Member Info for ddubya

@NGR - Why is it be reckless to invest in a company that has been ‘Transformed’?

I run asbusiness and in the early days the Bank always wanted me to have skin in the game. Is it unreasonable that we expect the same of NANO directors, and is it a minority view?

TG2D. Might be the Korean Tax that is due. Nothing like keeping it in the family!

Despite all the repetition in today’s RNS it does appear there might be a strategy that might gain traction. But the timeline for real money looks several years out but then the II knew that already.

I suppose this RNS is as expected, repeating the same old information.

First contract is expected by year end and still so excited by the future that Directors have not put hands in their own pockets to buy more shares.

What is new is the target for a single ‘new’ customer in 2024 but at least they have not yet said the contract is off.

Naturally, any award can only be accounted for when received but it is worth noting that little of the total settlement has been accounted for to date . Whilst I agree the SP would have fallen back, I don't see that it would be at today's level, whilst there remained a reasonable prospects of winning the appeal too. And, sellers would have been replaced by buyers - so a neutral point.

Samsung would not have settled when they did, unless their expectation was of losing the E Texas hearing, and the NANO Board assured us our case was strong.

NANO would probably have required more cash in 2024 but I doubt they would have had any problems at all raising a few £m via a rights issue. And, if STMicro contracts had materialised when expected (or even now), there may have been no need for any cash raise.

@NGR. We are moving at snail’s pace now! At least we could have retained respect for the Board throughout an appeal process and retained organic value in our business.

It is likely the appeal process would have concluded before NANO starts making big money from products. And any capital raise required would have been supported for a much higher market cap.

Following the dividend next year, I can’t see there will be ‘spare’ funds to waste on high risk/low return legal actions. And, I believe we may have lost the chance with Nanosys, the only case that may have been viable too.

The Board is hoping any other infringers will buy a licence but as it makes no financial sense to pursue them what incentive is there to buy, especially for Chinese firms where IP transgression has been encouraged by government?

It is the ST Micro orders that could be the catalyst for a turnaround in fortune but it looks like it will be a slow journey. Should have gone to court.

We all wondered when Jason Hartlove stepped down but why would Shoei buy the assets of a company that had infringed on NANO’s patents, unless it was exiting the CFQD marketplace? If they had been infringing, it will make it difficult for NANO to recover damages from a shell company, which may not have any assets to speak of. We would need to lodge claims against the Nanosys directors I expect. However, it is possible that have been shafted (again)?

@Nanonano. Takeover and consolidation of QD tech is a real possibility, as Nanosys demonstrates. In that event the Board would be well provided for with well paid roles, earn outs and then golden parachutes. That could explain why they are not especially bothered about buying shares?

I have increasingly been of the view that only the majors can develop the many possibilities from here and they won't willingly allow NANO to create a profitable niche for itself in a bumper sector, when they may be able to corner the market themselves.

I never wanted the takeover route but at the moment I would not mind, if 'fair value' was received. It is possible that several bidders may materialise but it is perhaps best that neither Chairman of CEO decides what that looks like in view of past performance. I am not personally convinced either has our interests at heart, despite their statutory obligations. Maybe they can prove me wrong on Tuesday?

If there is no progress by the next AGM, I know which way my shares will be voting on reappointments.

@Nanonano. £250m would have been nice.

Placing his text in brackets does infer he sees a possibility of QD in Apple products at some point. If their adoption is not imminent, the custom BT refers to must live elsewhere but have its own reasons for delay.

Hoping for some positive news or announcement next Tuesday morning.

Restricting chat to current business is fine Nanonano, although the Board’s performance must ultimately be judged by what happens next in light of their actions and if/how fast any ‘transformation’ comes about.

We have (or will have) plenty of cash but we have also lost all and any organic business £value that existed in the years before settlement.

I would not be keen on receiving a dividend, if the outcome were to reduce the SP by a similar amount, as I suspect will be the case if no orders materialise -we might do as well or better by selling now?

Other than securing orders, are there ways anyone can think of that might mitigate the above risk, or must we simply hope the market starts to attribute a value?

