Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[mwwh] 09/8/2019 18:43

Edelman's pay would be reasonable if he were running Nanoco like a real business. Instead he is an engineer playing house. He seems incapable of even hiring proper sales management or finishing a deal. He has earned no respect from financial circles, and no one believes anything he says. He bet the entire company on the Apple deal while apparently failing to have a backup plan. As I have said in the past, it was unrealistic to believe that Apple, while funding Nanoco, would not be seriously weighing alternatives. It seems that Edelman did have a personal backup plan--sell his shares once it became evident that Apple would not follow through on the Nanoco deal. Think about it. If Edelman thought that Apple would follow through, would he have sold his Nanoco shares? Unquestionably "No!". It is doubtful that Nanoco will ever gain credibility until they fire their incompetent and untrustworthy CEO.

[beercapafn] 09/8/2019 11:27

NigWit. He is your Dad .... Right.. LOL

[nigwit] 09/8/2019 10:50

There is no evidence that the CEO is living a high life of unremitting luxury. He’s most likely a workaholic doing his best from dawn until dusk across multiple time zones. I’ve done that and it’s not luxurious.

Maybe try and see things from both sides and not just from one limited perspective and get some balance.

[beercapafn] 09/8/2019 09:51

It was a hoped for RNS not a real one.

[jfacwc] 09/8/2019 09:35

Anyone say what is in today's RNS item?No new entries on here (or anywhere else?)

[beercapafn] 09/8/2019 09:22

NigWit. There is a differance between a nice suit and millions of $$$$.

[nigwit] 09/8/2019 09:04

That hatred is eating you from inside and you appear increasingly insane.

If the CEO is going to do business with the likes of Apple and Dow he has to look the part.

[mrplay] 09/8/2019 08:55

By the way I like the company. I dispise the ceo. He has failed as ceo. No orders, no money. Just partnerships that produce no products. Of the many many partnerships how many disappear with no word? Yet mike is happy to announce these deals raising share price then selling. Never revealing the shocking truth no products. This years agm will be interesting. I do not believe he will turn up. To many angry holders. Last year he was berated over his display comments. Some one said you say this every year. Hahahha

[andycapped] 09/8/2019 08:51

I think there should be a limit on how many share option managers get, and/or at what point they can sell them e.g. once the company has transitioned to a self-sustaining going concern, which Nanoco certainly isn't yet.

The problem with the company at present is that no evidence is present of a clear revenue path after current cash dries up in 11 months or so, which isn't a very long time at all. Just a smattering of niche items on the market, and lots of R&D and trial runs.

I believe the management are keeping their cards too close to their chest, and used NDA's as a smoke screen to conceal a lack of orders. They're holding out for a change in the law, but that may not happen and then the foundations are a lot more unsteady.

[mrplay] 09/8/2019 08:50

15 years he has been ceo. The company has sharply fallen to less than 10% in 5 years and failed to produce a single display. Meanwhile his bank account has shot up 10x. Here lies the truth mike got rich from share holders and in return he said to the FU

[nigwit] 09/8/2019 08:32

This tells me that you have unrealistic, short term expectations. No-one has ever promised you'd make money before the company executes it's strategy nor that everything would be simple without risks, obstacles and set-backs.

Unlike those working there you do not commit your time to the company, you just sit back and complain and your sanction, if you are not satisfied, is to sell out. You should not publicly denigrate the company since it against the interests of others, like me who have realistic, long-term objectives that we hope and expect will be fulfilled in due course when the market is ready.

[bagpuss67] 09/8/2019 08:23

Of course he should be paid a decent package for doing his job. But the super returns he has made from this are not deserved IMHO as he has not delivered any returns to those that have funded the company.

[nigwit] 09/8/2019 08:15

That's far too simplistic. Everyone has to be paid and it always takes many years for new tech businesses to achieve success. What you're arguing for is that no-one should be paid until there are profits, which is ridiculous, especially in a situation where the company has achieved record revenues.

