Nanoco Investors - NANO

Nanoco Investors - NANO

Best deals to access real time data!
Monthly Subscription
for only
Level 2 Basic
Monthly Subscription
for only
UK/US Silver
Monthly Subscription
for only
VAT not included
Stock Name Stock Symbol Market Stock Type
Nanoco Group Plc NANO London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Stock Price Last Trade
-0.65 -3.32% 18.95 14:46:17
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
19.00 18.10 19.00 19.60
more quote information »
Industry Sector

Top Investor Posts

clarea: The information is behind a paywall so I won't be reproducing the full article here but its from a source I would imagine is far closer to management than anyone on this bulletin board. The percentage payout figure for the company could be higher if the award is above what the people fighting the case expect but the figure I quoted is what the source says the company fighting the case expect so they should have the best idea as they are the one's taking on Samsung. I would add i am long so would be happy to see multiples far higher than what the article quoted but this is just meant as a warning to any possible new investors thinking that making 3 to 4 times your money here will be as easy as falling off a log in my opinion that is unlikely. At the current price 30p payout would still be 150% upside which isn't bad for a company with near zero revenues.
spastics attack: I'm taking the view that what is said on Dragons Den.."oh you don't have any IP protection you do know your product can be easily copied" in reality means if your pockets are the size of Samsung with very deep pockets you can throw tens of millions of dollars at lawyers while each day banking the savings on paying Nanoco licence fees to date circa 60m tvs at $15 a unit, equates to $900m of licence fee savings or lost revenues to Nanoco and its investors...Its an appalling situation, IP protection only viable if the culprit is a small thief but a big fat lying scum bag of a whale, a predatory and repetitive IP thief with thieving other small companies IP a occupational hobby is just so outrageous and shocking...Samsung would no doubt state IP theft is just business if we don't do it someone else will...They are simply abusing the IP system and they know it!
barkboo: Hippo - I am no nutter my friend, I am a very successful investor….with a touch of luck on my side? Just reread your own post - then have a rethink who the real nutter is. lol
nigwit: It depends on timing and attitude. If you bought in on the high in hope of turning a quick buck and got burned then you would feel like that. All professional investment advisors advise against your type of short-term trading so I would say that anyone who expected it to work only has themselves to blame. On the other hand those who are prepared to wait whilst the company executes, depsite setbacks (including patent disputes, which many start up tech companies suffer) may have less cause for concern than at any time I can recall since the US Investor contract wasn't extended 2 years ago. On the contrary, the company is now fully funded for two years without dilution, has organic income growth in the pipeline for the short and medium term and is narrowing the issues on a patent case, which could very well see a return that rewards all those that have stuck with it no matter how high the price was when they bought. So I think the impatient jumpers and the grumblers are merely those who gave themselves false expectations without a deep enough understanding of business or the realities of the market and probably went in too deep without appreciating the concomitant risks they were taking. LOAM, Griffiths and the other II's have held or increased recently so I shall take my steer from them and not from the nervous twits that infest the BBs.
barkboo: Yes - it does sound like the correct move...but I thought the extended timescales would hurt the share price a little. These points make the good read: 1) "Nanoco" has now petitioned the judge. 2) "The IPRs will settle the majority of issues of patent validity and hence these matters will not have to be addressed in Court" 3) "By going to trial after the IPRs, Nanoco will be able to bring to Court those claims already confirmed as valid by the PTAB." 4) "With the passage of time, more infringing units of Samsung product will be sold, thereby increasing the baseline historical damages" That sounds confident - will 2023 put any investors off.....i never have a problem with time/investment, but there are many that do!
iomdm: Nigwit, last word on the subject. I, and I suspect many other investors were in for many, many years before the mine was effectively seized once gold in quantity was confirmed. The ex ruler's daughter was eventually put under house arrest after a number of years apparently helping herself to the nation's businesses. I have until now tended to overlook you rudeness thinking you may have some knowledge on the subject you comment on. I must say you have just proved to me that you do seem to be the character others suggest.
spastics attack: Last year Samsung reported over 8m QD tvs sold..Hence with a licence fee of $120m its in their interest to spend money on legal costs delaying and watering down Nanoco's claim...But there will come a point when they will run out of options..Obviously nothing is guaranteed as we don't have visibility let alone understanding as to how 'solid' Nanoco's IP is subject to scrutiny. However Markman provided some guidance and glimpses that its relatively robust..interesting times ahead a game of nerves for many of our private investors and tremendous patience...It may transpire that we get both a STM deal and a Samsung licensing deal plus a reasonable 40p+ settlement more or less at the same time next year by June...Nanoco would then be the target of a takeover, profitable, cash generative, and key global player in a rapidly growing QD market with few publicly owned companies on offer. A takeout offer at 300p seemingly unreal now might be what we see next year towards the end of the year.
spastics attack: An IPA should not come as any surprise and an attempt to delay the October hearing can simply be rejected by the judge that such a request is groundless and a time delaying tactic. Samsung's position is simply to drag the process out and attempt to minimise the financial damages by watering down the claims. I see nothing new hear nor do I see the pending court case in October being delayed..The reference of 'up to 12 mths for IPA to conclude' has been taken out of context..This does not mean a minimum of 12 mths. The court case in October followed by judgement which will typically fall into February 2022 would imply a 9 mth period of time for the IPA to be concluded..all very doable in my opinion. By which time STM contract would no doubt be proceeding to delivery as expected H2 22. In terms of funding this is an absolute no brainer institutional investors could easily support a further rights issue if needed, or STM through accelerated revenues under contract, or by litigation funding..There are no issues here..the only issue is time and patience.12 months from now I'm sure Nanoco Group will have a much more brighter and certain future if not sooner with a licence deal from Samsung, the icing on the cake equivalent to £80m post tax cashflow with other new contracts in the pipeline, STM etc, a strong order book and being a key player in the burgeoning QD market as many of the segments, sensing, display, medical, horticultural are growing rapidly. Based on a cost of capital 8.5% the share price will no doubt rise considerably to easily north side of 200p+ without adding in the special dividend awarded under a Samsung settlement. My expectation is that June next year we will cross the Rubican. The only trade off would be the size of settlement versus the licence fees agreement. A smaller settlement figure versus a higher licence fee per unit sold and extended terms using Nanoco CFQD technology. At the end of the day this is just business and Samsung has a track record and a well trodden path in these outcomes. The current situation should come as no shock and this is reflected in the small dip in share price reducing some of the buoyant froth that some quarters had anticipated from an earlier than expected settlement outcome.
barkboo: Bagpuss - the alternative is, they wait for the result. If they then lose, which would not only involve a large financial hit.....there will be conditions that they will have to adhere to - these conditions will be the very worst result for them.... I think an agreement/arrangement/settlement is odds on - but I would be happy to wait and go all the way.....that would be more profitable for investors imo.
nigwit: I still say the Samsung case resolution is too far away to be on the radar of big new investors. Speculation but this looks more like an expensive paid research analysis report is doing the rounds of the II's and it's reported that IRQDs are about to go commercial, possibly in Apple's car. All the nonsense about the Markman is just a BB ramping game among a small bubble of inexperienced holders mostly on LSE. I haven't seen a single independent story concerning it nor has anyone new appeared and said it's why they've bought in. It doesn't explain the whole surge from sub 9p especially given the litigation was launched long before the rise began.
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20210723 15:01:12