Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nanoco Group Plc | NANO | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.06 | 0.52% | 11.58 | 09:44:32 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11.58 | 11.58 | 11.58 | 11.52 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE & EQUIPMENT |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 29/10/2024 15:25 by kooba They are also stake building in TENT"Milkwood Capital has built a stake in the winding-down Triple Point Energy Transition (TENT) as it makes a second attempt at obtaining an investment company to run.The Windsor-based activist investor has established a 14.9% position in the £85m trust since it started buying shares in late August, stock exchange filings show, in a move similar to its failed attempt to prevent the wind-down of Downing Strategic Micro-Cap (DSM) earlier this year."Sept 24There was some performance data given in the DSM tilt."Big performance claimIn a letter to DSM's board earlier this year, he claimed the UK assets of Milkwood Fund had generated a 137% return in the three years to the end of 2023, beating all existing micro-cap funds, including 83.1% from Rockwood and 0.7% from DSM.He said Milkwood would not a charge a management fee until it had restored DSM shareholders' losses by returning the share price to 100p."I would be interested in holding a listed fund that gave that performance !! |
Posted at 02/9/2024 11:48 by paul planet earth1 PWhite73Putting things into perspective. Nanoco is f@@ked! There's no commercial deals for at least 2 years and that 'unnaned' Asian customer might just walk off or who knows doesn't even exist. Core IP is aging fast and rapidly maturing. The cost base is unsustainable and cash is being burnt through at a frightening pace and much faster than originally forecast. The mgt team are incompetent lacking commercial experience and good business judgement. While investor relations is in tatters after BT and the Board stitched up retail investors in favour of LOAM and RG over the Samsung settlement..Hence support for a future cash placement is likely to be very limited and especially so without any commercial deals in the pipeline. |
Posted at 19/7/2024 05:51 by paul planet earth1 $90m of that figure went to the legal funders!$60m included an unapproved sale of over 100 patents to Samsung! The 'happy clappy' institutional investors who praised the Board in their defence against the coup collected their pieces of gold and voted with their feet and left on mass!...showing as a consequence their true colours that they really never saw any viable future in Nanoco! The firm is now c.90% owned by retail investor's who were the only ones who supported the over subscribed 37p cash placement needed to keep the lights on now worth a mere 16p! ST Micro have walked and opportunities for using GEN 1 gone for good! Board guidance on cash flow breakeven during next year.... now worthless! The firms living off a diminishing cash reserve balance with a high monthly cash burn rate with no commercial deals in sight in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile all trust and faith in BT and the Boards integrity has been shot to piece's over their dodgey insider dealings with LOAM and RG and blatant arrogant lying surrounding the Samsung settlement debacle! The epitaph on this frims grave stone when Nanoco eventually runs out of cash, falls fowl and can't get a cash placement because retail investors won't support it, and the business eventually gets sold off for a pittance is that what looked promising at first turned out to be a total diaster due to a whole sorry saga of inept, incompetent, and ineffective leadership spanning more than 20 years! The End! |
Posted at 02/7/2024 06:43 by paul planet earth1 Seems BT and the Board must have known for sometime what was the likely outcome as there must have been feedback that STM were losing interest yet they communicated the complete opposite to the market yet another example to add to the long list of BT and the Board..'misguiding, misinforming, misleading' the market...now most of the existing 'happy clappy' instutional investors who sang BT and the Boards praises in defence against Tariq Hamoodi's hostile take over have unsurprisingly vanished a while back having taken their golden pennies...leaving the business with a whole raft of already 'right royally shafted' following the Samsung settlement debacle and looking for their two pounds of flesh retail investors sickened by BT's continued lies!He should step down an utter waste of space a deceitful liar! "Following customer dialogue, the Group no longer expects to receive a further production order for its validated first generation sensing products during FY24. · The Group is working with its customer to understand the range of possible outcomes and any potential impact on Nanoco beyond the end of the financial year. The Group expects to issue a further update with the full year results in October. · The Group continues with some small-scale commercial engagements for customers interested in display materials, although no new anchor customer has been signed at this time." |
Posted at 07/6/2024 10:09 by paul planet earth1 I expect the share price is depressed because BT was caught out lying to retail investors and sold them down the river by getting into bed with both LOAM and RG!Oh btw where is RG now, ran for the hills with the stolen booty by the looks of things, so lucky he had a head start, it's almost as if both LOAM and RG were fully aware of what was going on while retail investors were being mugged off with false stories! |
Posted at 18/5/2024 05:41 by paul planet earth1 From the LSE BBTwoGood2Die Posts: 2,527 Price: 17.80 No Opinion A question of integrity! Today 06:36 "Successful businesses build positive relations with all their investors, treating them all fairly, and providing accurate and timely updates on commercial progress. With Nanoco we have a CEO who lacks both a scientific background, doesn't have relevant qd industry experience, nor is a well respected industry leading figure...This must to an extent put off would be customers.... We also have the Samsung debacle, a poor financial return, way below what the company had been alluding to through it own broadcasts and through using third parties such as Edison, and reflected at the time through leading financial papers. We then have the integrity issue, firstly all the misleading guidance leading up to the settlement and the shenigans behind closed doors with the likes of both LOAM and RG who dumped their shares while retail investors were being fed inaccurate and untrue information.... We then have the financial outcome way below industry experts analysis...add to that the unwarranted sale of 118 patents without I might add share holder prior approval... What's infuriating for many is not having a vote on the Samsung deal and knowing what exactly was being given away... We are now just treading water, the share price is drifting back down to the 12p cash price, and the market has lost all faith in the Board, while Nanoco is not seen anymore as an exciting high tech potentially global leading business but more of a drab, dull, poorly managed firm, drifting along, with a Board completely out of touch and ignorant to the concerns of its multitude of retail investors who the CEO liberally and arrogantly refers in a derogatory manner as 'speculative gamblers'. Think this sums up BT's performance 5 years into the job....In my view he should have stepped down shortly after the shambolic Samsung settlement deal was signed....IMHO!" |
Posted at 16/4/2024 19:58 by barkbooo The idiot keeps stating the majority want BT - no the company’s large investors wanted BT….i wonder why? lolIf 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 10:20 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 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. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
