Member Info for ddubya

Sense in your comment Nanonano, as usual. We would not be valued below £cash if orders come in. That’s the reality and Apple was generous when they pulled the rug. Whilst they have lots of money, they don’t generally waste it, so I am sure there was purpose to their generosity. In fact a ‘transformational’ deal with Apple or other majors is about the only thing that would make any sense of the settlement - here’s hoping!

I think you are correct Nanonano when you say that payment by instalment “…impedes Nanoco’s ability to invest in the company for another year”.

I also think it shows all watching that the ‘No fault’ settlement and everything about it was made on Samsung’s terms - so a strong warning to other firms considering the same route.

Barring the more sinister options, it was either a complete NANO capitulation, or something came to light that weakened the strength of our argument considerably. I don’t buy the view that ‘fair value’ has been obtained.

Well done Dominion. Justice in relatively short order. A pity that justice is not applied universally.

Looking forward to seeing what these Apple VR headsets can do, and also to confirmation that NANO is involved? Let’s hope so.

Also sadly NGR, why are authors not then forced to evidence the validity of statements made , or otherwise held to account where comments are potentially misleading?

Comment from the FCA is welcome.

I don’t really understand why it is not always possible to convey within an RNS the information that regulation requires, in an unequivocal way.

So often, companies and their advisers construct RNS using weasel words, which create dubiety and infer greater upside than may be the case. This creates conditions for misunderstanding and in my personal view, this is what happened in NANO’s case (over a period of time).

The outcome is a lack of confidence in leadership and the serious erosion of shareholder value.

It is the FCA regulations that need overhaul in my view to ensure that only messaging, which is unlikely to be misunderstood can be used in an RNS. And where care has not been taken, the authors should be held personally responsibility for ‘misspeaking’. Seems reasonable to me!

Confirmation of winning an Apple contract would be great news ArkMan and just what is needed to restore some confidence. Fingers crossed for a Summer announcement.

I agree with that Nanogeddon, and you are saying pretty much what I did earlier today.

I am not advocating either a dividend or share buy back, just restating what the media is saying.

The other possibility mentioned (beyond dividend) is share buyback, which would probably have my vote for the reason Flyinghigher states.

The best scenario is for BT to create £value in the company so it is no valued on a cash basis (or less).

Yes Nanonano - we are down but certainly not out and we shall have plenty of cash soon. The media has also mentioned a dividend of up to £47m next year.

BT simply needs to deliver something tangible for IR, instead of promise and delay.

Good morning T. Unfortunately, it is fair to say I am no longer as enthused as I was about NANO’s prospects. Then again, prospects can quickly turn around on unexpected events, so who knows?

In terms of the Samsung settlement, it feels like either new and adverse information came to light shortly before trial, or that numerous PI and research comms were simply misleading. It would be nice to know the truth, even if the toothless FCA can’t be bothered to find out.

Agree on the BT question. I do hope he has some magic in the works, as he looked like a solid FD and CEO until recently. However, if he can’t generate profit and shareholder value then his current package and/or tenure should be up for debate. A £500k pa package is not aligned to shareholder interests, at least not on the basis of past performance.

I have been very wrong before but I can’t see why the market would discount next years anticipated cash position next year by around 50% to arrive at 11.7p?

At some point this year (after successive delays) we have been led to believe IR contracts will be secured, so unless this is more Jackanory, I am expecting the floor to be not be much lower than today’s valuation, with added ‘potential’ for better SP value.

I will be concerned and review my holding if BT delivers nothing positive between now and next March.

It is lack of core business progression that is killing us now (as much as the S settlement) for which BT must accept full responsibility.

Licensing is what was on my mind cm22.
If and when a patent is granted, it would surely increase value but to what extent depends upon what it does, the money it saves and if it can simply be replaced using alternative means?

Verbal interaction with Chat GPT (and likely others AI platforms in time) is a benefit many will love (especially the young) and is a selling point that should not be underestimated. That it is subject of a patent pending is also great news, presuming it successfully clears all hurdles in the application of course.

Timing the announcement of a patent application today might also provide fuel for further advances in the US listing later today, which would be very welcome. Well played if that turns out to be the case.

A very interesting (and most unusual) analogy in the RNS too, which infers parallels with invention of the QUERTY keyboard and introduction of the Remington typewriter. If they are right, the IP could be of great value, and not only in glasses but elsewhere too.

That’s right Jughead. Even if a 200% rise were not justified, it raises the profile LUCYD has and adds to great reviews their new range is receiving on Amazon in the USA. If they were available in the UK, I would have bought a pair. I just hope they have greater capacity to manufacture product than BELL did (until recently) as it looks like they could be super popular.

Thanks Nanonano - good to know.

If NANO can either commercialise it or sell/license it to someone that can, ‘next generation’ CFQD would be great news Nanonano. Are there any indications of the benefit(s) ‘material b’ could bring to the party?

Patents are expiring but I believe they relate to CFQD rather than IT sensors, which likely hold greatest value for NANO. I am uncertain what IR patents (and trade secrets) are in play for us?

Like you Troublesome, the difficulty is lack of visibility over prospects, and whether despite what BT says Display has really been donated to Samsung. Why would a smaller OEM develop its own CFQD enabled screens using NANO, when they can simply buy them off the shelf from Samsung?

Agree Flyinghigher. Zero value attributed to the business, which can’t be correct but on the other hand that’s where we are and over many years, NANO has consistently failed to deliver outside of small research contracts, and of course Careware.

I would love to hear what Mike Edelman thinks of the settlement but he is probably bound by a gagging agreement.

Unfortunately, the position is exactly as you say Nano. I do expect a measured increase when funds are in NANO’s account as it is de-risked. Otherwise, only firm orders or some other unexpected positive would move it far from here.

Ironically, my first purchase was at £1.50, when Dow was building its factory and held a NANO licence. It all looked very exciting back then!

I have been reflecting on today's performance, down over 8% without reason and it was up 12% last week on the same basis?

We have a few £m more today and another £70m coming our way next year but in terms of share price, it is about as low now as it has been, outside of that grim period back in 2020/2021. The share price says we lost, when we won, so hearing BT insist the settlement is transformational (at the tail of the recent investor presentation) does not sit well. There probably is potential here but it looks like it is may be some way off I am afraid. Only time will tell but it feels like defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory, so putting NANO to one side for a year or two.