Member Info for bonzoful

I am struck by the reason Maersk are commissioning ships that can run on carbon neutral fuel: because their customers want carbon neutral supply chains. Also yesterday Velocys drew attention to work commissioned in Japan to produce carbon neutral fuel for aircraft. It looks like consumer demand will promote change more quickly than government regulation or waiting for carbon neutral to be cheaper than fossil fuel. A good week.

Breakeven is not anticipated for a couple of years. If you are not comfortable with that you may be unhappy invested here meanwhile.
To my mind the key factor is the price of electricity generated renewably in a decades time. The cost has fallen each year for over a decade, I believe it will continue to do so driven by technological improvements, but appreciable falls will take time. Once renewable electricity is cheap the challenges will be storing and moving it. To both of which hydrogen is among the best answers.

I hope ITM management concentrate on implementing the strategy they have set out. I see no reason why they should incur the expense of an RNS to publicise orders routinely. Most other companies do not do it. No reason why ITM should. If they needed to raise funding they would need to talk up the share price. But they don't. So I don't expect them to. Long term shareholders will reap the rewards in the long run. Management should not be distracted by day to day movements in the share price. And I see no signs that the are. Excellent.

My take from today's message was the enormous upside long term versus the need for more cash in the short term.
The CEO believes there will be one, maybe two, players in the market longterm. Meanwhile there are lots of opportunities to bid, each of which will consume cash. Given his view, sensible to bid for as many contracts as SEE can muster competent people to fill in the bid forms. That will cost cash. And no guarantee of success. I think the necessary dilution, plus the risk of not being the, or one of the, winners explains why the share price remains deflated compared to the upside possibilities.

The simpler the case put in front of a jury the better. Nanocos prospects on the patent case appear very good. If they win that has to influence the jury. And Samsung have undertaken not to reopen the patent issues. The case remains a gamble. But, in my view, a very good one. The handling will be decided by the lawyers and financiers of the case rather than Nanoco.

You may find posts from Morbox at the end of Friday and Lobo87 early on Saturday helpful.

Some may like to be aware of the Riversimple hydrogen car being developed in Wales. I believe hydrogen will play a greater role than the UK gov. acknowledges because our national grid for electricity does not have the capacity to get power from the coast and countryside where most of it will be generated into urban areas where it will be needed to heat homes and charge cars. Lots of other governments, notably Japan and South Korea are supporting hydrogen development. And ITM and Ceres will benefit from that. Short of digging up the roads to upgrade the national grid with foot wide electric cables (or sticking with natural gas) I dont believe there is an alternative to using hydrogen to moving energy to where it will be needed.

I find it curious that the second bull point in the free summary guides readers to where more information about Nanoco can be found. I infer that the hidden detail suggests something interesting about Nanoco. I am not paying $4,500 to find out. But a few fund managers might have done.

Kia's share price rose nearly 10 per cent yesterday on rumours they would build the Apple electric car. And Apple recruited another experienced car builder from Porsche. It is possible, but not known whether, STmicroelectronics work with Nanoco had something to do with sensors for the Apple car. Seems most likely Nanocos price is increasing ahead of the Marksman hearing in the dispute with Samsung. The second best bet is that there is modest speculation on Nanocos work with STMicroelectronics continuing (whether or not it relates to sensors for cars).

My thanks to those who have followed the US court papers. I believed in Nanoco' technology, was content to support them with my cash up to 176p and down again; and believe they will succeed in their court case. With the Markman hearing due for March I have topped up this afternoon. The price has not fallen below 9p for significant periods; the upside is great; and once the price starts to move up the traders will move in. Of course Nanoco may not win their case so I won't bet more than I don't mind losing. But at these odds this beats betting on horses. B.

Interested in others feel. My guestimate is that todays announcement takes Ceres Power to breakeven. The operating loss in the 12 months to end June 2020 was £10m. The announcement of 19 October foreshadowed revenues, including contingent milestone payments, of £14m a year to Ceres from Doosnan (associated costs unclear). And todays announcement foreshadows payments on the same basis of £7m a year from Bosch. If these revenues were double the associated costs that would put Ceres at breakeven, with tremendous prospects, committed partners and £100m in the bank. Excellent.

