Member Info for ddubya

Happy Monday and know what you mean Henry but an RNS is one type of communication.

Ideally, the first of many positive RNS will say something like bumper order to supply ST Micro with sensors in order to fulfil an ongoing and long term order. That would beat the more typical RNS such as 'Surrendered 30 years of ground breaking R&D in CFQD market for a mere £4M, considerably less than total development costs'.

@theboyg. I am hoping that if credit is needed the bank should be able to provide credit on more attractive terms than dilution offers given that orders are in. There probably is need for further funds but may not be need for further dilution.

Good luck with BELL and your other 'roll of the dice' too - would be interested to know who the other is.

@bonzoful. Share buy back alone might provide a better result than combined with a tender offer and is my current preference. There could be better answers but commercialisation is needed first, otherwise the Market Cap will continue to reflect cash less a discount for uncertainty and OPEX.

@anyone else that can be bothered - The market really could not have hit the share price harder. NANO had a going concern value before and throughout years of legal action against Samsung but following our 'Win' any and all value in the company has evaporated. Who is responsible for the current market value of £Zero if not the Board?

By whatever yardstick we use, NANO's Board has overseen a catastrophic 'transformation' of the company in terms of shareholder value, for all bar 'insiders'.

I realise BT and the team could be exceptionally busy creating value now, and I hope they are wildly successful some time soon. However, there is so much more BT could be doing to help create confidence and lift the share price through communication. Just take a look at some of the PR Jason Hartlove has done for Nanosys over the years.

An ex boss of mine and former senior Army commander handed out some great advice to his workforce saying that whatever challenges we face , we should "Never do nothing". It worked out well for me, and BT would do well to take his advice too. At the moment my perception is that all we get is 'nothing' and I would like to see that change right away - ever hopeful.

Is it denomination of earnings that caused the drop Tornado, or could it be the absence of any business update on any workstream? For example, what is happening with claim construction for transgressors, how is the POE relationship developing, or is there an ST Micro update to offer?

Despite promise to improve on dire communication, NANO seems to be resuming its policy of radio silence.

@Maxi19. Nano is pondering the options for distribution of the settlement next year. However, I am not sure how a Tender offer/repurchase combo would benefit us? Presumably, we would sell some or all of our shares to NANO at the market price plus a premium, which would be roughly equal the distribution value per share. Thereafter, the repurchased shares would be cancelled.

Not sure if the above is how you anticipate it would operate but if we want to benefit fully from future orders, would we not also need to use our proceeds to buy back in at a higher price, or am I missing some other beneficial aspects here?

Some of us may also incur CGT on sale proceeds too, so we need to hope NANO offers sensible and tax efficient options.

Nice contract, equivalent to around 10% of current market capital in gross terms.

Progress has been good and steady since covid became history and I am looking forward to more of the same.

I share that view, as I believe many do. We need good news before any dividend is paid. Otherwise, the share price will simply be discounted by the amount of the dividend (if that is the firm it takes) leaving shareholders with zero net gain over today’s value and a potential tax liability to boot. That would represent an abject failure of this Board to deliver.

A dividend of some form works only if the core business has a perceived market value and to demonstrate that BT needs orders soon and promise of more.

Hi Carlos. You likely have a good average, even if you purchased more above 12p.

I agree NANO is on a sound financial footing, although it does look like all bar £4m of value for Display (past and future) has been lost, which can't make any shareholder smile when the potential value might have been measured in hundreds of £m or more. Let's see if Brian can deliver between now and the year end though. It has already been quite a while since the settlement, without meaningful news.

@carlos. I like to hear TwoGood's opinions, even though I may not be fully in agreement with all of them.

I suspect he just feels justifiably underwhelmed by the Board's performance to date and that he was misled into believing the Samsung litigation would have generated a decent increase in share price rather than a two thirds reduction (from its peak) whilst at the same time selected shareholders have profited handsomely by either selling before news or benefiting from virtually guaranteed loan notes performance bonuses. Some may believe this is all down to good research and timing, although many including myself are far from convinced.

