Member Info for Kooba

There is no wriggle room and why would a company tasked with running a company on behalf of shareholders want or need to wriggle?? What an odd thing to say…they are in complete control of the task in hand and set the timescale..it’s on them not to wriggle !!

No I haven’t..I say there would have to be a GM called if any of the proposals involved buying back shares , on market by tender or a split share scheme..they all would require shareholder approval. The timescale to call a GM would normally be 21 clear days ..there would then have to be documentation if the company were to be giving shareholders a choice of income or capital as they said they wanted to do and sufficient time for shareholders and their agents to process the documentation..so in my opinion the only option left now to deliver a return this quarter would be a special dividend ..that would now be very tight as you have to give prior notice of record ,ex div and payment dates ..I’m not even sure they can do that this quarter now ..but doesn’t require a GM.

Point is announcing the mechanism in the first quarter is not delivering on a commitment to MAKE a capital return in the first quarter that they very clearly made.For a company that has said it would improve comms and knows they are under scrutiny it’s dumb to mess around with commitments and dumb not to be in a position to move quickly to meet that commitment. There is no excuse why it is taking so long..and it’s not in shareholder interests.

Erm do you ever think before to type?? You said my reliance on actual company statement was wrong!

My point is your interpretation is not what the company made a firm commitment to do…if they do manage to make a distribution this quarter ..it can only now be a special dividend then fine they meet that commitment. If however they make no payment until the second quarter it does not make you right it just means they have again not met a firm commitment ..it’s not that tricky.

Ngr it is not troublesome that is embarrassing themselves fella…your interpretation is quite ridiculous on something that was very clear.

A return of capital IN q1..what’s to argue??

Not we’ll let you know how we might do it , not we might start some process it is quite clear

“..our firm commitment to return significant capital to shareholders in Q1 CY24.”

If they mean’t Q2 or new financial year perhaps they should have said that !!

It says “firm commitment “

..a financially underpinned business and the ability to execute on our firm commitment to return significant capital to shareholders in Q1 CY24.”

So NGR you wrote

“Sorry Kooba but that does not say it will be completed in Q1 2024 no matter how much you may try and convince yourself.

There will be ‘confirmation in Q1 on how they will execute the return of capital’ is another way to interpret that statement.”

Can’t believe you even posted this..you completely change what they wrote in your interpretation …what they wrote was very clear they will return capital in Q1 …SIMPLES. and did not need your appeasing interpretation ffs.

I’m told that Peel Hunt walked from being a broker to the company at the end of last year , they had withdrawn their research before the mid year fundraise and i don’t think were engaged in marketing that placing at the time , maybe they had an issue around the messaging maybe it was around the company’s communications which continue to not line up and frustrate.

Soo lets forget about the firm commitment to return capital in Q1 and say we will pretend we said we will just tell tou how we a will go about whatever we want to do by end Q1..

There will be a month difference between the two different things!

The company previously has moved timelines on the quiet and to some extent they were not in control of how certain things developed…i get that. However here they are in control , they have had a year to organise and the money even arrived slightly earlier than deadline. There is no excuse for delaying other than they want to keep l=hold of the money for as long as possible.

Since there is a basis change in the firm commitment they made in the full year results they should explain why there is a delay and when shareholders will actually get the promised capital return.

Listen to the full presentation at 1.01 and here BT saying he would give more details on the distribution in Jan if you like.

Read the full year results rns

It says “firm commitment “

..a financially underpinned business and the ability to execute on our firm commitment to return significant capital to shareholders in Q1 CY24.”

What does a firm commitment mean to you ??

Correct..ceo statement on rns.

“..financially underpinned business and the ability to execute on our firm commitment to return significant capital to shareholders in Q1 CY24.”

Ngr as posted before ..in the full year presentation after a direct question from a shareholder BT said they would give details of the capital distribution in Jan..he said it twice… so they would be ready for when the funds arrived. In the document for the capital reduction last year it stated they would commence the capital distribution shortly after receiving funds.

They then moved to the distribution before end q1 they now appear from the FD respeonse to be moving to just announcing how they will do it in Q1 …meaning will not be making any distribution until Q2…moving goalposts is all this people know how to do !!

So don’t complain at the incompetence that the management can’t deliver on a key strategic objective entirely under its control and after having over a year to cogitate over it and many weeks after the promise of finalising it shortly and actually having the cash in the bank because complaining might impact shareholder confidence..really ! Maybe the concern should be in a management failing to display some ability to deliver on its commitments ..maybe that is undermining confidence not just a few comments on a bulletin board??

