Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[jfacwc] 29/11/2019 08:18

Poor start to the day.No doubt another Peel Hunt RNS later, with more buys than sells.

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 23:04

Nigwit - sorry about the delay, only I was out with the wife having a life. Don't take this the wrong way, but you really do talk a load of boswellox!

I would not dispute in-house development has virtually no cap - outsourcing is a different ball game. The deal, time frame and size of commitment does not make sense to anyone with half a brain..and I dont believe it to be kosher...

Btw - I never have difficulties finding the toilets, I drinks so much and get a lot of practice. Do you have trouble finding friends?

[nigwit] 28/11/2019 18:36

PPE

To clarify - I'm referring to Apple's MCap, which was $1.19Tn when I wrote but is now $1.21Tn.




(Play, next time you go to Nando's do make sure they cook your chicken thoroughly.)

[paul planet earth] 28/11/2019 18:11

The $1.9 trillion is surplus cash held by S&P 500 companies.

[nigwit] 28/11/2019 17:42

No, it’s a trivial sum when you’re developing the iPhone, which is the world’s most successful product ever.

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 17:39

That is a lot of money my friend!

[nigwit] 28/11/2019 17:38

£17m.

(You’re worse than the LSE lot and most of them can’t find the toilet by themselves.)

[nigwit] 28/11/2019 17:24

Apple spent just £17 million with Nanoco but are worth more $1.19TN. It’s trivial for them to write down such a small sum in a possible development route they elected not to follow. Please stop writing gibberish.

Nanoco have a new web page. It looks good and explains more.

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 17:11

Nigwit - are saying the agreement and set up cost, "was trivial"? The Yankee partner covered all costs in expanding the Runcorn facility - what price would you put on that?

23/04/2018
The Partner is funding the capital expenditure required to expand the manufacturing capabilities of Nanoco's existing Runcorn facility in order to supply the Partner with commercial volumes of product.

08/05/2018
Nanoco Group plc (LSE: NANO), a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other nanomaterials, today announces that it will receive a GBP1.8 million payment from its undisclosed US-listed partner

15/08/2018
The new manufacturing facilities in Runcorn are progressing as planned. Small-scale commercial shipments are expected to commence in calendar Quarter 4, 2018 and volume production is expected to commence in the second half of calendar 2019. H1 2019 calendar year will be utilised to stress test and improve the new Runcorn facility.

Then "In January 2019, the Group announced a major contract extension to its initial agreement with the US Customer, covering a range of stress testing and commissioning services of the Runcorn facility in the twelve month period to December 2019."

The Partner was happy with the technology, decision made - hence the expansion...

[nigwit] 28/11/2019 16:05

It’s everyday practice to develop multiple strands of technology before selecting one for the market. The money spent on Nanoco was trivial.

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 15:07

NigWit - I hope you are correct..I have a nice holding here, I am confident it will be profitable at the end game.

This announcement did not make sense:

"In January 2019, the Group announced a major contract extension to its initial agreement with the US Customer, covering a range of stress testing and commissioning services of the Runcorn facility in the twelve month period to December 2019.

The US Customer has now informed Nanoco that the project will not continue beyond the current contract, for reasons wholly unconnected to the performance of our materials and our service delivery."

Ok - so the Yankee Company made a huge investment getting production to the levels required..then less than 12 months ago announced a major contract extension, a big commitment - then completely changed their mind within six months?

That wants a lot of believing - and I am struggling.

[nigwit] 28/11/2019 14:26

I see them as super-intellectual too. You only have to read the patents, which I've done, to understand this. This IP is in the public domain so hiding its value is impossible - nothing like a gold strike, or hiding a rough diamond in a hollowed tooth. I bet it's being poured over by engineers and other technicians now.

No, I don't consider it all likely that there is any bad faith. Scientists typically don't behave that way and anyway there's been no evidence of any skullduggery before and it is far less common than posters believe anyway. All we're seeing is the unfolding of a developing and changing story.

In my view it's self-indulgent nonsense to suggest otherwise.

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 14:11

jfacwc - there is no bad feeling by me..I just have one view on here, the same as yourself.

[jfacwc] 28/11/2019 13:08

Fair enough! Keep on posting anyway.

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 13:06

jfacwc - worth pointing out a few more of those super intellectuals.. Bernard Madoff, Sam Israel, Kenneth Lay?

Give me an hour or two - I give you a 100 pages. lol

I once heard a Police officer claim on TV - criminals are not as honest as they used to be....I hadn't thought of that? lol

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 12:45

jfacwc - perhaps you should have gone to specsavers?

[jfacwc] 28/11/2019 12:37

barkboo. I see most of the nanoco directors (against some of the opinions of some posters on the bb) as rather more honest (almost super) intellectuals.

[barkboo] 28/11/2019 12:09

NigWit - as you can see I dont like to take myself, or indeed even my life too seriously, I would not be offended at being called a Muppet..but I do want to highlight a couple of your points I believe to be misleading.

1) "The outcome of the current sale process will come down to Nanoco’s BATNA" incorrect imo.

2) "Without knowing the BATNA no-one can cheat and no-one can decide whether or not the share price is good value, or not." incorrect imo.

Let me give you a very simple scenario:

We are non business friends..You have a small mining business with twenty or so investors that are becoming impatient. You have run out of money just as you have hit a large vein of valuable minerals.

Do you:

1) Tell your investors you need further finance, but have hit valuable minerals, and the jackpot..enjoying 10% of the reward, whilst making them very happy?

2) Not tell your investors and advise you need to sell the business to get some return on their investment. Then do a 50-50 deal with me, off contract.

At NANO and their Yankee partners - I lay long odds on, only a handful of people know the real value of that joint venture as it stands today....if there happened to be another outside interest, it would be very simple to dissuade any other possible offer.

The early stage expansion arrangement that was cancelled - has made the kinda negative impact that would help the Yanks as buyers.

Remember - most of this business true valuation would come from the Yankee mark to market accounting. Fair value and time can shift an share price upwards of tenfold..that imo was why the venture was cancelled so quick and unexpectedly?

I see many bad reasons why NANO have put themselves in the shop window - but there will be pressure on NANO from investors..and the Yanks will not get this on the cheap!

[nigwit] 27/11/2019 18:24

I expect they’ll either be an announcement that:

a sale has been agreed, or,

that funds are going be raised via a share issue and the II’s have all agreed to participate, or,

Nothing much will happen and the company will be happy to wait for orders.

Any of this may or may not happen by the middle of next month and if there’s a sale there’s no way to predict at what price. The only precedent is what Samsung paid for QD Vision in 2016. I don’t see how the share price has any relevance since no-one knows what’s being discussed or who wants the IP or for what. If a sale is agreed I don’t suppose we’ll know who all the bidders may have been. Just who the buyer is (or perhaps not) and the price. This may elicit more bids and the process could potentially go on for months with the price ratcheting up, if we’re in luck.

But we could equally well wake up to a surprise any morning.

(The LSE board didn’t like being called ‘Muppets in the Balcony’ with the result that they continue to behave as if that’s just what they are. There’s one who invested recently with very little knowledge and who keeps complaining that the company doesn’t provide him enough information so that he can turn an obscene profit in just a few months. Almost zero understanding either of what he’s bought or that no company provides frequent inside information to the market to facilitate short term trades since, like all businesses, it has to be circumspect and priotise the interests of long term holders.)

[botbot1202] 27/11/2019 16:43

So Nigwit. How does this work then? We wake up on the 15th ish of December. The BOD has received x amount of bids ranging from y amount to z amount and they announce it to the market that the highest amount is xyz and then the share price jumps (or drops) to that amount? Is that basically it?

[barkboo] 27/11/2019 15:09

Nigwit - we have the known knowns, which is a large Yankee outfit liked the product so much they decided to throw shedloads of money at NANO in order to up the production.....Then faster than a Lewis Hamilton gear shift, they changed their mind????

If you buy that - then let me sell you some property in Baghdad.

You see - me and my scaffolder friends were in Baghdad long before those that pull these stunts..were in their dads bag!

[nigwit] 27/11/2019 13:26

I don’t get any sense of cheating. The situation is plain.

The outcome of the current sale process will come down to Nanoco’s BATNA, that is its Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.

I don’t know what that BATNA is and I expect the only people who do are the institutional investors and they won’t tell.

Without knowing the BATNA no-one can cheat and no-one can decide whether or not the share price is good value, or not.

But we can look at how the institutional investors have recently behaved.