ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for monitor Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.

NANO Nanoco Group Plc

17.80
-0.15 (-0.84%)
17 May 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Nanoco Investors - NANO

Nanoco Investors - NANO

Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Nanoco Group Plc NANO London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
-0.15 -0.84% 17.80 16:35:11
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
17.86 17.80 17.96 17.80 17.95
more quote information »
Industry Sector
TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE & EQUIPMENT

Top Investor Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 16/4/2024 20:58 by barkbooo
The idiot keeps stating the majority want BT - no the company’s large investors wanted BT….i wonder why? lol

If the idiot would check out who was buying and selling leading up to the Friday rns, then check BT’s involvement in the rns….(nil) it has a very uneasy feel about it.

There were a lot of small pi’s buying around that time because BT had virtually told the market he had Samsung by the balls….funnily enough the companies large investors chose to do the reverse.and sell.

It was as if they knew something that we didn’t? lol

Just 48 hours later - everything changed, and we had the disappointing rns with BT happy to explain the unexplainable occurrence.

How unlucky for the small pi’s pumping up the share price on that Friday rns - and how lucky for the top investors selling on their money?

It was as if they knew something that we didn’t?

Of course 48 hours later the slippery snake warned that things were not as rosy as they were Friday - then he ran off into hiding…

Job done!
Posted at 31/3/2024 11:20 by paul planet earth1
As for institutional investor's where are they, most gone!

This is the direct result of a CEO who habitually lies, decieves, and misleads its investors, period!

Once the damage has been done it takes a very, very long time, and no doubt a change of leadership, to restore investor trust and confidence and this is currently reflected in the lack of interest in Nanoco by the market where the share price is stagnating!

I suspect Caversham in similar terms have highlighted these issues as in no instutional investor's are interested in investing and where is Oryx International Growth Fund, gone as well no doubt!

We now have a business with virtually no institutional investors and mostly owned by 'retail investors' who in the main feel betrayed and let down and unfortunately BT keeps making the same gaffs and mistakes!

Personally following the Samsung settlement debacle he should of gone as he lacks both the technical knowledge and industry experience required to generate credibility in the eyes of major global electronics suppliers with the ability to generate interest and close commercial deals...Sadly he lacks in all these qualifying areas we need a heavy weight tech CEO not a light weight former finance person to really drive and grow the business. Nanoco has potential but not under his leadership its just being sadly squandered.
Posted at 29/3/2024 12:15 by kooba
As for having a swipe at private investors that funded the business ..BT should be careful of biting the hand that fed him..he only serves at the behest of shareholders.

“And, while the size of the settlement disappointed some investors, others were concerned Nanoco was not keeping enough of the payout for itself, according to Tenner.”

For itself ffs the company is owned by the shareholders not him. I guess that he is taking no votes to the tender in that view when those that voted against mostly wanted more cash in the form of a special dividend.

I can see a number of untruths in the article not bad for BT.
Since the stated policy of the company set out in the report and accounts is that the executives must hold 200% of basic salary in shares and Brian is no where near that figure after being an executive for 7 years ..he was not in a position to sell shares as it would have been a breach of that renumeration policy…so not his decision whether to sell in the tender.
I think all this PR should have waited till after the tender…if they want to puff the shares get some bloody visibility around “the order” and the likelihood of building a sustainable revenue stream not just a very small one off.
Posted at 19/3/2024 22:01 by paul planet earth1
Kooba

Cavendish are just a paid marketing firm to promote Nanoco to a wider investor base in an attempt to prop the inevitable and expected share price drop post expected share buyback.

The fact that key shareholders and LOAM want a buy back at a meagre 24p implies they don't expect an imminent commercial order soon as in before the end of April when the buy back is completed and cash returned to sellers accounts, probably June at the earliest for any comervial contract news. Unless we all get screwed over again by LOAM and the Board and announce via an RNS a few days into May a commercial deal has been signed and alot of investors sold out on the cheap through the share buy back allowing LOAM to increase their stake very cheaply at mugged off retail investors expense!

My expectations based on Board guidance, I know LOL, that the first order will be very small and that the Board have let down their retail imvestors badly over the Samsung debacle I expect no more than £500k generating a small earnings figure of £300k.

