make a significant profit. Unfortunately, I was so blind sighted by the "bid-process hype" at the time that my usual predatory investor instincts didn't kick in. There was a genuine opportunity here, which I failed to act upon. However, I remain optimistic that there are good profits ahead in the indeterminate future. Regards and best wishes to all Nanoco investors. I continue to read your comments, and am grateful for the significant information that is constantly offered on this board.
Good morning everyone. It is good to read sensible contributions here again. There were some "voyeurs" both on this board and on the OKYO board in recent days, and they seem to have moved on at last. I question their motives, as it must be abundantly clear that the majority of contributors here are, like myself, long-term holders, who have conducted careful research, and concluded that there are serious growth prospects ahead for patient investors.
Like many others, I am looking forward to news of the decoupling of a very promising product into Accustem. I am hopeful that the latter initiative will result in net growth to my relatively small stake ( 20K shares purchases @ 99.5p ave). Good luck everybody.
Thank you jmfw.
I found the AccuStem link earlier today on Twitter. I agree with you that the link between TILS and OKYO is purely coincidental (same key personnel in both companies). Nevertheless, my hasty research on Monday suggests that OKYO seems to be a good investment for the future.
Absolutely correct HedgeHogarth. It would appear that company (Accustem) is registered, and that its shares will be issued as soon as Stemprinter is uncoupled from Tiziana Life Sciences. The market will the decide the fortunes of the resulting companies following the uncoupling process.
The share price has risen today to a level approaching last Monday. Surprisingly, there hasn't been a single relevant comment either on this board or the equivalent board on advfn. There has been some unfortunate posting by someone who appears to be suffering from a form of cognitive disfunction on the advfn board. There is a relentless onslaught of cut and paste relating to a different company from that individual. However, there is nothing from him/her on the quiet board of that particular company ?
More to the point, I invested in Okyo Pharma following the recent abrupt recent rise in share price. I may have wrongly assumed that there is a link between OKYO and the forthcoming TILS decoupling? There is an uncanny overlap of key personnel between the two companies. Perhaps this is just a coincidence? However, I intend to keep my OKYO shares for the time being, as I see a reasonable potential for a further upgrade in share price in the not too distant future.
Experts maintain that it is a combination of possible post-Brexit implications, Covid-19, frozen dividends for the foreseeable future, loans to sustain small business in these difficult times, and a few other factors that is holding back the Lloyds Banking Group share price - perpetually at 30p.
My personal belief rests with the fact that it is the extravagant PPI payments that have broken Lloyds Banking Group's back.
Arguably this is one of the largest scale frauds in my lifetime, and yet so many people seem to view it as legitimate compensation. How can anyone be miss-sold any form of insurance. All forms of insurance have their own policy documents, and there is usually a concise summary provided. Surely anyone who chose to purchase PPI was only too well aware of future ramifications?
When I was sold an endowment mortgage which gave up the ghost of reaching the targeted amount after eight years, and eventually paid me 68% of the aforementioned amount after 25 years, I don't recall anyone classifying this as miss-selling. Likewise a Stocks and Shares, taken out 20 years ago, when I understood far less about investing than at present, lost approximately 50% of its value in the first few months. Presumably, this was to pay the salesperson's bonus? It took approximately four years for that particular investment to regain the £3K level - the original amount investment. Again, there was no hint of miss-selling.
My question is what makes PPI any different from other vehicles that banks and other financial institutions have used to rip-off customers over the years? Also why was a disappropriate amount of compensation paid out, and why did the FCA allow a payout which invited so much unchecked fraud to potentially take place? It beggars belief that such a scheme as PPI compensation was allowed to devastate the balance sheets of financial institutions over so many years.
I have followed the sensible (if optimistic) dialogue between investors with detailed knowledge of the microchip industry on the advfn board for some time. Having conducted my own parallel research, based mostly on information sources quoted by the advfn contributors, I tend to agree with their conclusions.
