Member Info for Kooba

Nanogeddon

They do not get left with that much i don’t think , they state they want to retain only £20m but not sure the numbers add up if you believe they retain £71.4m ( edison est) from the whole settlement. In fact with the initial tranche giving Net cash proceeds from the settlement (in FY23) of £4.5m added to the cashflow ( source Edison) and the second tranche giving them £59m( current £/$)..they really don't have as much to play with as you state. £63.5m less £33m-£40m leaves between £23-£30m i seems to me. They did have a cash balance of £6m prior to settlement end jan 2023 as well.

The Board intends to initiate a return of between GBP33 million and GBP40 million (or approximately 10 pence to 12 pence per share) using the second tranche of the proceeds of the Samsung litigation ($75 million) which is expected to be received during February 2024. No final decision has yet been taken as to the method of any such return of capital.

-- Nanoco intends to retain approximately GBP20 million of cash (following the return to shareholders) to invest in R&D and commercial activities, a proactive IP licensing programme, payment of debt obligations, and to provide working capital through to the self-financing position that is expected to be achieved during 2025.

NGR..you think nothing this year…i thought you were one who said give them to the end of the year if nothing there needs to be management changes.

I think management changes this year.

I will drop it out of sheer boredom..not saying i am wrong on anything mind you.

If it comes out as a low case couple of M a year order..don’t say the company didn't tell you…because they will be quick to say they did. That would still be great though and hopefully a lead into other products and markets.

This is teeing up for another disappointment.

So to keep it simple a yes or no question

Are the company anticipating a mass market product order before the end of CY2023 from the information we have available , yes or no.

Its not for accounting purposes..where do you even get that from. The low case is in the outlook statement which is meant to be a full and true update of the business to their shareholders..not lets pitch it there for accounting reasons , thats nonsense.Also as far as i am concerned this company is not known for being very conservative in its guidance on price sensitive matters !

Yes they (officially) do not know exactly what it will be use for , but they couldn’t say under confidentiality if they wanted to anyway . I am however pretty sure they have a better idea than you and what it means to future production requirements and they have guided accordingly.

You re an exceptionally rude and ill informed individual aren’t you NGR and seem to pretend that you are better able to interpret communications than anyone else…but you can’t at all.

They are indeed saying that an order could be many things but with all the information they have they assume it to be low volume..that is it they assume.

Now

assume

verb [ T ]

UK /əˈsjuːm/ US /əˈsuːm/

assume verb [T] (ACCEPT)

to accept something to be true without question or proof:

So whilst there is a possibility that they may be wrong in their assumption and the order could be larger or indeed fail to materialise that is their working position that they have shared with their shareholders to give them guidance. Saying they are not anticipating a mass market order is entirely in line with the expectation they have shared with the market. That they have quantified a low case by placing an monetary value on where they assume an order will be.

This may change and yes there could be a large order ..but they are not anticipating that as things stand…which was what i posted. End of..you wast time and energy.

NGR..are up you OK?

You seem very confused around the accounts..it is nothing to do with numbers apart from they have to make assumptions around cash flows to make forecasts .. it is written in the outlook statement i am referring to that and it in no way alludes to them assuming or expecting a mass market adoption.

They assume …with far more information available than you possibly have ..a low volume case and put an annual revenue figure against that in the presentation ..that is what forms expectation .

Although things could change their expectation at that point in time was not for a high volume mass market device application..they have not changed that guidance…so far.

Maxi…with £20m odd in the bank the company just about moves to self financing on the interest receivable ! But agree the unchanged expected timescales to cash flow breakeven even with likely working capital cost increases in meeting any order do not point to anything more than the few £M a year mentioned…to kick things off..from there things could ramp up quickly but lets get a first order and understand the application and potential first.

Oct 2022 preliminary results

“We expect to achieve at least 20% revenue growth in FY23 based on a stronger opening order book, an increasing range of R&D services being offered to a broader base of customers, and an assumed low volume use case for commercial production orders commencing in H2 FY23. A larger or earlier use case for sensing materials would clearly improve the outlook.”

So apart from being pushed back again to end CY2023 ..assumed low volume use case remains the position.

If you think that means expect a mass market adoption then fine , but to me that remains the current guidance from the company as to what a first order might look like if indeed one is received..if they are now assuming a mass market use resulting in higher revenues larger than a few M a year referenced in the results presentation then they should update on the position.

In the meantime my comments are aligned to the boards communication and are no inaccurate in any way.

Position* is assumption.

No he didn't the wording was our position again you will see it in the accounts and our preliminary announcements is a low volume case ..a few million pounds worth a year…

If’s its bigger great..

This is not an accounting thing..this is their current assumption of size of the initial order

I’m unclear why you have an issue with what is said.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AwdE4xAf6xY&feature=share8 @ 1.0330

NGR..our position on NEDs is not correct…they don’t get options and are actively encouraged to use their own resources to buy shares to align themselves with the shareholders they represent.

