Member Info for Kooba

If the current management are so confident of them delivering on the organic side which they say they are best placed to do why don’t they buy some shares to better align themselves with their shareholders…they say they are on the cusp of delivering great value but don’t fancy investing a bean.

Chance to average for BT you put £5k in any 37p.

TH owns more shares personally than the whole board.

I notice you have been around only a few days qdnano but suddenly appear highly opinionated on all posts and posters and matters relating to MAR regulations and insider dealing.

I really do not agree with you interpretations of much in these regulations . I certainly admire your unquestioning devotion to the board though , they must be very very proud to have such a loyal shareholder who believes everything they say even when actions and outcomes leave a trail of unanswered questions.

Saying I am stirring discontent or whatever by posting 2 sentences released by the company and pointing out a subtle difference is stretching things…and why many shareholders do not believe much they say (see the share price ) is because in my opinion the recent communications have been misleading and the company has a serial track record of falling at every hurdle. So the share price and disillusionment is down to the management and not the odd post on a bulletin board as you seem to believe.

What they have done is give some optionality as they had introduced a hard target at the interims and they would likely have had to announce a revised expected timetable if they missed the FY23 end ..how much optionality around the FY23 end is yet to be seen.

I disagree as it forms an important part of the company’s guidance to shareholders in organic progress ( see interim presentation) and it is a pre condition to being able to receive any commercial contract from the European customer it must be deemed as price sensitive. As there is a possibility that it is could leak into the market then it should be announced without any delay.

‘The two sensing materials to be validated by the end of July they have 11 days and counting to deliver. ‘ that was correct , however in the small print of the requisition doc

‘We now expect to have two fully validated sensing materials around the end of FY23’

So that indicates to me a move from’ before’ the end of July to ‘around’ the end of July , around not a term often used in science or finance but is opening up some flexibility on previous hard targets ! Unlike them for things to slip !

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

Fool me for 10 years?

Down 60% plus over 10 years before cost of money..its more like a life sentence than an investment.

Still waiting for an explanation of how well the company did from raising funds at 37p from predominantly retail investors just over a year ago with tales of multiples of shareholder value .

Its odd how the board supporters attack the man and not the ball….tell us all the great things Nanoco and this board has achieved. Once again it seems that unless you have suffered as a shareholder for years and years you are not allowed a view , its an odd take. Many might have got involved or supported the fundraise June 2022 at 37p so not exactly short term punters. Explain to them the transformational outcome that was promised with all your high brow intellect and less sarcasm might be a better way of convincing folk of your side of the argument. That goes for the board of Nnanoco too , they are just totally defensive and attacking any criticism very little in the way of justifying an outcome that is unquestionably extremely disappointing to their shareholders..evidence share price not a few fan boys on bulletin boards.

So why are they so good and why should shareholders support them ??

Ddudya

Would a rights issue not have been a much lower cost alternative than the LOAM loan, when you consider the ‘Bonus element’. Why not offered to all existing shareholders?

Interesting question.

Loan notes on ‘success’ up 150%

Equity raise( last year) to retail on ‘success’ down 50%

The loan note holders put nothing into the raise and apart from very small contribution …BT £5000 worth nor did the management.

Success is it for everyone!!

*Threw!

Ddubya I take your point but also would have to say because there was a low model out there it was not the one the company were going to court claiming ..all their models survived Samsung objections so there is no reason to think a settlement would be based on that low model when a settlement was first agreed , after the second announcement they left ( and still do ) confusion in the market by referring to previous guidance , guidance they say they never gave in the latest release. The argument that “One is risk free the other is not. You fail repeatedly to grasp this.” Is poor as there was also significant risk of a far higher settlement and wilfulness and rolling royalty and then further global action for Samsung so going to trial was a significant risk for them. Samsung basically played their hand far better and Nanoco folded for a settlement that not only was towards the lower end but also through in 20% of the company’s patent portfolio.

There was no way anyone could have seen that coming because selling a chunk of patents was never part of anything guided to the market.if it was a straight licensing past and future the argument of research might make more sense but nobody saw that coming or ever professed to.

Does it explain why they were off loading as many as they could to retail market on the 6th when nothing about lower end of guidance was mentioned. If you are saying they knew it was lower end on the 6th they were certainly at a significant advantage over the rest of the market and it would explain their actions.

