Member Info for ddubya

@NGR. You say ”If the product is good and has a market demand will grow and that’s what is being guided.”

If it were proven to be a true statement but surely the questions we could all take comfort from it but the relevant questions to my mind are why it has taken so long to achieve a single and modest order if the product is that good, and why is BT unable to provide any detail whatsoever to overlay the guidance provided? Emperor’s clothes or just inept management?

I just do not believe this level of secrecy is either necessary or required of us by contract. It should be possible to provide some sort of meaningful information about product benefits and uses at least.

At the moment there is as much meat to the NANO story as in an empty skinless sausage.

@Kooba. At the most optimistic end of the spectrum we can expect news in the near term given the length of time manufacturers have had to ponder uses for NANO product.

At the other end of the scale, no one wants or needs them but in the absence of any public information whatsoever, that’s not what my bones are telling me.

Best to trust what your own senses or tea leaves are telling you!

@Lord. A ‘no-brianer’. Freudian slip or not I like it.

I would like to hear something from Brian in terms of how NANO intends to break even in 2025, and to confirm whether that means calendar year or FY 2025/26. Not all detail can be subject to confidentiality surely?

NGR. Would it not be easier to list the ambitions has NANO realised to date?

As Kooba says it is the realisation of commercialisation and profit that moves the share price but NANO has consistently failed to deliver despite lots of research opportunities with third parties.

It even operates in a different marketplace now to the one it invented before surrendering to Samsung, albeit whilst retaining (sharing for CFQD) patents that will be useful in new IR markets.

These are not positive statements I realise but the unfortunate reality is that the Board has done little deserving of applause to date. It really is beyond time that changed for the better.

At some point, we need to stop saying everything is outside of their control and demand accountability from them.

@NGR. That sounded like reference to a Hannibal Lecter style dinner invitation?

@PVX. Irrespective of why people remain invested they are surely entitled to receive good communication and value from Directors in return for their remuneration. After all, Directors have a duty to their shareholders and it is only reasonable they face challenge.

BT was clear that accepting Samsung’s offer was in our best interests, yet 18 months down the line, with one modest order and the share price on a low ebb, it does not feel like a ringing endorsement of the Board’s decision.

The Board has seen fit to set aside 10% of share cap for the direct benefit of directors and staff in addition to that already granted, so unlike shareholders they have guarantee of a larger slice of future value.

I invested a long time ago and have averaged down over 14 years but I have not invested further in the past 2 years. I see value in the technology but no longer believe that NANO will capitalise on it by itself (although I would like to be wrong). I believe value will be realised through the sale of patents and potential to a major, which is why I remain invested.

Without meaningful information to investors on the end products and markets, what is your rationale for investing?

That’s the key Kooba. Any and all remuneration must now be linked to generation of £value for shareholders. If it is not there, it should also mean zero value for the LTIP.

If BT says we are not in any commercially available product that presumably means we are not in Apple Vision Pro, which did come as a disappointment.

We appear to be waiting on the market developing products for our wares but we know how successful NANO has been on that front with CFQD.

In the circumstances you might expect BT to be creative with investor comms but it seems he informs only a small number of select shareholders when there is anything to say.

I still think this will come good but rate the Board’s performance as 2 out of 10.

I suspect their mindset is what’s in it for the Directors rather than for shareholders generally.

Takeover is of course pure speculation but if there were an offer for the company, the initial test is whether the Board considers it something they wish to recommend to shareholders and put to a vote.

Factors that could influence that decision, could include the packages on offer for Directors to stay or go, in addition to the firm’s prospects and the cash on hand.

The point is that in addition to commercial prospects other factors in play. An offer could come at any point and if it did, past experience suggests NANO might be minded to take the bird in the hand?

Thanks for your take Kooba. I feel somewhat similar in outlook and consider the two new NED’s have joined for some excitement.

As you say it’s time for the Board to deliver now, past time even, but of course they don’t control timescales and markets.

From these levels any revenue created must surely go straight on to share value. And if we go down, maybe someone wants some cheap but valuable patents?

