Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

The board took on Goliath and won. We don't know how much yet, but while negotiations continue we should back them. Complain after the match, not during it.

As BT has considered all the issues, in public, it would be surprising if he doesn't apply them in negotiation as far as he is able, regardless of the wording of that problematic RNS. Admittedly, "surprising" is par for the course here! He needs to be sharp about limiting the scope of the agreement, keeping the door open for further litigation against other infringers, and avoiding anything which could dampen the ability to sell to other display customers. I hope he get medieval on their asses. Give 'em hell BT! It's good to talk

True IDMA, he was talking about the MCAP at the time, not now. If the price was 18p then, he was still talking about multiples (plural), of about £60m, so > £120m. IF he holds to that general principle we are looking at a "transformational" number. I'm not predicting that, but I think we should trust BT a little bit, based on his previous record, to know what he is doing and not to have "capitulated" as some are suggesting.

'Net debt at 31 December 2022 was £152.0 million, compared with £118.7 million
at 30 September 2022, reflecting a $44 million collateral payment for a bond held
against the damages awarded against the Group in the Comet Legal Action in the
US, which remains ongoing. Working capital benefited from inventory beginning
to unwind in Q4 and although the pace of that unwind was slower than expected,
it is expected to accelerate in H1 2023 as supply chain conditions continue to
normalise. The Group expects financial leverage to reduce significantly during
2023.
In addition, XP has recently secured greater banking covenant flexibility from its
lenders with the net debt to EBITDA covenant now required to be less than 3.5x
at December 2022, 3.25x in June 2023 and 3.0x in December 2023. The Group
was comfortably within these covenant levels at the 2022 year end and expects to
remain well inside them during 2023 and beyond. The greater flexibility also
highlights the ongoing support from our lending banks.'

https://corporate.xppower.com/storage/reports/2022-Q4&Full-Year_trading-update.pdf

I doubt many are selling 'dog, but a lot of the angst is probably coming from the excitable chaps who bought on the rise? Lombard may be creating a better opportunity for the brave and the stupid, but maybe it's better to just stick and wait a leedle bit longer, until the fat Sam has Sung

Well, I listened to a good bit, where BT said (about potential trial outcome) "we are talking about multiples of our market cap... even on a modest outcome"
https://webcasting.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/615b17cf4e29f55a94190200/63c01cd084373b25495fe4d9
around 41:30

Current market cap is about £121m, so lowest possible expectation needs to be £242m to keep him honest?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/xp-power-sees-2022-profit-meeting-views-revenue-rising-271673515433

'XP Power Ltd. said Thursday that it sees its 2022 profit meeting market expectations and revenue rising on year.

The company said 2022 adjusted operating profit is expected to be in the middle of the range of current market expectations. The current range of analysts' expectations for adjusted operating profit for the year is 41 million to 46 million pounds ($49.8 million-$55.9 million).

Revenue for the fourth quarter rose to GBP87.6 million, bringing full-year revenue to GBP290.6 million, up 21% on year.

The proposed dividend for the fourth quarter is expected to be not less than 36 pence per share, representing a minimum total dividend of 94 pence a share for the year.'

" Samsung explains to Nanoco that it only wants to pay very little for past use and not for the future. Even if the patents are still valid for 5 to 10 years. You think it makes total sense, doesn't it?"

Alternative scenario: Samsung names an amount for settlement. Both sides know the figure is a one-off payment, including worldwide future sales, because that is standard, and BT has already mentioned it to investors. BT then issues an RNS saying the amount is at the lower end of expectations for a successful trial outcome, a trial which did not include any scaling up for future use and applied only to the US. BT expected people to interpret his "low end of expectations" as something which would be scaled up, and just didn't mention it because it was so obvious?

" combination of strong core product revenue growth and active cost control means that the business is well-positioned to further reduce cash burn in FY 2023"

Well-positioned is too weak: the current burn rate gives slightly less than 6 months of fuel, so something stronger is needed to inspire confidence

"the Board is considering a number of options to ensure that the Group is sufficiently funded to meet its stated growth ambitions"

Surely it's high time to stop considering and make a decision? The business does seem to be making good progress, but it's difficult to envisage any SP turnaround with the spectre of (ambitious) fundraising hanging over it. Presumably it will be re-rated downwards, with the level depending on how they spin it

"Creo said it is on track for earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation breakeven during financial year 2025, in line with market expectations. Cash and equivalents were at GBP13.1 million as at December 31, about half of GBP26.1 million at June 30."