TG2D..the 14.08% holding is managed by LOAM but is half owned by Strathclyde Pension Fund ..i understand they get to vote their own holding. Rather complicates the position for LOAM voting rights i guess.

Seems one of the patents taken to PTAB validation was sold ..

“Following the validation of all 46 claims in the four retained patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the subsequent licensing of our remaining patent portfolio by Samsung, the Group is confident in the applicability of our IP to other participants in the cadmium free quantum dot display market.”

Non core.

The technology , the patents are owned by the company ..the know how on commercial production of anything is somewhat untested as yet, apart from Samsung using Nanoco’s technology..they idn’t seem to need the CTO to be able to do that ..in spades!

The interesting thing on the oh my god we wont get any orders is that the company has spent 5 years developing a material with STM for a specific purpose..one would have to think that a/ STM’s underlying customer will not stall a device because there has been a change of personnel at a supplier b/ STM cant just go round te corner and buy said materials off the shelf as this unique technology is owned by Nanoco.

Not sure some arguments here and from the company itself hold that much water and are not just set to scare.. but happy to listen why the company has no commercial value without the current CTO.

PVX ..LOAM will back the board. To suggest they won't is nonsense.

What i wrote

“Wonder why LOAM are not publicly backing the board ? “

Did you notice the word “publicly”..quite important in context..i am not making a suggestion that they will not back the board ..i am wondering why they have a sub 1% ii shareholder waxing lyrical on their support in the rns but not the 14% shareholder who carries far more weight.

Reading properly and context are worth the effort.

If retail think that some injection of independence ( no new independent director appointed for 6 years and only one that i think qualifies as independent out of 6 directors) on the board could only be a good thing as there appears precious little independence from a definition under the corporate governance code with half the board being executives. Targeting one or two directors in particular the Chair would be the best way of showing that many shareholders want some refreshment of the board and they expect better corporate governance and communications , i think that would be a positive for the share price as would be some important steps in restoring investor confidence. Haven't decided on all resolutions but will certainly be voting against the Chair staying..has been there over 8 years and i think thats a few too many !

I posted this on the other board

Wonder why LOAM are not publicly backing the board ? Christopher Mills of Harwood ( less than 3%) is one of their mates after all , they own lots of things alongside LOAM and Mr Griffiths ..more big overlaps in some cases giving effective control (over 30%) as was the case with Nanoco if they ever acted together. All good friends and lots of coincidences in their investment strategies it seems.

Popping up 2 paragraphs by a sub 1% institutional holder seems pretty desperate stuff ..these two institutions quoted actually own less than TH on his own yet their voice is more important than retail? This seems to be the crux of it , they seem to look after their minority institutional shareholders yet have no regard to the retail investors that own 75% plus of the business who they take for fools.

Retail predominantly put up the funds at 37p , retail got dumped on by institutional shareholders when the company left an information void and allowed a disorderly market where it appears there was no level playing field in accessed information. Stuffed and stuffed again.

The comments by some of gaining control without paying a premium is amusing..when the allegations made by TH are very much that the show has been run at the behest and the benefit of some minority holders!

Interesting that they are getting two institutions backing the board with less than 4% of the shares..extremely unusual putting such undisclosed shareholders in a company rns. But where is LOAM ??

Folks could look up the links between Harwood , LOAM and RG if they have time..they are all as cross invested as each other. Eg TISSUE REGENIX

Name of Shareholder Number of Shares % of Voting Rights

Harwood Capital (London) 1,104,500,000 15.70

Mr Richard Griffiths (UK) 775,369,000 11.02

Inthallo Limited 783,932,500 11.14

Lombard Odier 654,299,634 9.30

Friends helping friends?

Https://youtube.com/watch?v=RnAP1FgZtTA&feature=shareb

At about 2 mins 30 and repeated further in the presentation.

Multiple material validations ( think 2) FY 23 which is end of the month.

Think they will either hit the timetable given or explain any new guidance.

They repeat as one might expect such validation is a pre condition to any commercial order ..so rather price sensitive and time sensitive to enable the expectation of order visibility by end of current calendar year.

Thank you Nanostory i interpreted date of receipt being day one so it is the day following receipt i suppose.

Still think it reads as if today is the 21st day.

1)Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting—

(a)within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement,

But lets see …still leaving to the last possible moment.

10 business days to confirm validation of materials as guided.

Must be busy at Nanoco towers.