I am willing to accept risk when investing but for a start up, as NANO was when I first invested, I want to hear a very good business case. We had one I thought, with a forthcoming ban on heavy metals and a potentially huge marketplace for CFQD in display. It felt like a good bet but Samsung and other circumstances conspired against us.

Today we address a completely different market, although we have little or no knowledge of what it is. By reference to my own investing criteria I should have left long ago but I have not.

No facts on our prospects, plenty of misinformation from and NANO and it’s analysts and there is frustration with the awards the Board vote in for themselves.

When I ask myself why I remain, it comes down to a simple hunch that we are on the cusp (months or a few years) of something big, followed perhaps by a premium takeover. So not very scientific I am afraid and could well be wrong.

What are your reasons for staying invested?

@NGR. You have said you were being far more restrained with what you say to other posters and wonder why others can’t do same. And now you revert to type and everyone in the thread is a ghoul, except for you?

Nothing negative here - it is just a line of thought that you don’t subscribe to, so why do you insist on telling everyone they are wrong and in effect, your opinion is the only one that is correct or that matters?

I have the feeling (and said before) that takeover is exactly what this Board is working towards, and the two new NEDs are instrumental in that. They are of the ‘entrepreneurial/VC type’ (not that they are bringing cash to the table) and typically they look for firms with a plan to ramp up the business and seek exit at the best possible moment. To do that you have to have something the market places a value on and will buy and the new NEDs seem to be convinced it is there. That’s why I remain invested to be honest, not because I trust BT or consider him to be a top achiever. Truth is that I consider he is taking a much larger slice of the cake than his performance merits.

I suspect he took the Samsung offer because he did not want to risk losing the chance to make his fortune on ‘New’ products by going to Court on the ‘Old’ one.

BT doing a good job?

BT has overseen a settlement from Samsung that was under the lowest expectations, delivered only one modest commercial order but set aside 10% of share capital for LTIP and other staff incentives - so Board members are busy building their share.

He has also switch the business from CFQD to something the IR sensor market and 2D materials we understand, not that we hear much about it.

I am sure that LOAM consider he is doing a great job too but for the PI we still have only promise of success and what else?

Had we gone to court and won, the appeal would have been heard by now and Nano might have been flying. There is risk in going to court of course but there is nothing visible to suggests BT did the right thing, despite assurances. Neither has he improved communication with shareholders (at least not with the majority of us) as he said he would, so it feels like a stretch to say he has done a good job on the basis of the evidence. That suggests he has underperformed, certainly when you consider it by the yardstick of return to shareholders. The evidence might suggest otherwise.

I really hope he has something up his sleeve to justify the lost opportunity cost here and ultimately make shareholders smile.😃

@bachatanut. agree - endless possibilities for fpv drones and missiles with potential to instal relatively cheap sensors with performance close to that of indium gallium ****nide. i would like to know if nano is exploring those markets but if they are, would they let us know?

Yes T, there is no visibility of orders for PI at least, so we are left guessing. I don’t see too much point in following too closely because the information that would move the SP simply is not available.

We could be very close to positive news or years from it, who knows?

Meantime, the SP seems to want to drift lower despite the regular repurchases. That’s another symptom of the secrecy that surrounds our marketplace, the end products and stages of development we are at with third parties.

Will that make any difference at all TGTD? The market knew the repurchase was coming, and each remaining share now represents a larger % of the company.

I have to say I did think there would be a temporary drop in value but I am now thinking the drop may not happen and a rebound may be much quicker than I hoped. Much depends on how much demand there is for shares, how much of the £3m is used to repurchase, and of course whether there is any form of trading update? Fingers crossed.

As usual with NANO, things are rarely straightforward.

If applicants for the tender want back in, demand will help to lift the share price. No sign of 17p at the moment but these are early days.

God forbid the market grants us a going concern value, and introduce some share price dynamism.

Possibly not. Did you complete it Nigel?

Thanks Mr N. Consistent results then and now, even if based on limited data.

If those results are representative, it does not look like too many will be tendering.

Who knows T, some might not give an honest answer but truthful old me voted the same way twice - 0% tendered.

Interestingly we are up nearly 5% this morning (so far) so the gap is narrowing.

I am living in hope of unexpected and good news that blows the current ceiling off the SP. Wake me up in 18 months🤣