YasX - interesting? Does that mean you believe Nigel Pickett should go?? I thought he was Mr Genius.
My little info comes from the punting/money side of things. |
Sickthetech the only ones ramping this since Jan last year has been colin and terrorwit. |
Fat Frank
"Are Hargreave Lansdown still Nanoco's biggest shareholder?"
I wouldn't classify HL as a shareholder.
They're Nominee holding accounts. PIs with Nominee accounts with HL. |
 The warnings were there, going back years....
Yet again, another share pumped/dumped by Barky and his scaffolders gang crashes. It's not a coincidence, is it?
Barky/PPE and blnx mob are simply trying to divert away from their pump/dump by blaming management. Shameful...
I 1st appeared here 2 years ago, warning of the red flags. It's not a coincidence that bones698 and I were posting the red flags, Barky/PPE/Supern then appeared on AGL/TLY and desperately deramped them.
Blnx down 90%, rthm down 80%, trmr down 80%, GBO bust, VRS down 99% etc etc...
sikhthetech - 24 Jan 2024 - 14:59:05 - 38151 of 38678
Buybacks don't always work in increasing the share price
Much better to have the cash and let PIs decide whether they wish to reinvest or use elsewhere.
Buy backs can be stopped at any time. If the company publishes warnings, lack of sales, biggest shareholders selling etc, at any time then any potential gains from the buyback are wiped out and the share price could be lower than today.
Buy backs here will be the worst outcome.
Ask the blnx gang Barky/Gino/PPE etc etc. Trmr(ex blnx) have had buy backs for years. The share price still crashed from 850p to 150p, as I predicted, after repeated profit warnings. Same for Rthm. Losing 80% on trmr AND rthm AND Nano. |
Barkboo,
Nanoco holders need to remove the entire Board and senior management team - preserve what cash is left and pivot the business away from what it currently does since there is clearly no sustainable market for that.
They have also wasted money on a baseless buyback - they must have known from the outset there was no prospect of significant business and hence the shares would collapse.
I have stated for months that the line of key staff walking if the Board is changed was nonsense since they have no talent within the business that needs to be retained. The swamp needs draining and starting from a fresh canvas. |
You were all warned if you didn't listen you deserve to lose . All the information was there to see but some instead chose to believe in hope and hype . Meanwhile reality is very different and now paying the price . Utter garbage share always has been |
“CoIin Stein - 17 Oct 2023 - 08:51:34 - 37408 of 40212 Nanoco/Dow - 2016 a transformational year for CFQD - NANO
morning persistent moaners, whingers and non-stop bed-wetters.
A very well written rns and as noted, with many more positives than negatives ...
looking forward to the conference call at 10 and ....
the investor meet next”
A very well written rns lol |
echoridge - 16 Jan 2024 - 13:55:20 - 38028 of 40210 Nanoco/Dow - 2016 a transformational year for CFQD - NANO
Its not going to 40 quid, but its certainly got what it takes to be one of the small cap market's best performers this year, very much with BT at the helm the whole way. |
YasX - we were told 10-12p. You took 24p combined ..as it turned out a very wise decision. I was told through an rns, half that amount as a one-off…which is a lot different!
The Company offered you a gamble that you took - the Company offered me 10-12p which is what I wanted…they reneged on that offer.
Now the fat lump of lard probably worded the initial offer in a manner that was designer (legal get out clause) but most believed they would receive a one-off without risk.
The guy is slippery and he was bound to go - difference is, his dishonesty rewarded him……230;it cost me! |
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... |
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
Hot Features
Premium