Following "lean" years, there is now hope for an elevation in the share price for investors, like myself, who are prepared to remain invested until Spring 2021. The general consensus is that IQE needs to declare two "solid" sets of results, both in September 2020, and in March 2021 in order to effect a re-rating to a higher share-price level. This is not a given, and there are huge risks involved, bearing in mind the current dire global economic scenario. However, the companies that IQE supply manufacture components in technologies (like 5G telecommunications, and face-profile activated sensors) that are currently growth areas, that should continue to grow over the coming years. There is therefore hope, with considerable risk attached, that IQE's trajectory will form part of that growth resulting in an upward re-rating of the share price.
From my own (retail investor) point of view, I am continuing to add at the current lowish point ( I wish that I had had the courage to do so when the share price briefly fell to sub 20p recently), and will trust my judgement in anticipating a share price of 90p+ next Spring. The previous contributors on this board, who portrayed IQE as a "perpetually jam tomorrow" company, appeared to have moved on, but I remain optimistic that those days are now behind us, and that IQE can look forward to growth in sales and revenues, with an accompanying market re-rating sometime next Spring.
From the same website - another patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung. They appear to be serial offenders wantonly riding roughshod over other companies' IP for their own gain. My apologies if this 3-week old article has already featured on this bulletin board.
The interesting part is that "JOLED also filed a complaint in Germany in the District Court of Mannheim, seeking an injunction for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics and its local subsidiaries." Perhaps Nanoco will have the scope to do the same? Nanoco are drip-feeding information, concerning their action against Samsung, at the moment? They may yet extend their case to include other Samsung subsidiaries.
I am more than happy with the UK Government's U-turn in choosing not to use Huawei equipment in our 5G network infrastructure for several reasons, including the security threat from using Chinese equipment.
As a Lloyds Banking Group investor, I am concerned to see the share price range bound at around 30p per share, when the intrinsic value of the company's assets suggests that the share price ought to be at least double the current value. Additionally, the current lack of dividend does not add to my happiness. I have no intention of selling my shares, and investing elsewhere, as I believe that the share price will recover to the post-election highs when we are through with the current economic crisis.
I lay the full blame for this situation at the door of the Chinese Government, and their total lack of empathy towards the rest of the World, when they knew that there was a serious epidemic outbreak in Wuhan province. Had they acted promptly, hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved. I hope that the UK Huawei boycott proves to be the tip of the iceberg for China, and that there will be a major economic reckoning from other countries. They should treat China with the same disdain as the Chinese Government consistently show towards the rest of the the human race.
It seems that the recent uplift in share price was in anticipation of today’s announcement? Although a further rise would have been optimal, I am satisfied that the litigation funding agreement has de-risked my investment considerably.
A further announcement of a contract win (or better several contract wins over a period of time ) would undoubtedly add confidence in the company, and we could well see a return to the share price level achieved prior to the withdrawal of Apple’s support.
From an investor’s point of view, there are several possible scenarios and permutations that might yet unfold. My personal target price is relatively modest, but I am sure that the attainment of some of the share prices suggested by contributors on this board would bring much happiness to many of us. It is better to maintain a balanced view, however, to avoid disappointment later on.
As always, regards and best wishes to all Nanoco investors on this board. I always enjoy your comments, and have benefitted from reading them.
The best news that has been announced by the company since I chose to invest in Nanoco. The risk factor in my investment has considerably diminished with this latest development. Hopefully, there will be an uplift in the share price as a consequence. Additionally, as suggested by botbot, a contract announcement should add to market confidence in Nanoco and shift the market price upwards to a higher trading range.
It was mentioned here recently that the UK Government might be interested in the fact that a small U.K. technology company has initiated a major patent infringement lawsuit in an US court against a massive South Korean company, who are being considered for significant provision of equipment for the UK's 5G infrastructure.
Could this issue influence matters against Samsung's bid, or would it be mostly irrelevant to the Government's 5G infrastructure procurement team?
This is a difficult question to answer. However, it might be useful if the issue appeared as an article with a suitable headline in the financial pages of a popular newspaper. Surely a "David versus Goliath" contest with a tiny British company as the underdog pitched against a mammoth World-leading technology corporation would bring the issue into the public domain? Additionally, it might alert Samsung to the fact that the matter was no longer under the radar of public consciousness, and its resolution might assume greater importance in their list of priorities.
