Member Info for Kooba

The thing is the original documented commitment was to commence the capital return “shortly” after receiving the second tranche, to do this they would have needed to be prepared before the event.. Now even if they announced how they are to do it there would be a further 3-5 week delay depending how they do it before shareholders get any money , so we are already looking at likely 8 weeks from receipt of 2nd tranche before any cash. The uncertainty is also a concern ..it could put potential buyers off if they think it will be all special dividend as not tax efficient. My concern is not that they don’t complete a capital return but more that once again we have unhappy investors whose expectation of some swift action are disappointed and we have uncertainty around what is a key capital event that they have had many many months to have got prepared for. If they can’t organise something with such prior notice it does not reflect well on a managements ability to be moving into a rapidly developing commercial environment.

Their position would be completely untenable if they just said they have changed their minds.

Whilst I might argue about the timing , method and even possibly the exact amount that they are to return..I have no doubt that they are to make a return to shareholders.

“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.” 24/01/24

It’s a commitment whilst not defined there would have to be an overwhelming and pressing unforeseen reason to not make any payment.

They may not pay the top amount if the funding for the device facility has eaten into cash balances but trading is in line so should be not financial surprises.

Think they are just slow at announcing the return considering how long they have had to sort out a preferred method. But there will be a return in line with the longer term commitment I am positive.

Nanonano interesting on the US regs on underlying customer but with Nanoco their actual customer is STM as they have sort of confirmed they were the first commercial order…and it was unlikely to be anyone else anyway.

It could be they have been informed who the underlying customer is but have been bound by an NDA ..how far that NDA goes if others could tear down and see that nano materials were present is a point.

If they do know and have consistently said they do not know and that they would tear down anything they thought contained their materials, it all starts getting rather deviously and misleading.they could say they know but for commercial reasons cannot disclose…they do that enough of the time. The problem with the underlying customer is if the company know and don’t disclose and it leaks they have a problem.

It would be very surprising if they didn’t know the actual STM sensor product that might contain a quantum film with their materials less so if they did not know where the sensors were being actually used or trialled by STM underlying customers. They have said they will work towards finding out where their materials are used if they’re are not informed so the Apple VP is an obvious place to start.

VP also has Optic ID which apparently uses the same sensors used in eye and gesture tracking..something near IR and SWIR sensors can handle.

If one uses the little information there is available it very much points to the STM IR sensors are in the VP, however the broader market for the VD55G1 once more widely available next month could be a catalyst for growing demand. One can only hope.

Not new out but might be of interest towards the end.

Came across this which references the VD55G1 SWIR sensor that has been suggested as an STM SWIR sensor launching officially next month but possibly being in the VP that our gen 1 materials might be used in.

The referencing to quantum film could point to our materials and the range of applications could be taken as encouraging that this is the STM product involved wHICH could have wide applications as well as AR/VR.

Who knows..not even Nanoco apparently..they must be aware of STM products and must be aware of the likely use in devices such as VP..As they previously said they should be getting busy to prove the use as they said they would?

https://www.st.com/content/dam/AME/2023/sensors-converge-2023/pdf/sensors-swir-time-of-flight.pdf

Morbox ..indeed interesting how DEC are going about offering return of income or capital…could be very similar mechanism here .

I also note the timescale involved! It appears as the scale of the tender is not anything like the size Nanoco would require that they need the GM but Nanoco only has very limited authority in place for share buybacks.

I noticed in the last AGM they got authority to call a GM on reduced notice…but proposals would not be made on such a basis unless they were time sensitive…

Anything put to GM would if approved have to be implemented so time ticks on.

Special Resolutions (12 to 15) continued

Resolution 15 - Reduced notice of general meetings (other than Annual General Meetings)

Resolution 15 will be proposed to enable the Company to call general meetings (other than Annual General Meetings) on 14 clear days' notice. Changes made to the 2006 Act by the Companies (Shareholders' Rights) Regulations 2009 (the "Shareholders' Rights Regulations*) increase the required notice period for general meetings from 14 clear days to 21 clear days, unless shareholders approve a shorter notice period, which cannot be less than 14 clear days. Annual General Meetings will continue to be held on 21 clear days* notice. Resolution 15 seeks approval to retain the flexibility available before the Shareholders' Rights Regulations came into force on 3 August 2009. It is intended that the shorter notice will only be used where it would clearly be to the advantage of shareholders as a whole and it would not normally be used where the proposals to be put before the meeting are not time sensitive. The approval will be effective until the next Annual General Meeting of the Company after the passing of the Resolution, when it is intended that a similar resolution will be proposed. Note that in order to take advantage of the reduced notice period of 14 clear days, the Company must make a means of electronic voting available to all shareholders for that meeting

Block me then …simples.

