The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Troublesome, I, like everyone, was disappointed that I wasn't an overnight millionaire but the reality of the situation soon returned. As for the future prospects, that was mainly a comment on the state of the world security and financial stability rather than aimed directly at NANO. Both factors would possibly affect the company unless an opportunity arises in the military field for infra red sensors etc. You never know.
I find it odd that so much vitriol and negativity is being poured over NANO and its board. Surely, if a very small research and development company with just 66 employees (with obviously great talents) can redeem a settlement of 150 million dollars from a company with 266673 employees and can show the entire electronics industry that their product is the one preferred by the market leader, shouldn't they be celebrated. Lots of people, no doubt bought into the litigation chatter in the hope of a multi bag, fast buck and were disappointed when the always unlikely billions didn't materialise. To my mind, and I've been here since 2013, riding the waves of euphoria and disappointment too, I think NANO has a great future with the capital it deserves and this temporary dip in SP will be the great missed buying opportunity it surely is.
What would restore my faith in the integrity of the BOD is to prove their intention to return a material proportion of the proceeds in two tranches, starting in march 2023, as a sign of goodwill. I know it wouldn't be a life changing sum but with raging inflation and an unstable world, it could be that by march 2024 a substantially different situation might rob shareholders altogether. A campaign along those lines needs to be launched to pressure and indicate the feeling to an probably reluctant board. Jam today, for a change.
Whilst Nanoco have never recorded an annual profit it is not entirely their fault. One might say that marketing savvy was not their strongest suit but I remember the heady days of Dow where the sky was definitely within grasp, closely followed by the disappointment of the Apple contract and the blatant theft of IP by Scamsung. We have gained a factory in Runcorn, and 90million dollars of compensation over the years, so all is not lost. Onwards and upwards is my fervent hope.
The substantial take from the RNS was the statement from the chairman Mr. Richards, "In deciding the allocation of the net proceeds, the Board will balance any investment needs of Nanoco's growing organic business with a FIRM intention to deliver a material return of capital to shareholders"
To digress , it occurred to me that, if the settlement is to be paid in two annual tranches, would it not be reasonable to pay a dividend to loyal shareholders in a similar fashion. Waiting till 2024 with high inflation and a substantial increase in the CGT threshold looming, creates a further erosion of what paltry percentage we might receive. It would placate a disgruntled following to some extent, even at 5 to 6p a share for two years. A few crumbs to show some gratitude.
Nanoco has always been and continues to be a jam tomorrow company, such is the nature of R & D business. I am disappointed with the settlement but have learned that knee jerk reactions to news is never a good idea. Having to wait another year with investments on hold to receive a possible dividend, especially with high inflation and the possibility of WW3, I am not very comfortable with future prospects.
I don't get it at all. Why risk the adverse publicity of a court battle when S could simply buy Nanoco for pocket change. Lots of PI's would be happy with a pound a share. Personally I've been in it since 2010 and want a lot more but logic rarely enters these situations I guess.
My take on the discussion, whilst I agree NGR's logic holds water, surely the best way of saving face would for the case never to see the light of day. A confidentiality clause in any settlement agreement would restrict the knowledge of their dealings to those who already know, like us. As for their defence, with the PTAB ruling against them it will be on shaky ground at best IMO. Prevarication is the only option for them if they lose and great frustration for me and thee.
Whether one agrees with short selling or not, its existence, particularly in relation to Nanoco, has always resulted in downward pressure on the share price. GMT have just over a 1% short position at present which they must have sold around the 20p mark judging by the dates, thus with all the optimism of PTAB favourability, it leaves them with a potential loss of considerable size unless the SP can be manipulated south. With just a few more trading days before an announcement they must be actively trying to reduce the price quite dramatically. Any thoughts?
I noticed in the RNS that a sort of triumphant emphasis was applied to the oversubscribed cash raise. As I remember that was at 17.5p per share. I wonder how those subscribers are feeling now, seeing a slumping trend through 12p.
I am like many others, I suspect, longing to rid my portfolio of Nano shares but locked in by losses and faint, jam tomorrow, expectations.
I suppose, as is so often the case with NANO, the deafening silence from the management team is contributing to the shareprice being walked down, relentlessly, to single figures. I sincerely hope this is not the case but I fear it'll be deja-vu all over again.(with apologies to Yogi Berra)