Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[stun12] 09/2/2017 11:11

Haha. And Grant Thornton is an anagram of 'buyout at three quid'. Or not, as the case may be.

I'm with whum etc. Absurd to take a drive-by post like that seriously.

Still got all my shares and wanting to buy more, but I'm waiting for more clarity, even if I have to pay up.

[roadster750] 09/2/2017 10:38

ME resides in Boston
Microsoft tech centre is in Boston
MS are a major client of GT
"Just saying" lol

[luxaeterna1] 09/2/2017 09:56

The only other obvious candidate that comes to mind is the Softbank tech fund that announced it wanted to spend umpteen trillion pounds on technology businesses over the next couple of years along with the Saudi's money. I'm not sure Nano will fetch quite as much as ARRM did ($ from heaven??), but that would be a possibility.

Would be very interesting for an Asian technology fund to consider Nano, with the whole lightning, TVs, smartphone and medical uses.

[luxaeterna1] 09/2/2017 09:48

Never did like bulletin board gossip. But following the hive mind train of thought...it is unclear who the potential suitor would be?

Nano supplying Merck, Dow, Wah Hong.

Samsung? Clearing the IP patent path for QD domination if it thinks it would give them a competitive advantage? But Dow/Merck would be strategic competition feeding their competitors. Dow/Merck? Why introduce Merck if Dow want to buy them. Merck? Could Merck want the IP?

Otherwise, what do we actually know about the relates parties? Samsung love QDs and are very busy on this front. Samsung use Goldman Sachs as a paid advisor and Goldman have been writing glowing PR nonsense about Samsung recently (ohhh, "Samsung can TOTALLY increase their prices by 10-20%!"). We also know Goldman have been doing something weird with Nano shares as recently as last week's TR-1s.

Upwards of £1.50 I may approve such an offer, but I was expecting to see a solid growth industry here and wanted to wait 3-4 years for a £2+ situation with divis (with the understood risk pencilled in). I'm kinda annoyed when long term technology prospects get sold off cheap the second things get interesting.

[whum] 09/2/2017 09:36

this bb is descending into realms of fantasy.
I shall watch from the sidelines. GLA

[bagpuss67] 09/2/2017 08:49

Well if they have tested the market for further institutional cash to blow on nice to haves and general profligacy and come up short, what's left apart from putting yourself up for sale?

[davr0s] 09/2/2017 08:45

Market hasn't sniffed anything - not a single trade in first 45mins. Lol. Nothing to see here IMO

[quazie12] 09/2/2017 08:10

ScrutableFirst scam announce a firm of accountants is doing dd without explaining the source

[mr.oz] 09/2/2017 06:34

A testament of how poor things are when people's only hope is for a buyout at the bottom
Over promising and under delivery specialist going cheap

[hippo] 09/2/2017 06:27

Correct, fully listed, but still behaves like it's on AIM.....

[onething] 09/2/2017 01:22

NANO is not listed on AIM.

[scrutable] 09/2/2017 00:17

wb
If anyone had inside information of a DOW contract or of rapidly increasing WH orders, it would be worth making an offer. Would it be illegal? ie insider dealing?

Not that AIM or the City have the slightest care. Over the years there has been scam after scam, without either the press or FCA minding one little bit, except for the unfortunate Jefferey (Lord)Archer, who 'did porridge' for insider dealing. Globo, BioProgress(Meldex) Mrs Fields, CCH, AFREN, are only a few of the dozens delisting to defraud, or after heavy thieving - so many I can't remember all their names.

[woolybanana] 08/2/2017 23:50

I have often wondered about the softening up idea but what could be the advantage of taking it private? Who would want it?

[bagpuss67] 08/2/2017 21:46

Yes. forensic investigation. class 1 transaction working capital review. tax advice. vendor dd. dd for purchaser. Insolvency advice.

[howl01] 08/2/2017 20:49

If nanoco were financing capex via a loan would the bank conduct a 'due diligence' audit?

[mwwh] 08/2/2017 20:20

It would be unusual for Grant Thornton to do any kind of auditing at Nanoco, since E&Y are their current auditors. Nanoco would have to announce any change of auditors. If, on the other hand, Nanoco were going private or if someone were making an offer, they would certainly bring in an outside auditor such as Grant Thornton. Bagbuss67, can you think of any other reason for bringing in GT?

[nanoman321] 08/2/2017 20:16

I am new here,

want to buy some shares (3000).

Should I wait? And what does that mean?
TR-1: NOTIFICATION OF MAJOR INTEREST IN SHARES(i)


Paul

[andycapped] 08/2/2017 17:47

Does make me wonder if all the constant mucking about with this share and lack of news is a surreptitious strategy to soften up PIs for buyout on the cheap.

[stun12] 08/2/2017 17:41

mrplay, Ernst and Young have been the auditors since 2008, according to the 2016 annual report. As per good practice rules, the individual responsible for the account was rotated in Mar-16.

[bagpuss67] 08/2/2017 17:32

If GT are there it could be for quite a number of reasons a few of which are not related to possible corporate activity such as a take private or take over.

[minsky] 08/2/2017 17:24

in order to estimate sales this quarter, does anyone who lives near Runcorn want to volunteer to sit outside the Nanoco factory for a few days and count the number of lorries taking big buckets of nanodots to customers?

[mrplay] 08/2/2017 17:06

from nanoco annual report 2008. Auditor
Grant Thornton UK LLP, have expressed willingness to continue in office. In accordance with section 489(4) of the Companies Act 2006 a resolution to reappoint Grant Thornton UK LLP will be proposed at the next Annual General Meeting.

[larmor] 08/2/2017 16:34

stephweiss ADVFN profile registered today and one post. Hmm......