Am I right in thinking you bought in at some point after the drop from 55p? if so well done, you could do very well from here, without the losses many are nursing.

@theboyg. I believe you can join simply by providing your e-mail address.

Today he offered his opinion that whilst it will be a close run thing, BELL may not need to raise more cash. His forecast is that $cash will be at its lowest in Q3 2023 at 450k, rising to 720k in Q4. He also forecasts cash of $4.61m by Q4 2024 which are the sort of numbers we want to see. No guarantees he is right of course but we may almost be over the worst in cash terms?

@Agricore. Thanks for the link, which makes for a good read. The Oak Bloke seems very upbeat and provides explanations, at least in part, for the Low H1 revenue, including allocation of H2 costs within H1 figures. I certainly hope he is right and no capital raise is required - bankers should be willing to satisfy needs with short term credit?

Valid queries raised on this board though re the absence of information regarding the required change to specification and halt in production. I wonder if that point is in any way linked to the 'discount' applied to the early sales?

Thanks for that explanation Tulsatel. I believe that means production of up to 2600 X-PLOR units was delayed pending implementation of product tweaks and production recommenced only in June 2023?

Likely still backfilling those orders but either way the full extent of revenue was not booked in H1. I hope this solely reflects BELL's desire to ensure quality is as it must be for medical products. If above is a fair reflection, it also means that significant H2 revenue is now being booked from delivery of units, and I have less concern than the recent drop might infer.

I do share the view of a bright future Aquae, which is why I still hold. It has felt the same before though, like when Dow licenced rights to CFQD manufacture and built a factory in S Korea, and when we built a new factory in Runcorn, to accommodate anticipated orders from Apple (we think).

Hopefully, this is the real deal for IT sensors and later 2D products but many of the NANO personalities remain the same, so they shall need to perform to the best of their abilities to maximise potential.

I have the feeling the natural way forward in time is a takeover, since realising the potential of products NANO has invented may demand the scale of a multi-national?

It is probably not unfair to describe me as a 'Stale Bull' Aquae but those like me will recall that NANO has been on the cusp of new and substantial orders for nearly a couple of decades. I hope we can move beyond the cusp shortly but there is more history, which would need to be rewritten if the rather obvious fundamentals were the only facts worthy of our consideration.

New investors can afford to take a more charitable view as they have not been financially disadvantaged by the way this Board has (mis)managed the litigation process and outcome but they too will have taken note of a consistent failure to deliver, and risk that as a PI they may be fleeced at the expense of institutional shareholders.

I look forward to the time when this changes but as you say Maxi, it will take sizeable news to make this shift (and probably several portions of it).

As a consequence of Ukraine, armed forces are now looking to create plentiful supplies of cheap and very capable drones ahead of any new conflict.

It won’t suit the ethical investor but Drones, as well as missiles, must surely be a target market for NANO/ STMicro sensor products.

@AquaeSulis. Certainly hope one is Nanosys and sale to Shoei does not prove to be an effective way to avoid or reduce the payment due.

@ AquaeSilus

We all eagerly await an update from BT on transgression by firms other than Samsung.

If Nanosys has been using our IP there may be a valuable licence for use by its new owner Shoei and perhaps for past use by Nanosys?

Other than the above, I am not sure there will be much value in licences because the volumes of CFQD manufactures are relatively low. Is there anything else you consider might deliver value in terms of licences?

Think you might be right in terms of order volumes Nanogeddon, particularly if the order relates to the Apple goggles.

It feels like orders might take quite some time to develop, which makes me question why we did not run with a court appearance and run with the appeal process. Yes it is would have been a gamble but we ‘banked’ a mere £4m, which does not rest easily with my idea of risk/reward.

The logic behind the decision to settle on derisory terms remains unclear to this point. It may be clarified in time but if not, it is surely time for a change at NANO.

@Troublesome. I have a similar target in mind and at least expect the first ST Micro deal to have come to fruition to qualify as any level of success.