Member Info for Kooba

So NGR you are sticking with the proposed new directors are likely corrupt.

That is your considered take..you say things like much is open to interpretation yet you shout down any interpretation that does not agree with your own unquestioning opinion.Apparently everyone in the market was wrong apart from the board is not a believable line I'm afraid . Sure you may not agree with a change of control and you give the company one more chance to actually create value and you yourself has said if no commercial traction before the end of the year then the board should go apparently..what happens if they kick it down the road to first half 2024..you still going to advocate change…and then what exactly? Seems your plan is just fingers crossed that a company that has never delivered , delivers in the next 7 months or …..??

Do you think as NGR posted that the proposed directors are likely to be corrupt is a correct use of this social media platform.

“having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.”

Without any evidence of any past misdemeanour whatsoever.

As I have pontificated it does appear to me that NGR has some UNPAID connection to the company as their efforts are largely in defending a management that has seen a collapse in the share price having promised multiples of shareholder value. There are not many shareholders that are so satisfied in what has been delivered against what was anticipated who so unreservedly continue to try to shut down debate and show such unreserved support.

Wow the life you lead..shopping in Asda wining and Dining in Aberdeen.,,living your best life.

Well as to likely ,suggesting , implying..i thought you said these words were evidence of people misinterpreting things and were not in any way facts..you now pepper them around as evidence of me “saying” you are a paid stooge..the “suggesting you are indeed implying” thats a gem!

NGR..the feeling is entirely mutual.

“If your fantasies conclude I’m a paid stooge that’s your prerogative. “

I never said you were paid… if you could show where i did i would be grateful…or do something else.

Your style is a toned down version of one i am familiar with ..I’m sure we will find out soon enough.

Anyway try not to invent narratives. You try to appear the honest investor but really make a lot of stuff up to defend the board who has presumably lost you a fair bit of money in the more than 6 years you have held , if you were invested before BT joined the company as you say…add in that 6 year cost of money his tenure has reduced the value of the business significantly. Do you not think you were over excited about the prospects when you bought in as it has not proved a clever investment?

NGR

So you are saying the proposed new directors are “likely” to be corrupt.

On what basis do you make this allegation..do you think it could be defamatory. That is something you accuse others of but strikes me you just throw around allegations without any basis …so stop playing the innocent. You ain’t.

So i repeat you are likely connected to the company and spend your time singing their praises and saying it is the shareholders who got it wrong not the board. I do not agree.

“Let’s be honest, you want to break the company up and profit individually from it by replacing a board that people suggest are corrupt with one that likely will be”

NGR

“Nanostory is a Hamoodi or a facsimile of Hamoodi attempting to undermine the board. He deserves no favour.”

Please back this up with facts…or do something else.

NGR.

“I’m not signing their praises. Why don’t you just do something else Kooba.”

Really?

I’m perfectly entitled to post opinion here without your permission ..you can always ignore me you know and not feel like you have to respond to my every post , i think thats how it works isn’t it.

But you seem to think nanostory is Mr Hamoodi ..how is that a stooge?

At least Mr Hamoodi can prove he has a shareholding ( and a meaningful one) and we know how long he has held , so he is certainly entitled to an opinion as much as any shareholder and his research seems to be far more in depth around the opaque nature of the litigation and apparent issues around corporate governance ..i read that he had engaged senior counsel in the US on the Samsung case .so has gone rather further than most in forming his opinion. He certainly does not believe every utterance from the board of directors unquestioningly and to do so is far more suspect in my view as many shareholders are feeling let down by the patsy deal and the implications to the share price just now..not singing the boards praises.

That was for NGR.

Can you support that contention?

I can easily just say that you are a stooge or a shill for the current management or the alleged shadow directors…it certainly seems that way.

As for Hamoodi and his activist stance I share many of his concerns and I welcome his research into the company as a fellow shareholder. There is far more detail in the allegations that are supported by evidence than the boards glib denial. For the board to basically say that their shareholders and the market as a whole misread their ‘guidance’ is ridiculous , and trying to sell a settlement that pays $65m for global past and future use hardly justifies many observations by the company around multiples of shareholder value. The patent sale has been very murky and it is unclear whether the company has sold worthless patents in a tax dodge or very valuable patents that are above and beyond the litigation case.

If the former HMRC might wonder on the terms , if the latter why does this form any part of a successful settlement as would appear a totally separate disposal subject to shareholder approval. The communications are very poor …Difficult to know if the board are incompetent in their communications or generally so following the settlement.

