Ricketts of VRS fame to take over nano. That's my dream team scenario ;-) |
Yes, they can sell, whatever business they have left, fab unit, IPs.. and become a rich cash shell, looking for a RTO. Get academics to run a business, you end up with an academic business, (of no importance). |
Bones - I believe I played this stock the correct way on all information given to the market.
With the patent/Samsung news - what did you suggest?
What do you now suggest? |
Agreed when it's trading around cash as an investment it's pretty decent risk:reward. Just a shame many of us also bought a lot higher up. |
 All I am going to do is point out you're making the same mistake rochdae is, but from a different angle. First off, lose the childish refrain about the meaningfulness of 'speculating' on forums. Its such a monumental self-own, it is truly beyond mockery. Second, [READ THE FOLLOWING VERY, VERY CAREFULLY. WHAT'S COMING IS AN AREA YOU CONSTANTLY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND]: The fundamentals - and the debate over them - of the business and management's guidance regarding them - are NOT the only major factors at play here and NOT if fact what I am commenting on at all. The other crucial pillar is the share price itself, what kind of value it represents, what it is discounting and what it isn't, and how are major buyers and sellers positioned in the market at present. It's the latter that provides the context of everything frankly, and it clearly needs repeating here: the operating business in NANO is currently valued at less than nothing in the market and that alters EVERYTHING when you are discussing the company. In short, the bar is now so low that an announcement about a change of address or hiring a new PR company might cause the share price to rally 10%. I'm mainly joking, but only just. NANO's share price is at level that it is almost a bit of touchpaper now, where just about any good news could ignite it. |
Are Hargreave Lansdown still Nanoco's biggest shareholder? |
But I don't understand 1) where you think the 10p minimum in 4 months is coming from, and why an institution would even consider buying a chunk of a tiddler like this with a very chequered past and no sign of a viable business? Surely not on the 'greater fool' hypothesis? |
I would get bored too if I constantly had to pivot away from the real issues because I was being shown to be wrong every single time, but once again, your mental state is none of my concern, nor is of any absolutely any consequence to this one-sided 'debate'. I'm trying to help shareholders reading this board to understand the nuance of what's happening here and at the moment, that unfortunately means combatting (sic) your needlessly defensive nonsense. It also means I have no choice but to demonstrate how your argument makes no logical sense and that instead of conceding the obvious - that management just plain screwed up but that that screw up is not in any way sinister or of any financial concern - for some reason you insist on deflection and obfuscation while trying to hide behind a claim of some kind of expertise. Weird |
kooba - yes my comment was really to say that the 8-week hold-off seems genuine, as if they were going to bend the rules for that why would they not have bent the rules until now? I suppose it would have looked very obvious :¬(
I remain baffled after all this time as to why no-one has ever signed a meaningful contract - is it the people, the company, the product? Quantum dots seem increasingly like graphene - everybody thinks it's wonderful, but can't yet quite convince themselves to use it... |
The current share price is so ridiculous, of course there's an enhanced probability of an opportunistic bid, but I was alluding to something more banal, but still very profitable for anyone buying at these levels. One example: I think the Company can afford to pay a lot more than the current mooted per share payout. If the market wants to continue to supply shares at these levels for now, then I would look for a slow but steady rise in institutional buying and a subsequent rise in pressure on management to consider more radical actions to realise value. Again, I'm putting my stake in the ground: this Company's valuation is now so extreme, the likelihood of a pack of wolves arriving on its doorstep grows more likely every day. One thing for everyone here to keep very much front of mind: Any fund that builds a position at these silly levels/up to 20p, knows that - AT A MINIMUM - they will get over 50% of their investment back (I realise there's a risk that that may not come in cash - ie., a special dividend - but you can't be completely risk free here) in around 4 months. That will make it so much more likely that event-driven/activist-oriented hedge funds, etc., will bend their 'no companies under 100m' rule and look to build a position, if that hasn't started happening already. From there, a more co-ordinated activist campaign to push for anything from a (much) bigger payout, to a wholesale breakup of the company, to yes, even putting the company in play, becomes so much more likely. |
For NANO to get away with the blatant lies told to it’s investors along with the poor quality management..shows just how far this country has let standards drop!
Add to that dishonest politicians, five tier policing - and you can see why these company heads are so bent - water and energy about to explode! |
i bought back for a trade! They have enough cash left for a punt! Are there any UK tech companies that have prospered at all? Many USA tech companies are worth billions yet in the UK it seems we only have struggling tech companies. |
Supernumerary..re the buyback it was being done completely separately from the board ..apparently. I was concerned why they held off buying for 8 weeks ahead of the first profit warning as that did not make sense at all...i was then told when i raised that it was entirely at Cavendish discretion ..and if they had interfered due to inside information it would have been in breach of MAR rules..either way they were unlikely to interfere again whatever or whenever they knew.In hindsight along with everything else a very poor use of capital ..as have just about used all the £3m buyback on average at twice where the price now finds itself.Such a tale of disappointment ,mismanagement ,misdirection and failure over a very long period. |
Supernumerary..they had £20m in the bank end of July ..that might be reduced by a month of burn (annualised £4.5m) and some share buyback..unclear if that £20m figure allowed for the full £3m committed. Then there is the terms of BT "resignation" my take was always he was pushed and will get a pay off ..couldn't happen to a ...So probably £18-19m left..forecast to be about £15m end of current financial year...but that was before revenue warning so i think the true burn is likely over £5m a year now.They have to cut costs immediately as there is no short term revenue prospects and I believe should put the company up for sale in a formal sale process...it may be that others can use the IP to commercialise better than Nanoco on it own and it has a higher value than the cash value alone ..though the expiry of some core patents is getting closer all the time.we can't sit and burn cash and see that IP value further deteriorate. |
I guess that it is upon for sale now. |
I've always been convinced that the posters who back management 24/7 on both here & LSE are connected to the company - IMO it's the only reason they would act like that. The events on early January 2023 were and are a disgrace and should be thoroughly investigated by the FCA, it remains by far the worst behaviour I have witnessed on the stock market. |
Dis bad share
Me know dis longtime
But I sad for peeps loosing dey money |
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
Hot Features
Premium
