I believe (and happy to be corrected) that LOAM have around 53m shares of which over 47m were picked up at 18p in the placing. The bulk of the rest, I suspect, were picked up at around 30-40p before that. Therefore I have always felt their average was in the early 20's. Would be surprised if we went for less than that - that's a minimum threshold in my mind.
I would speculate much higher. LOAM's holding per 31st Oct was circa 53m that they'd have mostly picked up in the placement at 18p (£8.3m). There have been opportunities for them to average down by adding but no many to dispose of the hearty number they held at much higher levels (30p-40p). Would be surprised if the final value was at less than their average holding.
Indeed, and that was precisely my point - I don't understand the logic that any new bids would at least match anything previous when the company is in a much less promising position than it almost ever has been. For what it's worth, I hope I'm completely wrong and we all make a fortune.
Where did you get the information that 2 or more offers were previously made? Forgive my ignorance, I've never become aware of this. And, if true, why do you think the price would be higher now when the company wants (and needs) to sell than it would have been at a time when the company had no need to, and presumably a significant revenue stream or strong promise of?
Yes I believe the same poster is responsible for both and in the instance of the 'known offer price', he/she later conceded that it was an absolute guess, so would definitely take anything they write with a pinch of salt.
Each of the interested parties will know there is more than one interested party, they will also not initially have visibility of the resource and willingness of the other interested parties. With the current share price at around 13p, if the technology is of any importance to any of those interested parties and, as suspected, any or many of them are multi-national billion pound organisations, then are they really likely to risk losing out to competitor over ten or twenty million here and there? Apple were willing to toss that away on a factory for a short term R&D contract. If this goes and the technology is of any value - why would multiple parties be bidding otherwise - then it won't go for £50-60m or 20p a share, it'll go for much more; this is surely more about risk than it is perceived value based on current share price. As a long suffering LTH I hope it is a bit more than 20p anyway, GLA.
These boards can often be a vagarious minefield of manipulators, chancers and just plain idiots, but as a LTH of a few years I’d just like to say thank you Eskers for your outstanding research and contributions over the years. Whatever happens in the coming weeks and months, I wish you all the best.
Personally don't agree this will take a whacking today, there's nothing in there we didn't expect. Hope is what keeps us here and it would be quite a high risk strategy if - unlikely as it may seem - the company might pull a contract out of the bag at a given point soon. Most people left here either bought in at this level (upside remains an unlikely possibility) or have lost so much by now that there's very little point in selling remaining shareholding.
Just for a bit of context - and by no means am I expecting good news tomorrow - this is probably the 30th price prediction I’ve seen from BtB over several years. They usually veer to the extreme and I’m yet to see one that’s come true....
You seem to be basing your argument against Nanoco around a lack of evidence yet in the same breath insist on spitting out estimated revenue and target price figures based on, well not a lot. Are you oblivious to the laughable hypocrisy within? Have any of your price estimates ever proved accurate? I can't remember any. I think many of us are still waiting for the £2-3 you routinely predicted a couple of years ago!
To my mind BtB you're intentionally downplaying prospects. You did this before, going so far as predicting oblivion shortly before the Apple (or other) deal. This was after several years of ramping unsuccessfully and repeatedly predicting target prices of £2+ well before many other people posted on this board. To me this a clear change of tack on your part, presumably to make money before the landscape changes in future years. Other posters may be led by your sentiments but I certainly won't be. Suggesting repeated funding may be required and to the extent that you're predicting is wildly imaginative at this stage and feels a little disingenuous.
Probably a bit distasteful but it's gone, move on with your life. There was enough discussion about it at the time and those of us left can choose to remain invested or not.
By the way, I think comparing yourself to a rogue, investigative anti-establishment journalist is a little fanciful. Your posts are more like the Daily Star running the same historical quote as their headline every day for months.
Sincere question. Other than point-scoring with Nigwit, given that anybody who has followed this share for a while already knows everything you are posting about, what are you setting out to achieve with your posts?
Jplay, I don't have a problem with your cynicism or necessarily care how you are perceived but I'd prefer to read posts from people with something to say that we don't already know. We are all fully aware that Nanoco has failed to follow up some of Mike's predictions and that the road to profitability is seemingly longer than we'd hoped; I would assume every reader here is invested or not in full knowledge of that - you don't need to keep repeating the same point. I personally think the board is at its best as a sharing point for nuggets of information that then allows people to draw their own conclusions going forward. Apologies all for contradicting my own point about not sharing anything useful but I felt it was pertinent.