They need to remove the uncertainty in quantum and mechanism as they said they would…in January. Fact.

Jan 24th well the company had cleared funds in its account.

I am certain that Samsung would have alerted them to the payment before this date not just walked it in their account without notice too.

“The Group is finalising its proposals for the amount and structure of the return of capital which can now go ahead following this receipt of the second tranche of litigation proceeds. The Group expects to update shareholders shortly on the final proposals which will be in line with the previously announced commitment to return between £33.0m and £40.0m to shareholders.”

Should we just ignore this then and pretend they never make commitments and that if they did we shouldn’t expect them to deliver on them ?

O/N deposit 5.19%

3 month fixed 5.29%

So company has had the funds for 6 weeks already ..about £250k interest and will likely have it for another 4 weeks minimum ..

If they had agreed a solution at board level they would have to announce without delay..so they haven’t even come up with a solution to put to the board yet it seems.

Be interesting what they say when they do make their minds up ..but guarantee there will be no apologies for the tardiness of the management in fulfilling its stated strategy.

If they had put it on a 3 month fix they would have to had announced that the timetable by end of Q1 , an already protracted period from original , would not be able to be met as they would not have had funds available to be able to meet that guidance. Sure the interest helps the company gather additional working capital to pay salaries and cash bonus above and beyond the estimated fixed cost base and also will somewhat flatter the financial position to meet certain KPI’s..but i doubt even Nanoco would not have committed to a 3 month fix than mean’t they couldn’t honour their cleat strategic objective of returning capital to their shareholders. The difference between overnight deposit rates and 3 month fixed is likely very marginal anyway. The question why there is absolutely no urgency in even telling shareholders how they are to return capital let alone actually return capital is getting beyond a joke. It is likely now they will miss the promised Q1 to return capital anyway if there is to be some choice of income or capital which was their stated aim.

If Samsung are using lead free in sensors available now is that again potential infringing ..the settlement only cover display i understood. But if they have what might be assumed to be Nanoco gen 2 type offering already are Nanoco behind the competition??

60% was the levels STM were claiming using QD’s in the steckel interview from some time ago but it was well ahead of what silicon was achieving . The actual STM product that is likely featuring Nanoco materials appears to have left that kind of level in its wake. Also shows significant heat tolerance.

https://www.st.com/en/imaging-and-photonics-solutions/vd55g1.html

Unsurprisingly Samsung have been over this space for a while and seem in direct competition to STMICRO. The QE they claim is very similar to that on stm sensors employing Nanocos materials so guess they are going the same route. The gen 1 materials are not protected by the core patents but a gen 2 non toxic metals might..problem is many of our core patents don’t run for that long now.

“Samsung's new high-performance global-shutter NIR image sensor, the ISOCELL Vizion 931”

“ISOCELL Vizion 931 can now capture polarized images in the near infrared spectrum with industry-leading quantum efficiency and advanced global shutter technology, allowing Polar ID cameras to enable the next generation of biometric imaging.”

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/02/26/2834945/0/en/Metalenz-Confirms-Samsung-ISOCELL-Vizion-Image-Sensor-as-Light-Engine-for-Polar-ID-the-World-s-Smallest-Most-Affordable-and-Secure-Face-Unlock-Solution.html

I am arguing that the STM next gen sensors recently released with the performance claimed have QD film to achieve the quantum efficiency stated. As you have alighted to there was likely an end target device for the development program that had the functionality, size , weight and power consumption demands of the device developer. Across all 2000 customers STM have they still have well over 10% of revenues from Apple so there is a very real long term and ongoing relationship and STM have always been a leader in sensing products across a number of industries so who might be tasked to develop IR sensors capable of what Apple wanted to differentiate their device and facilitate Iris recognition, I am not saying that it’s a slam dunk but also that the evidence points to the STM sensors being used and those sensors likely have QDs produced by Nanoco from several years of joint venture development.

Wish I knew! I imagine the company is fully aware of the STM product feature their materials ..but claim not to know the end customer. If they have worked directly on the stm sensors which it appears they have and the reason why they are building a ‘fab’ then I’m sure they would recognise if they were included in the VP very quickly on a minor teardown. Something BT said he would do on any device he thought contained materials if they had not been informed. There are arguments around confidentiality agreements and whether the company actually know the end use..but currently they plead ignorance.

Maybe worth going back to this on STM’S use of QD’s ..Noting quantum efficiency over silicon.

https://youtu.be/K703ZT-71lc?si=_EbSeVhKJFv0NIPr