The company did tell us they were cutting down on all activities not paid for by customers; in order to extend the cash runway. I support that strategy while the court case drags on. The company should be ok for cash for 12/18months. I would like them to drag that out if they can till the court case reaches a conclusion. In the interim I would refrain from criticising staff members because they may, for good reason, not have the budget to do what they would like. Thumbs up to the lady who was criticised.

at the moment Nanoco are just alleging the US patents have been breeched. Any out of Texas court settlement is likely to address the question of other patents, including UK patents, being breached, If the case remains in court and Nanoco win proceedings in the UK and other countries is likely to follow. In the meantime difficult to criticise UK retailers when no allegation of breaching UK patent has been made.

I think this has been a very good day for those who follow Nanoco. Samsung do not have a defence that could not have been forseen. Nanocos lawyers and legal funders will have asked the questions Samsung raise and been satisfied with the answers. If Samsung lost this court case and faced damages there would be similar court cases in other jurisdictions. So they are likely to do a deal that covers the world at the last minute. And in Judge Gilstrap we have someone who is likely to limit foot dragging. Even so due process may take a year or two. At the end of which Nanoco is likely to be worth multiples of the current share price. It remains a gamble. But the best bet I expect to see for the few of us who have followed the detail. ME was put on notice some months ago and I see his departure as good cash management by the Board. The brains behind the company is the CTO who was also put on notice but who has been retained. He has rarely if ever sold shares as ME regularly did so his commitment cannot be doubted.

Many financial trusts must hold shares in Samsung. Those with big holdings may be in touch with Samsung. It will do no harm if they were aware of Nanoco's case against Samsung. I do not imagine Samsung are particularly concerned about their shareholders views. But if they suspect it is impacting on the price of their shares they may be influenced. I have a holding in an investment trust that holds Samsung's shares and have drawn their attention to the Edison note on Nanoco's financing of the case being put in place.

Now that no early settlement with Samsung seems likely, it is in Nanoco 's , and Nanoco shareholders' interests, to ensure as many MPs, Ministers and senior trade officials as possible are aware that Samsung have been using Nanoco's technology without paying for it. Impeding the development of Nanoco's cadmium free quantum dot business as a result.
The most effective way of doing this is to write to, or email, your MP asking what the Government is doing to help Nanoco ensure Samsung pay for using its technology. The MP's office will forward such emails to the department it thinks best placed to answer the question. And a Minister will sign a reply to the MP. I recommend writing in this way every six months or so until the case is settled. Ideally there will be a steady flow of correspondence on the subject which will gradually inform MPs and Ministers of the case.

If Samsung believe there is a substantial risk of losing their case with Nanoco, buying Nanoco may cost them less than settling. There must be a chance of some broker beginning to buy shares on their behalf, with regular tree shakes to encourage PIs to sell. A subsequent bid that allowed Richard Griffiths to exit with a substantial profit and they could gain control.

Press reports suggest the chair of Samsung was sent to prison for violating labour laws in December. My understanding is the heir apparent has done one prison sentence and press reports in June suggest he faces another. If Nanoco and their lawyers thought an out of court deal could be agreed soon they would not need the financing for the case announced today. I cannot see middle managers in Samsung arguing the case for an expensive out of court settlement to Directors fighting their own legal cases to keep out of prison. So I believe the case will now be fought out in court unless and until the judge puts pressure on Samsung to settle. And it will take some time till the judge can be sure enough of the facts to do that. But we have an experienced judge and a case experts believe in. So I have 80 per cent confidence in a favourable result.

Screenlearner
I agree with being cautious. But have you divided by 2 twice? In your text you suggest a £500m settlement would be worth £1.74 a share and I can follow the maths. In your table, after allowing for the existing share price, this has fallen to 87p a share. If you just deducted the existing share price it would have fallen to £1.55. If I have overlooked something I credit the Wine Society. But I agree your underlying point.
With Nanocos lawyers and the funders for the legal action being experienced in such cases, having done due diligence and only getting rewarded if they help win the case for Nanoco the chances of success must be above 50 per cent. If Nanoco got half of a £1billion settlement in a couple of years time that would be worth either 87p, £1.74 or £1.55p a share ( I will take accept your reflection on the point). Where else are you going to get a punt that a 19p bet has more than a 50 per cent chance of delivering £1.55 (or even 87p) in a couple of years. Plus a chance of a share in a QD business as well.

Nanoco has become a decent bet on the outcome of the legal case against Samsung and that alone is worth holding for. But the prospects of an early settlement have diminished: no need for financing if a detail were nearly done. And there will be no substantial development of the business unless and until extended contracts are agreed with Merck or STMicro. So Nanoco is now a legal case investment with QD upside potential