Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[bagpuss67] 04/8/2017 11:34

Slippy. I listened to the original. Nothing has been edited out. There was talk of contingency plan. There was not talk of IP sales. There is no evidence that LO are pushing for this. You embellished the facts to suit your own ends and try and scare people.

[friskywookie] 04/8/2017 11:33

Thanks WW, I didn't check slippy.

[wigwammer] 04/8/2017 10:56

Frisky - it is still there.Listen to the financial review section.

[friskywookie] 04/8/2017 10:51

Yep there was a section on contingency plans described by CFO Gandalf. Could be interpreted as a lack of need for them anymore but also not the most open behaviour. The best and worst of nanoco all in one.

[wigwammer] 04/8/2017 10:50

Lol.So the Q&A was for sell side research houses, not disgruntled institutional holders as has been slippys repeated suggestion.I suppose he just genuinely forgets to mention the other aspects of the Q&A: the focus on the ability to scale up Runcorn at low cost, that further news can be expected around trade shows at the end of summer, that a third of op costs can be removed at minimal cost, that further tax refunds can be expected in Q118, that the IP may provide valuation support etc etcSlippy is a trader. He has little grasp of the basics and he is likely to lose whatever money he has (allegedly) made sooner or later.I have little doubt he will now try to divert and create some other poorly substantiated uncertainty..

[slipperysidewinder] 04/8/2017 10:43

I cannot belueve it. I have just listened to the Q and A on Nanoco's website and I think the part where they talk about contingency plans has been edited out. I listened live and it was definetly discussed after the IP valuation near the end.

Did anybody else listen live who can verify this?

[mr.oz] 04/8/2017 10:41

I will assume it was a genuine mistake this time
:-)

[slipperysidewinder] 04/8/2017 10:30

I did say correct me if I am wring WW. Thanks for the clarification.

[slipperysidewinder] 04/8/2017 10:29

Morale is mentioned in the 38th minute and value of IP in the 45th.

[wigwammer] 04/8/2017 10:29

The questions in the Q&A are asked by Peel Hunt and Jefferies - two sell side brokerages.Please guide to where odier ask a question?

[slipperysidewinder] 04/8/2017 10:16

Tell the board exactly what part is made up????

[slipperysidewinder] 04/8/2017 10:16

Well you didnt listen to it properly BP.

[bagpuss67] 04/8/2017 10:09

I've just listened to the Q&A. Slippy you just made that up didn't you to scare people?

[wigwammer] 04/8/2017 10:00

Presumably this is the same odier who had the foresight to load up at multiples of the current price :)

[slipperysidewinder] 04/8/2017 09:43

Incidently, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it was Odier pushing ME for a change of tack and s possible plan b business model or IP sale when questioning morale within the workforce and dwindling cash reserves threatening the going concern.

If you look up the insti q and a at the last results you will here it for yourselves.

It looks like Odier were not reassured enough to keep faith in the compsny and are slowly offloading.

[onething] 04/8/2017 08:56

It's a large chunk to offload ahead of the expected update, and at a very low share price

[andycapped] 04/8/2017 08:39

That explains the drop in share price.

[tonsil] 04/8/2017 08:29

Rns re holdings are unreadable on a phone (when using ADVFN)

[onething] 04/8/2017 08:23

Yes, from 16.96% to 15.99%, as of Wednesday. They have slowly reduced since taking over the holding fund. From around 21%?

[tonsil] 04/8/2017 08:14

Re rns Has odier reduced?

[andycapped] 04/8/2017 06:57

You don't require sources to back up the 5 ton claim. Each TV will use between 0.5-1 gram of dots, which would be 4-8000kg of resin.

[kenirogas] 03/8/2017 22:36

Wasn't each Dow reactor supposed to produce 800kg before the major refinements? Edit: 5-10x improvements since, so 4 tonnes per..?

[tonsil] 03/8/2017 22:27

LuxSources for that please.