Member Info for havealot

Not sure what this will contribute to bottom line.

I am sure they would be cash flow positive by now were they not investing in the creator platform. This is a game changer for this company if they can pull it off. Normally software development projects are frouht with risk of overun. Hower in this case the basic tech is well proven and up and running. We would expect that the bulk of the work outstanding is in the user interface development and as Ian said in the recent interview pises little risk. Late 2023 introduction of this platform would seem to be targeted by the company. Not long to wait and finances are there for at least the next two years.

Thanks jonhas, hadn't appreciated that we will have to wait until 2024 to see any bottom line benefit from Amobee purchase. Though I would have expected some Amobee costs to be written down in 'exceptionals' and thereby excluded from adjusted EBITDA.

Re above discussion regarding company's forecasts for 2023. I have difficulty reconciling figures as follows: revenue forecast $400mil (2022 was $335mil) with adj EBITDA at $140 to $145 (2022 was $144.9). Unless cost of sales and or admin are forecast to increase by a substantial amount ie approx $65mil, the forecast revenue must be overstated or EBITDA figure is understated. This inconsistency is concerning me. Anyone able to explain this apparent discrepancy.

The first installment of the settlement should have been received on 5th March. Yet no RNS has been issued to this effect. Surely NANOCO should have informed shareholders to this effect along with net amount retained
by NANOCO after costs.

Always resulted in a reduction in capitalisatuon in all the shares I have owned over the years. Waste of money iIMO.

The 9th January RNS IMO was a belated attempt by BT to cover his back when he realised he would be open to criticism for over ramping the ageement he was to make with Samsung . Nothing more nothing less. However to expect shareholders to reverse their posions as has been suggested by a certain poster on here is unrealistic as all the RNS did was to confuse. We have had no communicatio from BT since, which speaks volumes but he can find time to make presentations elsewhere.

'The Board is very confident in the strength of the Company's case and in an outcome that is transformational for Nanoco's prospects and shareholder value.' Statement from the Placing and Subscription announcement of 6 Jun 2022. This says it all. Yet still no explanation from the BOD on how shareholders value is to be transformed as a result of the settlement.

WeTook...
It is possible that the company felt that information would leak out anyway by the very nature of the trial as all participants probably know the source of the medication.

Troublesome

Thanks for the info. Hopefully there won't be any hidden costs we don't know about and the $15m figure should be confirmed in the next Interims in April. However with current inflation rate, by the time we get the balance, it will be worth 10% less. The more I look at this deal, the worse it gets.

Is the payment of all litigation costs taken from the first SAMSUNG installment? If so NANOCO will not receive any significant funds for twelve months. Just asking .

Bonzo

It is not a question of belief in the company as if it were a religious enterprise. We all do our assessment of a company's prospect based on publically available information. Most of that information is supplied in one form or another by the Company. If that information is subject to doubt it leaves investors no means of assessing the company's prospects. Anyone 'believing in the Company' is taking a lot on trust. If NANCO's patents have little or no value, this company is dead in the water IMO as it is not going to compete with the bigger players otherwise. It is not as simply as selling up and moving on, the uncertainty makes even this a difficult call.

Henry,
I agree entirely, BT has no credibility in my eyes. What we retain from the settlement, after costs, is still in doubt in my opinion as we still only have NANOCO (BT's ) ballpark figure as to what the eventual costs will amount to. I put no credibility on any BT figure at the moment.

That has been the problem, many people on here have been listening to the company. They would have been better off not doing so over the last few years. Most of the information received rrom BT has to say the least, been economical with the truth. I say this having correctly predicted the outcome of the litigation in my post of 13 Jan. However unlike you I am not crowing about the fact, even a broken clock can be right twice a day. I have been investing in small cap shares for over 40 years now, I have had winners and losers over that time. However when I look back over my losers, I invarably find that the reason for many is that the CEO was believed when he was overegging or in some cases outright lying. In my mind BT has deliberately or otherwise misled shareholders and I await an explanation until then anything he says will be discounted unless accompanied by verifiable figures.

In your dreams, I do not believe that Seeing Machines customers would be happy to see any of those competing firm owning the company's technology.

Why should BT be concerned about rampers on bulletin boards. Unless of course they were quoting his own words to support their case.

The 9/1 RNS was a panick reation by BT when he realised he was open to being accused of raising expectations which were not reflected in the agreement he had just made with Samsung. It was a blatent attempt to cover his back.

Possible future competition in search. Check out ChatGp at OpenAI.com. Microsoft obviously think so as they are heavily invested.

Rightly or wongly it is pretty obvious that LOAM are anticipating a settlement that will not support a share price much above the current level. Or alternatively they expect some other issue which will surface shortly that will effect the share price. Whether they have inside information is a mute point. I woul have expected that NANOCO's negotiating position (back stop amount) would have been decided at board level, some months ago. Is it possible that information could have been leaked to LOAM? It is possible LOAM are just guessing like the rest of us here but to sell most of their holding at such a critical time just does not look right to me. Quite intriging, but we should soon know the answer but it is unlikely to effect the post settlement share price one way or the other.

I do not believe the final agreed figure when anniunced will be based on detailed bottum up calculations. It will be a negotiated compromise between what Samsung initiallt offer to pay and what NANOCO would want. It will be an horse trade compromise figure which is what happens with most negotiated settlements. How the resulting settlement is presented is another matter.