They need a deal around £5m to break even and thats expected next year..So much for being world leaders in the manufacture and distribution of quantum dots and being able to manufacture £130m in annual revenues isn't likely to crystallise for a while yet until they get the mobile phone contracts and other devices through the doors..

BT has been in the top job for 5 years now, very well paid for effectively managing 30 odd staff and to date delivered literally 'nano' commercial deals..
Posted at 15/3/2024 19:12 by weatherman
They said they spoke to about 38% of shareholders to reach a decision about a tender offer - clearly institutional investors, not private investors. That is where their priorities lie.
Posted at 15/3/2024 09:31 by millwallfan
Terrorwit. Not sure how long you have been invested here but for those of us who were here in the years leading up to the Samsung litigation virtually ALL of the information in the public domain from multiple sources had estimated the settlement to be in the range of $250m to $750m. Admittedly the higher estimates were based on the Judge concluding ‘wilful’ theft of the IP with the maximum multiplier which most rational investors accepted was always ambitious. HOWEVER, a settlement of $250m plus was a realistic expectation based on the Markman outcomes, the extended period of the worldwide theft. I am confident there are many more genuine NANO investors who would agree with my comments here than would designate me as a historical ramper or being starry eyed blind !! The final settlement AND nature of the communication and share dealings on the weekend of the settlement tell quite a story IMHO !!
Posted at 13/3/2024 13:45 by paul planet earth1
It's shame if Hamoodi gets compensation for LOAM'S alleged insider dealing that we retail investors who allegedly got turned over by them don't see a penny of similar compensation from the no doubt tens of millions that LOAM made out of mugging us as well as RG who no doubt also financially benefitted at retail investors expense given the dodgey comms IMHO the Board initiated in January last year and onwards to camouflage their actions!
Posted at 12/3/2024 07:07 by paul planet earth1
From the LSE BB the share buyback looks set for failure!

TwoGood2Die

Posts: 1,871

Price: 20.275

No Opinion

RE: Share BuybackToday 07:01
Troublesome

"If you look at the current spread 24p versus ask price 21p or 10% to 12% that's little incentive for investors to sell up!

I would say the proposed share buyback has already failed regardless of the vote which will simply be a formality ie same 37% pushing it through but hardly any uptake as investors are not forced or induced to sell"

TwoGood2Die

Posts: 1,871

Price: 20.275

No Opinion

RE: Share BuybackToday 06:45

Just to add...

"My expectation is that the share buyback will fail to attract many sellers and a special dividend payment time for late June following the signing of the first commercial deal with STM seems the more likely outcome with the share buyback failing to achieve its original objectives reducing the share capital base and making Nanoco a more attractive takeover target"

TwoGood2Die

Posts: 1,871

Price: 20.275

No Opinion

Share Buyback Today 06:42

"If you checked my original posts I cited that a share buyback was on the cards as part of a wider strategy and that was LOAM's future 'exit' strategy by reducing share capital making Nanoco a more enticing takeover target.

At the time I suggested a £40m buy backbat 40p a share equating to 100m shares this would be priced above the 37p placement price in 2022 when the company needed operational funding.

This I felt was a 'fair price' for the risks investors had faced and given that the share price itself had crashed 70% since the Feb 2023 Samsung settlement announcement was made on the $150m deal struck.

It seems the Board have become too aggressive and priced the buyback at 24p having taken third party advice, which in my view the advice offered is fundamentally flawed as its always extremely important to take such matters into the context of the current situation and recent circumstances that Nanoco faced.

A buyback at 24p if succesful plus a further £3m but with 90% of shares cancelled would at best lead to around 190m shares remaining in issue.

324m × 38.5% x 90% = 114.74m, post share price £33m/209m = 15.7p

Note: 10% of shares won't be cancelled and still in effect counted as in issue.

£3m spent on 'open market trading', £3m ÷ 15.7p = 19m x 90% = 17.9m.