Nanostory posts seem well informed and they back up their opinion with relevant regulatory evidence…your adventures in ASDA attempting to give some credibility to the very poor communications record of the company do not.

Nonsense..if the company deems it appropriate to announce partnerships ,collaborations , jv etc to their shareholders it is because they believe it to be price sensitive and will have a material positive impact on future prospects.

To then just leave an open ended communication out there when there is no progress or the expected benefits to not materialise or even any agreement is terminated is disingenuous and leaves a false impression with shareholders on the company’s prospects.

What that has to do with your shopping habits i don’t know , but bad point badly made.

It is what you call guidance and forms expectation in the market. All research is not fact but a best endeavour using available information to predict outcomes. If the company were not happy with the paid for research that they undoubtedly read through or certainly should have for fact checking , they had lots of opportunity to temper any enthusiasm. They obviously were happy with the low end royalty model from TPI and frequently repeated by Edison to be a low end basis of expected outcome. So clearly since both these research sources were freely available to the investment community they are far more material in guidance than some pay walled court documents that the company never guided to. The models in those documents were not actual outcomes either..the company was still going for the high model going into the court date after Samsung’s objections to just about everything were thrown out.

I think most people know what guidance and expectation is and semantics around words such as “likely “ are always part of forecasting any event.

Nb all research estimates were based on sales to end 2021. A further 10m units likly sold in 2022 which would effectively be past infringement by trial date ..based on the mid low end $10 per unit royalty would have added $100m to the baseline numbers in the market.

In terms of misdirection this was Edison after the 9th RNS.

“For context, we have previously calculated that lost revenue in the US attributable to the patent infringement so far could be US$200–250m or more. This figure would increase if non-US sales and future shipments are included. However, a settlement is likely to be based around lost earnings rather than revenues, with a further discount on the potential jury outcome reflecting uncertainties about risk and the time value of money, noting the full trial and appeal process could take years. Lawyers’ success-based fees will also be deducted from the settlement.”

Edison promotional research post 9th January.

So still using baseline $200-250m or higher but saying could be discounted as calculation on earnings over revenue.( and where did they get that information?) what does that mean exactly when based previous guidance was base on a royalty calculation. But also saying that that baseline would be higher for a global peace for global and forward sales so if one took the same methodology on low end $8-10 per unit the baseline could easily double..to then get discounted for early settlement…the above was after the 9th January “clarification” rns.

Edison refer to Turner Pope, Nanoco joint Broker research

“Although the Group has never publicly estimated the potential value of an award from successful litigation, TPI research of 6 June 2022 suggested this could be in the range of US$200m to US$300m for Samsung’s historical US infringement alone.”

TPI research is based on a low end royalty payment not production revenue.

“Assuming that Samsung’s US QD display sales totalled 25m units over the five years to end-2021, upon which it is realistic to estimate a low-end royalty payable to Nanoco in the range of US$8.0 to US$12.0 per display. This amounts to lost revenue in the range of USS$200 and US$300 million for the US alone. Although royalties negotiated might have been expected to taper with rising volumes, Nanoco’s annual take might nevertheless remain on a rising trend to the point of expiry of its various patents.”

Turner Pope joint company broker Oct 2022

Nanonano..that makes sense and although the company say they are unaware of the end use application they have certainly guided to an initial modest market product , so the timing of the headset ..potential initial deliveries before year end makes sense. Edison have been running a larger handset revenue example but seems unlikely to be this year. The numbers on any headset may disappoint but hopefully the end customer wont , just be good to see some commercial production coming out of Runcorn not before time.

I don’t believe i said there had to be ..i am merely pointing out BT’S comments on sensor prospects and how they seem completely unaffected by the validation of our QD display IP. Maybe he was leading another narrative then that iF the infringement trial went against it did not have a bearing on other activity..who knows with Brian..goal posts and narrative can change dramatically in a short timeframe.

Seems differentiated core technology between A and B, C according to our Brian so you would have to ask him ..there may not be direct links between the compounds in development since the first is not using core QD IP.. One can only go on what he says “no connection whatsoever” with our immediate prospects in getting an order in sensors.

But you say you will give the management until the end of the year to get sensor traction and the patent validation has enhanced the opportunity , yet the only chance of an order any time soon ( 12 months at last) appears with material group A which is totally unaffected by the validation in QD patents which iare prominently for display and has no bearing on sensors. Nice try..is that how it goes?