Ah Daz the self proclaimed TA genius how is the short term uptrend looking , still intact?

I will continue to have a moan thank you for your permission.

Sometimes i start earlier and knock off early..but glad my work is followed so closely.

If you don’t gain anything from my posts both the boards i post on have ignore facilities.

But if you weren’t moaning about me i guess you’d have nothing else to post about??

Anyone who invests in shares and doesn’t focus on a company creating shareholder value maybe is in the wrong line.

Most technology companies are valued on their prospects not on their balance sheet..enterprise value.

That enterprise value is based on the potential of the company and its technology in the market the company faces and investors confidence in the management delivering on their commercial strategy to grow a meaningful profitable business over time.

Nanocos valuation in years past has been largely enterprise value now it forms very little value.

What is that telling us about the organic value that has been delivered or is now expected?

Yes the company is now better funded but share holder and investor confidence in them delivering value above and beyond is almost at a low point since listing.

The market may be very wrong here as they were ahead of the court case..but that doesn’t happen very often when companies are straight and transparent.

Normally water off a ducks back but i don’t tolerate fools gladly and has been evidenced am prepared to defend against such attacks. More than happy to keep it on a rational conversation about the company as the contribution of guys like Nanonano and many other less frequent visitors does give food for thought. I think any management is not above challenge but believe it or not i would like nothing better than Nanoco to deliver a sustainable and growing commercial business leveraging off the 22 years of it existence..but unfortunately there have been many trips along the way and much over enthusiasm by the company and shareholders. One needs to step back and have a reasoned view and experience dictates not taking anything for granted with this counter.

Good luck to them , it reenforces that some just don’t like certain posters or what they say and have little ability to make a rational argument against them themselves i guess.

I have no problem with alternative opinions on the stock and i often counter if there is something clearly straying from fact based assessments ..everyone can put forward reasonable interpretations and challenge others views to the extent that it is reasonable and supported.. Thought that was the point of such a bulletin board.

Just whinging without any specific point that you don’t like the poster or what they post is a waste of a post though…serially doing so is basically not worth reading.

Obviously i would welcome folks who do not appreciate posters ..such as me . to exercise their right to block me too , rather than post whinging tripe!

But at least most comments relate to the company not just aiming at other posters ,just commenting on the posters who contribute opinions whilst having no counter opinion or any relevant thoughts at all is truly sad.

I don’t pop many on ignore but i reckon Nanonano is a pretty good judge of character,

Quantum science still pushing but still no orders it seems.

https://www.printedelectronicsnow.com/contents/view_breaking-news/2024-02-14/quantum-science-launches-new-qd-products-on-merck-sigma-aldrich-platform/

Last report and accounts

https://wp-nanoco-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/10/Nanoco-Group-plc-%E2%80%93-Annual-Report-and-Accounts-2023.pdf

Page 81 shows the option position.

The question ..and i am no HR guy is whether the deferred bonus shares which vest in some situations such as a takeover might vest in a capital distribution…it may be delays are around making sure they do as it adds up to a fair bit probably depending how they do it…guessing who this repayment will suit might want to focus here!

The amount of money these guys take out when the value of the company has shrunk is quite obscene really. Salary , cash bonuses , options etc etc ..even when shareholders get no value creation they rip loads out.

That should be £40m not 440 !

This applies

When options vest, it means you’ve “earned” them, though you still need to purchase them.

So it will not apply to all the outstanding options that have not been “earned” ie met criteria set for them to vest , but may apply to a small amount that have actually already vested unclear on the amount. May not be many some directors exercised and sold sufficient to pay the tax last year. Might try to work out how many shares could be involved ..but not too concerned.