Member Info for Kooba

Oh so the evidence you post was irreverent ..i see.

So not you post about options strategies where there are underlying options where you can hedge against dividend distribution.

How is this in any way relevant to a small company with no options traded??

Your premise that a £60m market cap company will still be valued at £60m post distributing £40m is a work of fiction I’m afraid. If you don’t understand don’t post against those that do.

NGR

It’s gotten to the point here that Kooba and 2GTD simply argue everything even when presented with evidence. Pretty pointless discussion really when one side is completely entrenched.

If you ever produced evidence to support the nonsense you post that would be the day !

Your distribution arbitrage is just talking rubbish…making stuff up is not evidence it is just talking nonsense.

“Nanosys were very proactive in communication, with regular blogs, an excellent youtube channel and really put themselves about at shows. How did that turn out?”

Thought they were taken over ..terms unknown . So how did it turn out??

You are really getting in a pickle aren’t you.

I do know what arbitrage means sunshine …what exactly are the different markets you are simultaneously dealing in?? Hong kong , NY …oh no they are only traded in the U.K. there is no arbitrage opportunities.

You will either be dealing in the stock cum distribution or ex if it is a dividend , capital distribution or tender. A share buyback obviously different.

But you think by paying out £40m the company will effectively increase in value by £40 million…no it will not.

The company will have just over £60m cash and is valued slightly below £60m

If the company has £20m cash it will not be valued at £60m ..it will likely be valued at £20m.

Go find another hill…

A few interesting blog pieces from QS they seem more proactive than Nanoco in communicating about the market opportunity in QDs and SWIR although they are private with few shareholders.

https://quantumscis.com/news-and-blog/

‘Kooba re the dividend you need to understand arbitrage. ‘

I do I assure you , you don't it seems..

You think folk will buy the stock up 12 p to 29p to get 12p and then have a share with only 6p in cash left. You think they will trade at over 12p premium to cash whilst currently trading at a discount.??

As it stands meaning if there was no material change in the fundamental situation and its a straight 12p capital repayment or dividend. As I have posted a favour a premium tender offer.

But my comment on the market cap stands however they make a distribution…the market cap will likely adjust to the distribution…you need to understand ex entitlement adjustment.

Agree Bluerill far too small to consider NASDAQ listing and since the company is fully funded little reason to go for dual listing. As things stand the current market cap will drop by approximately the promised capital return so the company will be valued even lower in the absence of a significant rerating.The only way there will be a such a rerating is if there is a clear ly demonstrated path to sustainable commercialisation. Little reason to be spending more money on another listing further expanding the fixed cost base , they just have to deliver on their stated organic strategy and build a growing income stream.

I tend to agree with steakandale it is getting late in the day to not have nailed down a component with an important disruptive technology in the supply chain ..as has been pointed out, its not like they can just buy QDs elsewhere developed specifically for STM SWIR sensor use.If they have produced a limited quantity of headsets incorporating components not yet validated and contracts agreed i would find that strange as it presumably gives the supplier a strong negotiating position if its part giving a vital part of the AR experience is being demonstrated.

Who knows , but i also agree with Nanonano at the timings and scale of production/revenue contraction all aligning to vision pro…Nanoco though have no control of the situation and are at the mercy of two massive companies..what could go wrong.

Nanonano…why did Nanoco not take that approach, i seem to remember TH proposed chair saying it was the way he would have approached Samsung US infringement using ITC to block import. Funny though Samsung …the poacher turner gamekeeper role.

LordMW…he loves a bit of facebook , easy to find.

Probably not that clever using such social media imho.

Well it certainly seems some folks consider LOAM to be better informed with the timing of their trades than the market generally…hardly surprising with past events.

I see BT is over in New York ..’in meetings’..the lines could be getting busy!

I doubt that very much. Firstly why would LOAM be buying shares from anyone to avoid legal action. If TH had been the seller they would have to announce going below 3%. Not sure that anything to do with the as i understand ongoing legal action has anything to do with the trade.

It could have been clearing a known overhang , it could have been a motivated seller that LOAM facilitated clearing..who knows. The interesting thing is the market ignore all the positive noises from the company…but when loam BUYS some are happy to follow in it seems. What does that tell you about trust.

I can’t say its a big gamble because the prospective organic business and the remaining patent portfolio is value at nothing so can only really provide upside if they deliver on their latest optimistic targets. With 18p cash in the bank by end of Feb 2024 is rather difficult to come up with much of a downside scenario even if there are further disappointments in delivery of the organic strategy. So far more upside than downside i reckon .

Agree those points ..especuially on secrecy and the European customer business when Nanocos own marketing material names STMicro..all seems a bit late rowing back on who the European customer is. The thing that is strange though is that we are very close to pro -vision launch and one would have thought they the underlying customer or the supplier STM have not nailed down key supplies. From an earlier article from STM it indicated that they would be manufacturing their own sensors and QD film so although likely a QD only arrangement one would still think that this close to launch the supply chain needs to be secured and prepared.

‘Have Apple agreed an exclusive supply contract with STMicro to give them a headstart over competitors?’

Does it appear anything is agreed yet?

I know some don’t see the validation confirmation as that important , but since the company says that any contract is conditional on validation which has not been forthcoming from STMicro let alone what i agree appears their primary customer it seems rather previous to talk of any agreement being in place.

Interesting take…..but if (with their knowledge of negotiations & pipeline) they felt the SP was undervalued and that shareholders would benefit more from a buy back, I'd be OK with that.

So if they knew something good was coming you would encourage them to buy shares in the market to benefit shareholders ? Who would they be buying these shares from with their non public knowledge of good things to come, and would buying shares from shareholders ahead of good news be helping them ?

I note the analyst on Nanoco at Edison has changed since the Samsung settlement.

Nanoco interims 28th March 2023

…the Group is confident in the potential applicability of our IP to other participants in the cadmium free quantum dot display market. At present that market is dominated by Samsung but as QD TVs capture a larger share of the total flat panel TV market, and as more market participants create or expand their market presence, the economic case for enforcement of our IP will grow in the medium term.

The group will explore opportunities to encourage market participants to take a license over Nanoco's IP as an alternative to potentially costly future litigation. We have retained a Special Adviser for the next steps in our IP licensing strategy..

The STmicro development agreement does factor in minimum ( undisclosed to the market as usual ) production revenues…since the company mention any order could now be in $100ks rather than $ms it appears that minimum order size is very small relative to the development time involved in producing a commercial material.

‘The agreement also commits ST to taking a specified minimum volume of nanomaterials from Nanoco if the enhanced sensors gain market traction and commercial volumes are required. These materials would be produced at the existing facility dedicated to sensing applications in Runcorn.’

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2021/10/st-to-start-quantum-dot-image-sensor.html

Does seem previous to be talking contract terms..the company have guided to even more modest revenues than with the interims , sub $1m now rather than several $M so clearly have a decent idea of the potential end market ..previously had been saying that they had no idea of end product or customer.so whilst that might be narrowed down any contract is still conditional on material validation , something they don’t guide on having missed earlier expected timescales as they say that is in STmicros court ( or likely the underlying customer ) . The work packages were completed in April and validation expected before end of July. So whilst this delay may not impact on receiving a modest contract before the calendar year end as they reaffirm ( and yes that could be the start point for much wider roll out next year) one might think talking any terms before validation looks odd.