As to BT assume a low volume case…is his words not mine. That very much leads on to do not expect a mass market product. If you want to interpret his comment differently that is up to you but does in no way make my comments misleading..so it is you that is being stupid and pedantic. If you have a problem with BTs stated assumptions then take it up with him..tell him he is either misleading investors or being stupid. Ffs grow up.

Much correct here on any contract even low volume could be transformative..also

“Under an agreement signed in May 2020, ST is committed to taking a specified minimum volume of nanomaterials from Nanoco if its enhanced sensing devices gain market traction and commercial volumes are required.”

But it’s more the validation by a global customer that will lead to others (some already in much smaller trials with Nanoco) and the main end use customer rolling out the functions in wider product range if successful that is the prize. I am not belittling an initial low volume order,,far from it but think that one needs to manage short term expectation on what might be the initial commercial take up by listening to what has been said. Many , including me have been accused of getting over excited by the prospect of the litigation settlement ..which i think was ill managed by the company. However they may have realised that once you get expectation high it is difficult to get it back into the bag , therefore on the organic side maybe they are indeed assuming and talking low and hoping for a larger result. Some consistency and delivery of news that is seen as a positive is rather overdue.

NGR

Kooba yes I realised what you meant about one second after posting 🙃

Problem is NGR you don’t seem to realise much and go out of your way to be misleading by replying to posts with completely unrelated replies or just accusing posters such as me of being inaccurate without any justification. You seem to be serially wrong on many takes as I have pointed out..perhaps try and be more on point and less antagonistic hey.

I quoted BT from presentation their assumption is ‘a low volume case’ application and provided a link..how am I being inaccurate.

If you interpret ‘assume a low volume case’ as assume a mass market case then it is clearly not me who is being inaccurate and not listening to what the company has said.

I pointed out they claim not to know the end use and give other examples ..but moving away from the actual company assumptions is a dangerous thing here as they couldn’t even meet the low end of expectation recently and are not masters at managing expectation generally. Having an overtly bullish take on their pronouncements has not proved the way to be.

Nanoco gave an update recently they anticipate receiving an order from the European customer before the end of the calendar year , they anticipate that initial order will not be for a mass market product. If there was no chance of this happening because STM had informed them that material a was a non starter…then of course they would have to update market without delay, if an order is brought forward or anticipated increased scale they will likely update depending on visibility…or just announce if there are concrete details.

So as things stand we should still expect a fairly modest order this year…which obviously could grow significantly if the sensor is rolled out to other mass market devices.is the market concerned at the company delivering on the expectation ..sure looks that way!

Maxi only if there was certainty and immediacy of orders…getting an order is part of their well published plan for decades and the recent updates have guided to the anticipated level and the timing..if that guidance has changed they maybe should let shareholders know. But PDMRs are not permanently restricted just in case that they get an order..for most companies that is rather the reason for their existence. So i doubt they are currently restricted from dealing…in the last presentation BT did comment that they had taken salary cuts at some point and has share options and didn't feel he needed to be buying shares..this is not the view of the code of governance …so i don’t really get the argument . Directors who say how well their company's are placed and want to show their confidence in such declarations after a significant fall in the share price should maybe back it up to look serious.

Maxi I think there are no grounds to think the directors are restricted , not in close period and they have updated on their expectation of organic orders so unlikely that there is anything in the 1st half current financial year..as they have clearly guided away from that timeframe recently. They can buy but don’t wish too it seems to me.

I was clearly talking about executives investing in the companies they run , not NEDs… NEDs should not be getting options where they serve on the board in any case, but are free subject to MAR restrictions to make purchases with their own resources, a good thing as it aligns them to ordinary shareholders…very few apart from Turcan trade the shares in companies where they serve!!

I very much like to see executive directors using their own resources to buy shares in the company they run ( and take large amounts of shareholder cash out of) it is also seen as an important part of good governance that the executives align themselves with their shareholders by doing so ..in many cases building holdings of a certain size relative to their renumeration over a period of years. Here this is not the case and the bulk of exposure is through nil priced options ..not at more challenging preset strikes. If a CEO goes around saying

Brian Tenner, said: “We are closer to commercial production than at any time in our 20 year history, with orders anticipated by the end of 2023.’

and

“Our organic growth runway is now underpinned by a firm financial footing following the monetisation of the group’s IP portfolio as a result of the outcome of the lawsuit.“

After previous comments that the litigation was the cherry and the organic business the cake…we now have certainty around the very modest cherry but have ‘ free cake’ with the best prospects in 20 years …he is not tempted to back his own calls with his own money.

The whole board has less equity than TH ..and seem to have no intention of taking advantage of the opportunity they believe has been presented.