Our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with QuotedData's Edward Marten has just been released. Listen here.
"we now expect Creo to reach net profitability in H126 compared to FY25 previously. However, we expect underlying EBITDA, a key metric used by Creo, to turn positive in H225 (£1.1m in FY25).
Creo ended FY22 with gross cash of £13.1m (estimated net cash position of £6.3m excluding our forecast total debt of £6.8m), which, based on our projected burn rates, should be sufficient to fund operations into Q223. We anticipate the need to raise another £25m (FY23: £15m and FY24: £10m), which we model as illustrative debt, to support its growth plan."
https://www.edisongroup.com/research/progressing-on-all-fronts-2/31884/
Seems to imply no funding will be needed for 2025, presumably because it will be close to breakeven.
Elsewhere in the report they warn that dilution due to fundraising is a distinct possibility in Q2 2023. So great value at current price, but possibly even cheaper very soon? Odd situation
" As an experienced litigant over three decades it was what I expected all along and it could have been a lot worse, which is why I sold temporarily."
Get your story straight. You claimed to have sold some at the higher price, remember? It is only long after the price had fallen due to the second RNS that you claimed to have sold the lot. A very odd and indecisive way to behave for someone who"expected" such a result. Scarcely believable
"So with my average of 34p do I have to accept I'm never going to make any money from this?"
No. The market is unpredictable, and the SP has been a lot higher than that in the past. There are various scenarios where this could jump - a new virus, government initiative, even just a change in market sentiment. Anyway, your short term aim should be reducing paper losses, and in those terms it's on fire. It started the year on 10p, so walk on, with hope in your heart
"blatant pump RNS on 6th Jan and then dump rns on the 9th"
That seems like a mischaracterisation. Compared with what Elon Musk just got away with, they were blameless. The first RNS was simply factually accurate, the second was good guidance, but far too wide open to interpretation in the light of months of contrary guidance, but it can't honestly be described as a "dump"
FH, under your interpretation the litigation funders are going to take a cut of the IP sale, despite it not being part for the litigation, which was about infringement. I agree that is the way they have worded it, but if true it makes the deal look even worse.
Regarding civility, please stop asking for help without making any effort, and when someone helps you, pay attention, don't continue inventing nonsense, because it's rude, disrespectful, and boring.
Words still wrong FH, even after I have provided you with the exact quote. Give up, investing is not for you.
"The outcome is as expected.
My prediction was:
$100m net"
Well, you were badly wrong then. $85m was for a sale of IP, nothing to do with the issue being litigated. We retain $90m including this sale, so the net amount for the issue being litigated is $5m
It isn't $85m "for damages", why make things up? Just read the RNS, or read my previous posts
"$85m for the IP Sale agreement"
So stripping out the IP sale, only $5m was retained for the QD process. The most accurate predictor was gigawitt, in at least one of his contradictory posts, when he said we'd retain virtually nothing. Everyone else was way out, completely misled, for months, by comments from the company, Edison, and the press.
You expect people to believe one RNS but ignore everything else the company said, in the same way you expect people to believe one thing you say but ignore previous statements. Like I said: hindquarters.
"The 9/1 RNS was crystal clear. Nanoco couldn't have given a fairer warning."
Yet not clear enough for you, since you didn't sell until much later? Easy to be wise with hindquarters
Here's my breakdown: total payment $150m, comprising sale of IP ($85m), litigation costs ($60m), license for all past and future use of QD process ($5m)
Isn't the deal actually even worse than it looks? If you strip out the IP sale ($85m), which is surely nothing whatsoever to do with litigation costs, then the amount retained from the actual litigation issue is a mere $5m ($90m - the $85m attributable to the sale of assets)
The "sale" of non-core IP is pretty disappointing. What the hell does that have to do with settlement or the court case? Why did Samsung want this IP and what value does it remove from Nano's portfolio? It's good to get some hard cash, but surrendering market share seems like less of a win.
You still call Brian your "beloved" Girly Rumours, despite everything? That's true love. Now his affair with Samsung is ended, maybe he'll go court-ing with you?
"(in one of my two homes, the other is in Queensland)"
great story bro, absolutely fascinating biog, just what the board was craving
Congratulations Troublesome, you've reached the lower end of FH's expectations: punching!
Peregrine's cat was expecting to sit at the lower end of the jury, but instead it's just playing cards (patience)
So this cat, was it a black one? Obviously your method was sound, but many mumbling mice claim that your the cat has it's own trading account
Goose? Oo-er Missus, sounds a bit rude? Interesting that he left what looked like a good position at Starling to come here. Wait and see on the golden eggs, don't count your... oh cluck, I've hit an ornithological dead-end
Thanks Greend100, that seems to be how the market is taking it. Significant improvement all around, including visibility and communication. Back on the right track and accelerating!