[bagpuss67] 09/8/2019 08:08

Many ongoing relations with big companies have come and gone but none have led to a commercialised product. During that period the company led by ME have spent a fortune of shareholders money.

CEOs should be rewarded for success not failure

[nigwit] 09/8/2019 07:42

I am sure you believe your personal hate campaign against the CEO is in the interests of shareholders but I'm a shareholder too and you don't speak for me, nor for the majority of others. That is why he has kept his job.

However, if you feel so strongly and if you are genuinely a holder then you should buy enough shares to call an EGM and make your case.

Trolling anonymously, and therefore as cowardly, as you do is against the interests of everyone else's money, including your own (if you are invested, which I doubt).

The company has ongoing relations with major corporations all of which are the result of the CEO's efforts for which he deserves a comfortable life and normal rewards and these are not disproportionate compared to those paid to other directors of similar-sized nascent businesses.

[mrplay] 09/8/2019 06:58

So if the company was just about to release its first commercial product. The newest latest iPhone camera. Why would the ceo sell 2 million shares? The answer he knew it was about to be canceled. No one would sell before commercial success. Hence my personal option he is a cheat and liar. Not looking out for the conpany only looking out for himself.

[bagpuss67] 08/8/2019 22:00

Meanwhile. Company pivoted away from display and what it pivoted to failed. Sadly.

The CEO sold again ahead of this and had over a number of years immunised himself from the consequenced of failure.

[nigwit] 08/8/2019 12:37

Extract from Dow/DuPont letter to RoHS

“The fundamental principle should be applied that cadmium is toxic and should not be contemplated for development into EEE products. The fact that such exemptions exist only appears to encourage continued development and penalises those companies seeking to develop “non RoHS” substance products. “

Extract from Merck letter to RoHS

“A new or extended exemption would slow-down the continuing substitution of Cadmium by Cadmium-free solutions. Therefore, we do not vote for any new or extended exemption for the use of Cadmium in displays.”

[nigwit] 08/8/2019 11:49

I think that it's clear from the documents on Oko Institut website* that the problem has been the extension to the cadmium ban exemption.

Cadmium is far cheaper and more available than rare indium. As a result nearly all the research on narrow-band QDs has been conducted with Cadmium and particularly CdSe based materials. A simple google search for 'quantum dots' which I do every day, will verify this by reference to the constant flow of scientific papers on the subject.

Consequently, cadmium technology has always had a head start in respect of both price and performance and, in my view, will only be shunned in favour of less toxic substances when the cadmium ban is enforced in EEE or when the public become more aware of the toxicity issues. Corporations like Apple and Samsung will not risk their reputations already though and others are bound to have to fall into line eventually due to marketing pressure.

In the circumstances, which are quite clear, in my view it is a schoolboy error to attach any blame to one person, who is most likely doing all he can and is even more frustrated by the situation than we patient holders.

_____

*

[howl01] 08/8/2019 11:41

Mike's performance is pitiful and he has consistently failed to deliver. His self-serving trading pattern along with a lack of control over operating costs over YEARS the most damning aspects of his 'leadership' though IMO. One to avoid until anything presents as a credible possibility- can't continue as a going concern.

[zingaro] 08/8/2019 10:12

I suppose you could say that as the CEO he has done a great job, bringing in top clients (Dow, Merck, Apple). But, he has been let down by in the end by the product !

[andycapped] 08/8/2019 09:55

Bought us a bit of breathing space, but a lot of that money went into expansion, which now has to find another customer to make viable.

No news of display, which has been promised for a long time now. Leaves investors to speculate.

By any estimate, Nanoco has been a poor investment choice for anyone beyond the last couple of months.

[nigwit] 07/8/2019 21:04

Why do you ignore that Nanoco will have banked £17m from Apple in the last two years and that 'Mike' was instrumental in this?