Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[mrplay] 23/6/2019 18:46

Well if true. That sucks.

But they always said automotive never mentioned cell phones

Also if true and nanoco had a contract with Apple would you the ceo sell 2 million shares unless you just found out that they would not renew or use the technology. 1 month before the bomb shell. Or maybe he sold to buy back dirt cheap once the news comes. Tomorrow will be interesting

[74tom] 23/6/2019 16:59

Director buying will tell us a lot - if nobody bought in Friday when the company suffered its worst one day fall in history then it will speak volumes. Really the whole BOD should have bought in, and I’d expect to see notifications at 7am tomorrow. It’ll be a blue day if they have

[notimpressed] 23/6/2019 16:32

Patisserie Valerie scandal: Five people arrested

why stop at patisserie valeria

[nigwit] 23/6/2019 16:28

I suspect you’re going to need a much bigger shovel soon.

[bagpuss67] 23/6/2019 16:28

You said massive investment by Merck.

Ths first link you attached is to a project in which Merck is participating but is funded by a third party

The second link is just related to them investing in their main manufacturing facility an doesnt say anything about a massive investment in CFQDs

And yes the 3rd link confirms that at that point they were still collaborating with Nanoco. Says nothing about a massive investment

ME led us to believe there would be a massive investment but it did not happen.

[nigwit] 23/6/2019 16:14

It doesn't matter whether it was 4 years or 40 or a trust fund or insurance company. The take away is the same.
--------

I didn't claim that Merck built a factory I just said they invested a substantial sum, which they did.



However, perhaps there's something in this announcement too.



Whatever, Merck don't stand still and have written to RoHs to support Nanoco recently.



(Link at the bottom)

[bagpuss67] 23/6/2019 15:55

False. You have provided no evidence of the massive Merck investment you claimed as follows

"On top of that there are partnerships with DuPont and Merck. Two massive concerns who have invested massively"

However according to ME they were going to build a factory but as you know it was cancelled

As far as Richards goes you claimed that the shares were sold to a family trust which was also false. I did not say Richards Underwriting Limited has sold the shares. Just that it is a very odd transaction to have carried out to havs sold the shares to an insurance company a very short space of time before a catastrophic RNS. And that accounts for that company will not be available to the public until Oct 2020

You prognosticate like some sort of superior being but your posts are littered with inaccuracies and over optimism which I assume is business niavity

Take the fact that you keep banging that you have read the patents and this is giving you some deep insight. Well based on the last description you put out of what you did professionally you are simply not qualified to opine on the merits or otherwise of the patent portfolio

Only a small matter but this afternoon you said the share price peak was 4 years ago ie 2015. False again

[nigwit] 23/6/2019 15:44

Okay Bagpuss, I'll bite once more

I provided you with references to Merck and Dow/Dupont investments. The huge companies will want to protect their interests by protecting Nanoco.

Your allegation that the Richards disposed of their shares was a fantasy based on supposition and no facts whatsoever. You made it up to prolong your conspiracy theory.

If that is how things are for you maybe you should seek a medical time out to get your head examined.

[nigwit] 23/6/2019 15:21

The lasest RNS states display is still on and the RoHS ban is currently due to end in October 2019.

Calling people liars and fraudsters is inadvisable since these accusations have to be tested in court before a judge. It is therefore offensive to makle them in public and you risk being sued for damages for defamation.

I bet you wouldn't do it if you had to attach your real name to your allegations but don't forget that ADVFN know who you are and can be subpoenad to divulge.

I doubt Mike is bothered though.

[bagpuss67] 23/6/2019 15:19

You may not be here to play tennis but perhaps try and stick to the facts and what you know to be true

[mrplay] 23/6/2019 15:16

The share price before Americans story is bulls@@t sorry but it’s true. Back then display was still on the forefront. November 2017 mike stated first commercial display q1 2018 still to this day no mention. We also had the rohs ban not far away. The share price price was based on this. Now the us conpany has left and still not a single display. So not surprising the low share price mike is to blame and it will be in all the newspapers. He is a fraudster

[nigwit] 23/6/2019 15:07

One point that may reward more research is that a lot of the patents are in the names of senior staff and share-holding directors. Principally Nigel Pickett and Imaad Nassani (among others).

Some are assigned to Nanoco but some aren't, which may imply they would not be realisable in an administration and so offer protection from pre-pack predators.

The hedge funds don't appear to be circling.

[rathean] 23/6/2019 15:05

A mutually agreed statement could be a face saving exercise and does not necessarily represent facts. None of us know, but rns history and bod behaviour with share sales do not bode well imo dyor ofc.

[nigwit] 23/6/2019 14:48

Bagpuss. I am not here to play tennis with you. If I don't answer all your points is because I regard them as irrelevant to the core issues and am not interested in playing mind games.

You are clearly not open to being persuaded so there's no point in trying.

[davidw1] 23/6/2019 14:17

PWhite73. By that reckoning, anyone that thinks like me must be on the dim side. I don’t think anyone on the ‘outside’; really knows,but to believe 5G is our saviour seems to be stretching things a little. Hope it is true but doubt it.

[davidw1] 23/6/2019 14:17

PWhite73. By that reckoning, anyone that thinks like me must be on the dim side. I don’t think anyone on the ‘outside’; really knows,but to believe 5G is our saviour seems to be stretching things a little. Hope it is true but doubt it.

[pwhite73] 23/6/2019 14:06

As a side issue from my many years investing in tech companies Apple never ever allows small partners to reveal them as the JV partner or a client. There are a number of security reasons behind this. Whilst Apple, its computers, servers and buildings may have the tightest security in the world this is not true for its amaller partner's dotted around the globe. They can be subject to hacking and breaches of security.

Here's something else the announcement on Friday could have been a decision to through everybody off the scent before Nanoco's products are incorporated in Apple's 5G mobile phones in 2020. The testing stage is now over that's all. This is how Apple operates. With Apple even Non Disclosure Agreements cannot be disclosed. When Nanoco first announced the contract with the US company they did reveal the US company was listed, make of that what you like. Assuming it is Apple you then have to ask how did Apple get involved with tiny Nanoco in the first place. There must have been something that caught their attention.

Speak Later

[howl01] 23/6/2019 14:00

Oh dear they're multiplying - there's 2 of them now! Dear Lord!!

[pwhite73] 23/6/2019 13:54

davidw1 - "PWhite73. That the contract is for stress testing etc is one take. Why suggest thee is no issue with NANO or its product though"

Firstly because people like you put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. The company needed to stress it was not a product related issue. Secondly I interpret the statement as the US customer telling Nano the contract termination had nothing to do with their product as oppose to Nano telling its shareholders the contract termination had nothing to do with their product.