Hello Nanonano. I should perhaps have said Careware is the only legitimate contract NANO has been part of, ignoring the Samsung ‘theft’ (as some might describe it).

The settlement was either over £140m, or £4m if we ignore the patent sale value. Whether CFQD has been profitable for NANO or not depends on which number we use but neither reflects fair value in my view.

The original CFQD business appears dead, so we are effectively starting again, with IR sensors and 2D materials and associated lead times necessary for such products. However, if the big money turns up at all it is some way off materialising. It is this time factor and arguably a mismanagement of the settlement that disappoints me the most.

We are of course fully funded but this management team must demonstrate it can deliver by converting enquiries into orders very soon. Otherwise, I don’t know how they can return ‘value’ to shareholders without crashing the share price.

@Nanonano. I have been listening to the updates of course, not just in recent years but over more than 14. There have been many announcements of research and promise but the only commercial product that NANO has supplied is Careware, a light therapy product of small volume. I have not checked in on them of late so must do so. Promises means nothing unfortunately. It is orders that pay the bills.

NANO has a non exclusive arrangement with ST Micro on IR products so surely it would makes sense for NANO to be developing relationships with other firms too, such as the far east chemical company and others. I can appreciate it might want to get one order over the line first but they surely have capacity to be working on at least one other product?

It would be a let down if there will not be an opportunity for questions, unless of course BT has some outstanding news to report? Not exactly an improvement in communications Roll on Tuesday.

@Nanonano. You are more generous than me in terms of 'benefit of the doubt' but I do hope your view prevails and things take off from here. I would very much like to eat a generous helping of humble pie.

I absolutely agree in terms of contracts and revenue. Nothing less than consistent and sustained growth from here will either satisfy shareholders, or create value in any dividend/repurchase.

@Nanonano - your recent posts reflect my sentiments. NANO really should have a £value now but the market is extracting the highest price possible.

Being aware of when deals were likely to materialise, the Board would also have been aware of the impact on share price. This is probably why LOAM sold off a large portion of its holding and why more Directors did not buy? With that knowledge, why use weasel words like 'transformative' or 'inflection' point in an RNS? It was known that progress would be slow, if it came at all. Whilst a loose timescale was provided for IR, what has happened to other opportunities such as Display and licences, as well as a far east chemical tie up - should we view their messaging as disingenuous?

@NGR .As yet, there is no visible benefit to having secured validity of CFQD patents either. I don't see the '..too condensed' argument either. if BT was to believed, NANO was to be profitable when orders for IR sensor rolled in and NANO confirmed that third party backers had agreed to fund any appeal process - so why not let it roll?

The course the Board selected crystalised risk that existing shareholder value was destroyed, at least in the short medium term, and still we await confirmation of any orders or significant developments. The Board is simply not performing by whatever yardstick we select at present, and they have chosen not to instil confidence by buying shares themselves.

The Oak Bloke article was a very interesting read PIKEMAN. Everyone here should take a look, and if his analysis is correct there is potential to rebound strongly.

https://theoakbloke.substack.com/p/dec-the-halls?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-restack-comment&r=1p1qpt

@Agricore. Thanks for introducing me to the Oak Bloke as I am impressed with his detailed views and financial analysis. A very readable style too.

Every BELL investor should read his articles, although it has not altered the share price trajectory which is disappointing!!

If NANO really had confidence in both the strength of its case and IR contracts materialising, I believe going to trial provided the best prospect of genuinely transforming our order book and balance sheet. Had NANO won and been awarded a reasonable settlement, say £300m plus, Samsung would be forced to purchase a licence at the going rate (at some point) and the SP would likely be multiples of today's value, with expectation of ST Micro order too. Obviously, the appeal process would have run in parallel with inherent risks but Samsung would have been very much on the backfoot. Private shareholders have not benefitted from their victory and the business currently has a going concern value of £0. The more time that passes between Jan 2023 and announcement of orders or licences, the more this debacle looks like it was created by this management team. I do wonder what else they may not be telling us?