So, about 6 months cash left at that burn rate, and 2+ years until breakeven. Therefore...
wait, is there a page missing?

"I expected better from a LTH.
You've been here long enough to know how all this works, especially with Nano."

botbot you literally moaned about people moaning - it was hilarious. As for the upcoming RNS, YOU should know how that works, and it's hardly likely to be the way you characterised it, as the "end"?

"There will be a final RNS where financial terms will be disclosed "
Yes, Henry, I do actually realise we will get a broad outline of the agreement. Equally obviously, most of the details will NOT be disclosed, so it will hardly be the "end RNS" postulated. So don't expect any relief from the "boredom" from the RNS in question, because it is virtually guaranteed to raise more questions than it answers and generate hundreds of posts. It is surely naive to believe otherwise, especially "from a LTH"

Sorry for forcing you to read the board, botbot, it must be terrible, and we can't blame you for whining about it like a small furry creature. Your anticipation of soon receiving some mythical "end" RNS containing full details and resolution shows adorable optimism though: well done you!

We could reasonably have anticipated that a successful trial would to produce an outcome in the middle of expectations (whatever they were). A settlement below that would be acceptable as it rules out appeals, results in early payment, and clarifies our market position. We could still reasonably have hoped it would be more than the lowest expectations though. The RNS seems to dampen that hope considerably.

The trial was, ostensibly, for one region and for past use, but the RNS states the settlement will include aspects which were not anticipated to be part of the trial, i.e. all other regions AND future revenue. That seems like very heavy second and third disappointments? If the amount is at the lower end of expectations for one region and past sales only, then it appears that we will effectively get nothing at all for future or worldwide sales, arguably a much higher amount than sales to date. In addition.

On top of all that, Samsung get no penalty for their destructive behaviour, including wasting the PTAB's time with specious arguments. In fact they get rewarded for it, by getting the technology at a knock down price. They are incentivised to carry on damaging innovators, because it is profitable.

So, on the face of it, the RNS as it stands seems rather difficult to reconcile with "fair value"

When I suggested that a one-off settlement puts Nanoco's business model for display in question, it was disputed. Surprising, since the biggest player in the market has not only just successfully sidestepped licensing altogether, but has apparently done so permanently. However, while Samsung's successful dodge may arguably have reduced the potential cost of licenses (depending on the settlement), it is probably not an example others can follow, and if you trust Tenner, his comments in the transcript Dwstudios posted (below at 14:28 -thanks DWS), he is bullish about the rest of the market, suggesting that the process we have been through gives Nanoco a competitive advantage and pointing out that the technology is now market ready with short lead times.

Correction. Westhamtim is right and I am wrong. Thanks WHT and apologies to Nanoco management for my snarky and incorrect statement. At about 56:26 in the results presentation Brian Tenner very clearly states that a one-off payment was "highly likely"://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKWOkO7hfKM
(if the link doesn't work search for "NANOCO GROUP PLC - Final results for the year ended 31 July 2021" on YouTube)

Maybe we, by which I mean I, should have paid more attention to this important detail. The business model for display must be under serious question now, and the market seems to be reflecting the fact that that a low-ball one-off windfall is no substitute for the recurring revenue necessary to sustain an ongoing business. We are back to R&D rather than production, for now.

Fascinating that the RNS states a one-off payment is the norm, as it hasn't been mentioned by the company, or on this board, since... ever. "Interesting" time to casually impart that detail, years into the case.

Cadmium, by any other name, would smell as toxic

"Samsung could offer $25m for a small fry company to go away. All this talk of 400m is nonsense."

That's fascinating Jimmy-come-lately, 'cos the Telegraph said NORTH OF £414m, but obviously, their opinion is of less weight than a "truely" "fishy" rando like yourself

The way I see it Escala, is that Nanoco is back on track with it's original business plans, with it's expertise and patents tested to the limit and found to be rock solid. The technology is not just ready, it's out in the worldwide display market and selling well. The long term prospects seem very good, and £1 would seem like a mere staging post - the SP has previously been far in excess of that on prospects alone