Total buyback = 114.74m + 17.9m = 132 64m

324m - 132.64m = 191m therefore £33m ÷ 191m implies a 'theoretical' share price of 17p where LOAM hopes Nanoco gets taken out at between 5 and 10x multiple or 85p minimum = 85p x 191m = £160m at 8.75% WACC = implied pre tax earnings = £14m but recent buyers have been using c.5% (or less) for a cash purchase implying earnings £8m which broadly will be inline with likely first Nanoco commercial deal at c.£12m recenues per year.

The expectation is the Board believes investors will sell at 24p while current share price has risen 5% to 20p.

My view the vote at the end of March will progress ( same 37% pushing it through, just a formality) however not many retail investors will sell and risk being 'out of the market' should positive news get released and then being unable to buy back in sub 24p...

Ergo the 24p share buyback price is way too aggressively priced ie too low to induce many investors to sell up. And those that do sell were pribably inclined to anyway regardless of the price.

Given the current share price and likely poor take up, evidenced by the number of frustrated posts here, I believe the take up will fall well short of 38.5% as there is no real financial incentive to do so as the buyback price is too low, and way below the 37p placement offer, to make it attractive enough!

As always one to watch 'dodgey' LOAM RNS share holdings who would no doubt be buying up off loaded shares cheaply at 17p in the expectation of a future buy out by a third party.

Again the Board have executed a poorly thought through plan with substandard third party advice who clearly wern't aware of the previous 37p"
Posted at 05/3/2024 05:30 by paul planet earth1
This is where the likes of Supernumerary, Nigwit et al start to come unstuck.

What we have are a large group of investors called the 'market' acting on information over a two year or more period making 'rational' decisions based on the information 'disseminated' by the Board.

To blame individuals ergo the 'market' for misreading the information as disseminated is clearly at fault as a large group of 'rational' individuals made investment decisions based on the Boards guidance over a long period of time.

Now look at the facts the share price has crashed 70% not because of 'individuals' choses but because the market is telling the Board in no uncertain terms we don't trust the information that you guide us with.

That is the whole point the market believes the Board deliberately misguided, misinformed, and misled investors which is reflected in the low current share price which without the cash settlement would be close to zero pence.

The Board know perfectly well what's going to happen once a return of cash happens the share price will crash to below 8p more like 7p at best reflecting just the remaining cash held on the balance sheet with zero pence awarded for any speculative future organic growth.

Hence why the Board are delaying the return of value to get the most from interest earned on the settlement cash balance with the hope of a good trading update with news of commercial deals to restore the huge amount of credibility and faith that the Board through its own self inflicted deliberate actions and decisions incurred with the market.

It is not retail investors at fault with poor and unwise investment decisions but entirely the Boards fault at Nanoco for the information disseminated over a long period of time..

The same information I might add used to support last year's cash placement at 37p or nearly double the current share price. Likewise the same information that both LOAM and RG had access to with one investor selling up and the other selling down, with both seemingly happy with material profits made as I note, with retail buying while those two were selling, based on access to the same information, nothing has been bought by either party in the form of disclose of legal proceedings with general discontent with the Boards actions and behaviour, funny that isn't it. Maybe the regulator should have looked more closely at their trading actions given that they had I assume access to the same information as retail investors had, but seem to have acted very differently to it.

As for investors negative views and opinions these are not symptomatic of poor investment decisions but are symptomatic of being misled with information that was inaccurate.

Equally you seem to conclude that the regulator did not find fault. That's just an opinion there is no evidence that the regulator has or hasn't investigated hence that's an irrational conclusion to make..I could equally add that given the time and legal cost of pursuing investigations and concluding them in court through litigation the regulator could easily have turned a blind eye to the events and proceedings as they unfolded.
Posted at 21/8/2023 11:09 by paul planet earth1
Hence QL1..claiming 90% supported the Board is wrong in every way.

It was a low turnout with a very low number of retail voters.

Effectively the Board ended up voting for themselves with the institutional investors support and around 11% support from the total number of available 'retail' only investors who could vote regardless if they made the effort or not!

Hence 90% of all retail investors either didn't caste a vote or a small number did and voted against the Board!

Puts things into perspective regarding retail investor apathy!

This implies retail investors have not just lost confidence and trust in the Board but chucked their shares into the bottom draw to be forgotten about!

Thanks BT and Board congratulations 🎊 on destroying shareholder value and investor confidence!!

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock