De har ihvertfall gjort det, 100% sikkert
Litt trist når selve opphavet til selskapet gjør det må jeg innrømme
De er inne i en drøss av selskaper der ideen startet hos NTNU, tror ikke det nødvendigvis betyr den sikre død eller noe sånt, de har nok bare sett på tiden det har tatt og at det ikke blir noe ut av det. Ikke sikkert de er inne i alle detaljer om det som skjer på børs, videre planer rundt industrielle aktører/investorer osv. Ikke vet jeg
1 Like
Aksjene har de sittet på siden 2012. Har null betydning.
1 Like
That is strange, because according to the official and public numbers and attachments from The Norwegian business register, CrayoNano is treated and stated with a value, equally to all other investments. Nothing special aspects mentioned of CrayoNano.
However, what I do know, is that before summer they sold their whole stake in NTG in an off-book transaction, but that is indirectly. Here is the full NTNU sale of the NTG position:
Regardless of this, this year NTNU wrote about record income due to specifically CrayoNano. No other company mentioned.
Daglig leder i selskapet sa akkurat det til min bekjent. Det var i juli han sa det
Jeg kan prøve å ringe han selv i morgen
Du ser jo på regnskapsåret 2023 da
Ikke så god på dette, men hvis det er i år de har skrevet det av så kommer vel først det frem i regnskapsåret 2024
I added the proof over that NTNU sold the whole position in NTG in June - it may be that your source is referring to without knowing it.
With regards to the information we got today about the founder of CrayoNano just bought shares for 500K NOK and the company almost trying to hide it, hence, the inventor of the tech and patents, still being onboard, hence the most insider position you can be and previously never bought shares, is a super signal. He would not do that with the expectations of the share values soon to evaporate?
Even me, a shareholder, who believes the company is faking the funding story with the “short” and “long term” funding angle, getting the new CEO to obtain a person with the weight to get the attention from real industry players, buy some time, and positioning/preparing the company to prospects. I believe the long-term funding will be extended with more NTG+co funding pretty soon. Despite this, I must emphasize the signal of the founder investing, but instead the focus of NTNU selling their shares in NTG is more interesting? The founder of the company is the inventor of the tech and the largest insider and is obviously involved in any kind of due diligence with potential investors.
I know others here like @VincentFreeman states the observed actions are about the company being sold. I respect the opinion and see the logic.
Are people so numb here after the long wait, not caring about the super signal of founder buying shares? His contribution is not necessary for the company, and its the first buy.
1 Like
No that is a super signal. But the discussion we just had was a about NTNU technology transfer and whether or not they have done what they told my friend on the phone. And if they did that this year it will not be visible in the sheet you showed there for 2023
Actually they would never set the value to 0,- since the company has a book value which is (asset+cash)-debt, used for taxations for the shareholders of non-listed companies.
Anyhow, being the topic of NTNU - they almost never publish anything regarding the income of NTNU TTO - and this time they did and the company mentioned is CrayoNano. Thats actually great.
This fall the truth of the state will unfold - acquisition, IPO, more extended “bridge” aka “tranches” aka “short”-term or actually finally real international professional industry investors.
The window for postponing the state or processes is closing in pretty fast.
2 Likes
Det gir ingen mening at de har tatt en nedskriving av denne posten i 2024. Dette er en type verdivurdering det er aktuelt å gjøre ifm årsoppgjøret, tidligst i januar 2025. Spesielt nå, når det er flere måneder igjen av 2024, og selskapet er i en form for spill og utvikling, gir det liten mening å ta nedskriving.
Uansett er det ingen poeng i å fokusere på hva NTNU gjør med sin verdivurdering, med mindre de sitter i styre eller andre nøkkelroller som gir dem bedre forutsetning enn andre til å gjøre en slik vurdering.
Jeg synes tegningslisten var meget oppløftende, og siden emien var av preferansetypen er det godt å se at ikke noen eksterne har tatt en storpost på bekostning av eksisterende. Jeg var nærmest av inntrykk at det hadde kommet inn noen eksterne i denne runden, men det ser altså ikke sånn ut.
3 Likes
Posten på ca 95000 til salgs på 7 tallet er ihvertfall borte. Ikke mye å skrive om ellers bortsett fra at 500 aksjer har tatt oss ned 11% i dag
Skulle ikke de av NOTC bla for å slippe sånt ?
Null interesse for å kjøpe postene som er til salgs virker det som…
1 Like
Det er den faktisk. Veldig bra.
Sikkert at den på 7,50 er borte; kan jo være at det ikke er nok linjer i oversikten til å vise den?
1 Like
Da overgår NOTC seg selv i så fall 
Jeg kan ringe til Nordea i morgen
Tilbake i dag, så det kan du spare deg 
As the time lapses and the newsflow shrinks, its hard to grasp anything.
Did not believe I was “forced” to hold these shares for this long, all to its time.
Preparations for acquisition some say, but the the time lapsed does not favor this being the clear outcome with the new CEO leading the transition. He seems more like a strategic move as in long-term plan for preparing for new potential investors, but nothing on the table.
There was a little unexpected news buzzing in the summer (2 years since last), but the news flow has shrunk back to early spring-levels again, so what was the buzz about in the newspaper and emphasizing the short-term funding on LinkedIn, which is more desperate narrative building.
Some say no buzz is a good sign, and some say reduced new flow equals exclusivity term sheets in negotiations.
I think the little newspaper buzz, the LinkedIn-updates about the short-term funding is all about the company holding two outcomes open, and is a hidden communication towards previously stakeholders i negotiations; "We have old investors still backing the current valuation and we can choose this path if no better offer, or we may consider IPOing as in “ready for stock exchange”.
Right now, they have managed to put the bar at to little info to make any assumptions.
Jeg har sendt denne til Dr. Dobbertin i dag - poster den her også så de får lese den i flere kanaler.
Jeg kan oppdatere dere når jeg får svar.
Dear Dr. Dobbertin,
Thank you for your response and continued efforts. However, as a loyal shareholder of several years, I believe it is crucial to address some additional concerns that have yet to be adequately addressed.
Firstly, I would appreciate more clarity regarding the company’s plans for updating shareholders, particularly concerning long-term funding strategies and the status of these discussions. Additionally, I noticed that no Trading Update has been scheduled since the Q1 2024 update in May. When can we expect the next Trading Update to take place?
Secondly, the decision to delist from NOTC has created an undesired lock-in for many retail investors, further affecting the stock price. Could you please elaborate on the rationale behind this decision, especially given its impact on shareholders? You mentioned that this was at the request of participants in the recent private placement, but without a more reasonable explanation, this reasoning seems unclear. This lack of transparency invites rumors and speculation—something neither shareholders nor the company would benefit from, I assume.
Thirdly, Jo Uthus was recently quoted in the business newspaper Finansavisen, discussing CrayoNano’s readiness for an IPO. Could you clarify the strategy behind these statements and how they align with the company’s current situation?
Lastly, the recent changes in key positions, such as the termination of contracts with the CTO and CFO, have raised significant questions. How does CrayoNano plan to manage the responsibilities previously held by these executives? Furthermore, could you provide more context on why these contracts were terminated at this critical phase of the company’s development? Addressing such important matters through small footnotes in the recent private placement documentation does not inspire trust.
Clear and direct communication is vital, and many in the shareholder community feel that recent updates have been more obscuring than enlightening. I believe it is time for the company to address these concerns openly, which would likely reduce the need for inquiries like this one.
I look forward to your response and to a more transparent dialogue and shareholder communication moving forward.
Best regards,
xx
7 Likes
This email is very concrete and appropriate summary of the aspects.
Thinking about the article in the newspaper this summer with the statement:
“We operate and behave like a listed company”.
In light off just voting for delisting from NOTC without detailed explanation and removing the financial calendar for the remaining year.
Those actions stands in a very odd light of the statements in the newspaper.
Another follow up question is the specific strategy behind the 3x liquidation multiple for the preferred share class, going further then the explanation as of now, which is “in best interest of all shareholders”. Its been speculated again previously this was to get a last opportunity grab before acquisition on high valuation, but right now it seems the class was created to increase the terms and easier negotiations for new potential long-term investors, and using the same class themself. Preferred class is the norm among VCs in USA, but in this case its introduced for the existing. If the company had been sold now, this action would be frowned upon, but its probably strategic to use the same class for new investors.
I emphasized the positive sign of the founder participating in this short-term round, but it probably more of strategical by sending signals towards new investors, and securing the down side.