A cautionary commentary in which the analyst bases his opinion on the company’s past failures to meet performance targets, and the current high P/E value.
However, there has been a positive change in the company’ s key personnel - some of the old guard with a scientific background have been replaced with businessmen with a track record of growth and success.
I appreciate that there it may take time for the company to return to a significant growth scenario. However, it’s potential is positive especially in how it’s diversified product range accommodates so well to growth areas in the sector.
I intend to hold and even buy more should there be a future significant drop in share price. I would not discount a buyout in the future, bearing in mind the current demand for the company’s products in a wide range of applications.
I realise that this is still a gamble, and I may well lose out, but am prepared to take the risk.
The" ex-poster here" is none other than "nig(half)wit". I have extended his pseudonym as he has referred to contributors to this board as "halfwits" on previous occasions.
This time around, he has made an explicit reference to one of my posts, and fails to understand my point that an investor may have full confidence in the scientists, whose expertise has delivered the company's IP, (hence an expectation of future profits), but rather less confidence in the business acumen of the BOD - particularly with sales and negotiations.
I would invite this sneaky voyeur (nighalfwit) to respond to our views on this board, and argue his case here. If he finds the views of our community distasteful, and at odds with his own, why does he bother to read them, and subsequently write disparaging comments on a different bulletin board?
Blame it all on Sam Woods. From the tone of his letter, it is one that he really enjoyed writing and sending. I was once unfortunate in working with a boss who was just like him - spiteful towards everyone especially his staff.
Thank you for our discussions of recent days in response to the exceptional circumstances caused by Covid-19. The PRA welcomes the consideration given by you and your firm to suspending dividends and buybacks on ordinary shares until the end of 2020. Should your board take such a decision the PRA would publicly welcome it.
I am also writing to ask you to cancel payments of any outstanding 2019 dividends.
The PRA also expects banks not to pay any cash bonuses to senior staff, including all material risk takers, and is confident that bank boards are already considering and will take any appropriate further actions with regard to the accrual, payment and vesting of variable remuneration over coming months.
Please confirm to the PRA by 20:00 today whether or not your group is prepared to agree to this request. The PRA stands ready to consider use of our supervisory powers should your group not agree to take such action.
We would expect you to make a statement by 21:00 and the PRA would issue its own statement at that time. A draft text of a PRA statement and possible form of words for your statement, depending on your decisions on these matters, is included below (see Annex). The PRA intends to publish its letters to firms alongside any statement it issues.
Deputy Governor and CEO, Prudential Regulation Authority
CEO, Prudential Regulation Authority
31 March 2020"
Today's market trading pattern has been very similar to what we have witnessed recently. The share price continues to oscillate aimlessly in the absence of any news - positive or otherwise.
The BOD seem to be playing a tune straight out of the Louis Armstrong playbook: "We have all the time in the World". If every company conducted their business in a similar fashion, the World would be in a poorer state today than is currently the case.
It seems that TLS have been more forthcoming with their RNS than is the case with NANO. There has been a promising development with one of their products this morning. Should the anticipated Merck contract finally appear, it could well turn out to be a good week for my portfolio.
My third AIM company has their AGM today. They used to be poor with their interactions, but the appointments of a new Chairman and CFO transformed their communication with investors. I have always suspected that NANO would benefit from having more business experts in the management team to complement the high level scientists who appear to be at the forefront of business decisions and negotiations.
Regards, and hopefully there will be a good reason to celebrate soon. TLW
Correct; the greatest profits I have made in past investments have all been with AIM listed companies, and the greatest loss was with a FTSE 100 company (CPI). I was fortunate in overcoming that huge loss, and turning it around into an excess profit in less than three months with a huge investment in CITY, whose price doubled overnight.
Back to NANO, I now regret not selling @ 30.05p, which was feasible last February. My current sell price is 50p, although I would think carefully about selling at a lower figure bearing on mind what happened recently. The BOD lack drive in my opinion as they did not manage to use the recent bid process to showcase their IP, and draw out a feasible offer from a large company. The current scenario could go well for investors, but the BOD do not have my full confidence.