Member Info for Kooba

Qdnano..im not sure you were able to follow Brian…it was a poorly worded question as it goes but what he said based on the current share price is that if they went ex a 12p dividend from here then they could go to 4p and there was nothing they could do about it if people sold down the whole distribution …fairly simple and what i an others were explaining..Brian agreeing.

What he can’t do is control the share price ..as he said he thinks folks selling at current levels are illogical and that the shares were significantly undervalued..it doesn't mean a lot to the market. Not the first ceo to say his shares are undervalued…not all of them were right further down the line.

Which question would that be..i asked two?

And both were sidestepped.

If you think it was me that asked about the renumeration policy and BT being woefully short of company policy..that was not me. But i presume someone on here who had read my earlier post.

Cringe away…the company state their policies it should then be up to them to ensure compliance not for an executive to make excuses why they don’t.

Such policies part of best practise governance guidelines are to show alignment with shareholders..it is also recommended that directors use their own resources rather than rely on nil cost incentives to show alignment.

I believe BT has only ever used £5000 of his own money to buy shares in the placing at 37p which is a drop in the ocean compared to the monies taken out of Nanoco since joining.

Brian Tenner appointed executive director Aug 2018.

Nanoco renumeration policy July 2022

All Executive Directors to acquire and retain shares with a value equal to 200% of salary.

Basic Salary

The increase in pay for Brian Tenner on taking up the role of CEO was made in two tranches: the first increase to £250,000 occurred in FY22 eleven months after taking up the role, and the second, to £275,000, commences in FY23.

Current holding after last freebies..tax and costs covered by shares sales into market.

1,157,834… value less than £200k.

So after more than 5 years on the board he fails to meet Nanoco’s own renumeration policy.

Mention fools and qdnano turns up…coincidence?

Nothing much to hang your hat on with the results…customer still pondering validation of the 2 materials that was expected before the end of July . This validation is a condition of receiving any order…though they say they are discussing terms for a modest first order..

‘As previously announced, the size of any first production order for the materials in final validation is likely to be modest in scale, potentially a few million devices, with consequently low associated revenue.’

They obviously know the potential end product but one has to question why terms are being discussed if the materials are not validated after many months of completion of the work packages.

Only fools are the ones that don't ask questions over the governance of the company.

Ask whatever you like.

The webcast is 10am tomorrow.

You can put questions in advance.

It’s difficult to know why Shoei bought the assets and not the legal entity..but it splits the assets from any historic liability for infringement. It’s difficult to know as Nanosys what the terms of the acquisition were and whether any proceeds were paid out to Nanosys shareholders..which would leave the legal entity without any assets to sue? Far more difficult going after directors or shareholders and the operating assets held away. Just guesswork that the structure of the deal was around potential litigation though.

Thought this interesting on the Nanosys deal.

https://www.whathifi.com/news/could-nanoled-be-the-next-big-thing-in-tv-technology

The other thing on the transaction is that Shoei has bought the operating assets and not the actual company leaving Nanosys as a shell , could this be for legal reasons?

Well the company think there are only a couple worth pursuing from their heat map and it seems unlikely they will be making any moves for the time being as they need to construct a case proving their infringement before approaching them. Again although there are possibilities that some companies approach Nanoco to license there seems little near term possibility of bringing an ongoing infringer to the table and the sums involved based on the actual Samsung past and future licence apportioned cost would likely be very small fry on like for like basis.

The only thing with the current price is that it is not discounting the company delivering on its stated aims so further delays might not be that relevant to the share price . What might be more of an issue is the credibility of the management team, they have justified much on the basis of delivering first commercial orders before the year end and it being the starting point for growing revenues. They said that if share holders didn’t support them this commercialisation could be jeopardised..without genuine clarity of where the company is on delivering a sustainable business questions must be asked about the management structure. Share holders supported mostly through fear of the unknown and the possibility of missing long awaited commercial opportunity ( was not going to happen ) so if they fail to deliver now the position of Chair and CEO will be debated further ahead of the AGM I’m sure.

Historic price movement would indicate we would see some strength ahead of positives on organic progress..

The context of the settlement set by the company was that it puts a line under the affair and means they can focus on the organic side. Many seemed to interpret this as they took down to clear the decks for the ‘transformation’ in the company progressing a sustainable organic business and that the ongoing litigation might be an impediment to getting commercial traction…i never saw that as being a realistic argument and the lack of observable progress on any front since Jan seems to indicate there was no imminent reason to settle quickly.

If commercialisation is kicked further down the road one might question the reasoning to settle at a discount to likely court award, especially because we handed global rights and 118 patents over in the process.

Nanonano

Ref webcast

I emailed nanoco@mhpc.com to register interest as pi.

I received a prompt reply

Thank you for your email.

We will register you for the conference call and will send you details of how to join the call prior to the presentation of the preliminary results.

I love the TH was pumping BS…when it was RG and LOAM that were doing the huge dumping. If you really want to know who was pumping you really have to look who was dumping! Otherwise pointing fingers elsewhere looks plain dumb.

A little bit of joined up thinking leads to who benefitted if there was any whipping up expectations.

NGR

From that everyone extrapolated and as I’ve seen elsewhere before rumours get turned into facts. If they’d added that a negotiated settlement which was their preferred outcome (fact) would;with discount for blah blah, be significantly less I guess you’d have no cause for complaint, but because they didn’t ….

You must not forget that those comments on multiples were in relation to settling the litigation which was historic US sales not all past and future sales and 118 patents thrown in. Extrapolating that in must be a far far higher figure than was being put up in their sponsored material. Then discount back for early settlement …

NGR

RE: No changeToday 12:23

I believe TH was responsible for some of the whipping up of expectations. I believe the $500m figure came directly from him and it ties in with his twitter alias view.

Do you have any evidence to support this post..on whipping up expectations or that TH was responsible for any twitter account. He hardly hides in the shadows.

Looking forward so some hard facts on these allegations.

August 2020

MILPITAS, Calif. and TOKYO, Aug. 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Nanosys and Shoei Chemical today announced that the companies have entered into a Quantum Dot materials supply and service agreement. Under the agreement, Shoei Chemical will manufacture Nanosys' proprietary Quantum Dot materials exclusively for Nanosys.

Transaction pr.

https://nanosys.com/press-releases/shoei-chemical-acquires-quantum-dot-business-from-nanosys

Dr. Martin Devenney, CEO of Nanosys. "Retaining our brand identity while benefitting from Shoei's manufacturing capabilities has proven to be a winning formula for our customers and the industry. Together, we will continue to lead the way in delivering cutting-edge quantum dot materials."

Just putting the ownership of the IP and the manufacturing together..would be interesting to know the financials. I don’t think Nanosys were strapped as raise good money last year.

Just appears a natural commercial deal to put Nanosys under a bigger wing.

Yep I’m a trivia kinda guy!

Off on my hols so watching from a distance.

Stay away from the dark side.

Keep ‘em peeled maybe some developments away from the actual GM i hear.

Troublesome..i was one of them in Hurricane i guess…nigwit said the restructuring, highly diluting shareholders was a no brainer rubber stamp and the shares were worthless…we said otherwise and the restructuring was blocked by an activist investor and the shares jumped in multiples. The same nigwit fellow is currently all over the advfn site in Nanoco as Quantum Leaper1 ..caught them out on posting something in Hurricane that gave them away, bang to rights , although they had previously denied outright being nigwit….didn’t deny it just said no one was interested if he was said nigwit or not. Which is probably true..but i don’t like liars.

Bad at law and worst a psychoanalysis but tends to pop up under various guises..not difficult to recognise from the posts though…same style..or lack of it.