Member Info for Kooba

Pickett also resigned as a director of Nanoco Technologies with immediate effect 19th August 2025.

You could of course just take the announcement at face value.

Maybe the guy has had enough and has just retired as the rns states? He has resigned as director with immediate effect and Nanoco as an employee too and is quite likely working a 6 month notice period.

As to any advisory role that needs to be confirmed but might well relate to the litigation case where he was central to the work done with LG before they walked away.

19/08

“Dr Nigel Pickett, founder and CTO of Nanoco Group, has confirmed his intention to retire from Nanoco. The Company would like to thank Nigel for his considerable contribution to Nanoco Group over the past 24 years, and wish him well in the future. Nigel is stepping down from the Board today, and will remain as an employee with the business until February 2026.”

Meritless? Worthless? You say my opinion is worthless? And you think you have some high ground??

It is predominantly fact based..but you don't happen to like my interpretation do you, it ‘s because you have your own made up answers to why things haven't materialised looking through your rose tinted glasses.

You challenge much that i post because it doesn't suit your super positive narrative yet accept no challenge to your own take.

Grow up.

A chem co is industry a tech investor is financial.

As to doing one JDA …they said there would be many more I thought and none have been forthcoming…so maybe question that rather than the one they got many months ago?

There is nothing to preclude anyone from putting in an offer for the operations and IP …and maybe someone has and it’s all going to come out as a lovely surprise any day now.

Maybe if it is a “tech- investor “ they are waiting to see if the Asian customer moves to scale up phase in material development certainly on paper the company could appear worth more if they had at least one route to near term meaningful revenue as an investment proposition?

By industry ..meaning someone engaged in industrial materials as a manufacturer and wanting to enter or expand their QD exposure or a semiconductor company looking at getting in house expertise in QD’s as well as potential end users.

So you believe a buyer would be financial …difficult to see why.

We also need to consider that the company is not bid proof…far from it.

Someone can just bid for the listed entity ..get everything including the cash and the listing if the company felt like playing hard ball on price. As to protecting UK innovation we need to remember that the company has given a licence in perpetuity over its entire patent portfolio as far as we can tell to one of the largest electronics companies in the world and by far the largest end user. Not sure what would be protected exactly?

Or one could say that the lack of certainty over who owns the operations and IP in future might well put off certain JDA partners from committing to Nanoco to advance their interest in developing materials?

The idea that you could run the separate strategic aims of furthering commercial development whilst openly trying to sell the business was always problematic in my view even if it was done “at pace” now as we move to 1 year from announcing the strategy the uncertainty and the presumably large levels of management time spent on the sale process may well be a negative factor in achieving those commercial ambitions.

I tend to agree on the JDAs ..its difficult to see that any interested party is a financial buyer there is large cash burn and no commercial revenues..cant see the attraction at all unless a patent troll thinks they can squeeze a lot more out of past infringement and licensing from the declining core patent portfolio.

More likely if there is a buyer it will be industry who actually might not want further JDA commitments to potential competitors ?

In terms of DD they announced the sale process a year ago have been actively engaged since the start of this year and a data room has been available for those parties under confidentiality agreements for over 6 months.

The timeline was that post end Q2 they would go into deep DD and negotiating terms in Q3 with the finalists..With site visits etc culminating in an agreement by end Q3 and a completion of the transaction by the end CY.

Things can slip for the right reasons as well as the wrong ones but if there is a competitive situation would one party been keen to have already closed this out ? But pretty soon they should be updating on the process and expectation they put into the market. With results not now due until Nov I’m not sure that they can leave it that long to let shareholders know where they are against the guidance given.

It is true though that there are alternatives to a straight purchase of the operations and IP ie.Nanoco technologies.

Which could involve an investment in the subsidiary or some close jv arrangement .

Might not necessarily be negative but would not give clean exit at a premium that was targeted.

Any significant dilution would have to be approved and Nanoco are not in any funding crisis seeking survival .

The board and CDX have tasked themselves to deliver value to shareholders as they put forward that the listed valuation significantly undervalued the assets…they have had a year to demonstrate that is the case.

But the shares are not signalling a happy ending a year after the conclusions of the strategic review that promised

"The Board is determined to deliver shareholder value as rapidly as possible. The Board is therefore committed to a return of surplus cash to shareholders over the current financial year as and when it is prudent and advisable to do so."

Bit like that return of surplus cash last FY that didn’t happen…what they deliver might not be what they hoped !

Maxi I don’t think the company could take £10m for the operations and IP ..how would that reflect the undervaluation they sought to correct.

What it is doing is adjusting the risk reward of there being an acceptable offer in my view and I have previously said I think the chances are well down on where they were ( from upbeat comments with interims) to where we are now.

Question is without an offer they can justify where that leaves the company, they have clearly said that being a listed entity is sub optimal. They continue to burn £6m a year and need a serious jump ( and renewal) in development work to justify the cost base.

There maybe some settlement with LG but it looks like they will take that to the wire and drag it out.

With 7p cash even with that burn…we are already discounting a no deal to a large extent aren’t we??

Not to say that they don’t get something over the line

What an utter load of crap.

The flaw is you not having an ounce of commo9n sense in interpretations facts.

But your clown show is amusing.

I’m sure you and AI conclude it was obvious that there wasn't going to be a deal if that transpires citing all the reasons of share-price delays and lack of material updates on the process. And you will have amnesia again.

BS , the market…ie there are more sellers than buyers creating a price equilibrium that has seen the EV crater over the past month is very rarely this wrong and to think that the process after a year is going swimmingly and that the chances of there being a large premium to the then market capitalisation is really very naive.

Terry you bandied about figures up to £200m for the operations ….the market now values those assets at £5m right now.

You think my negative interpretation of the factual events is perpetuating the events themselves.

Jeez you and your flipping AI are a comedy act.

Just over a month ago with the trading update that confirmed cash at year end July £14m.

The company valuation was £26m so £12m over cash.

Now the company valuation is £19m s just £5m over cash.

The enterprise value has more than halved in a straight line with the shares down over 25%since the TU.

This has been accompanied by reasonable volume often over average daily volume.

In terms of the value of the business less cash it is extremely significant.

What folks are hoping achieves a value in excess of the IP valuation of £46m is being priced in at £5m.

We are also meant to be on very much the home leg of a process that has been ongoing for a year and we are told is ongoing.

Does this all stack up?

Hadn’t come across ubiqd before but they seem interesting ..well backed with recent funding and commercial sales.

https://www.pv-tech.org/ubiqd-signs-quantum-dot-supply-agreement-first-solar/

Https://www.precedenceresearch.com/nano-quantum-dots-market

The company often cite these things in terms of the industry in which they operate and the growth potential. Unfortunately there has never really been any semblance of the company’s attempts at commercial traction ever mirroring the growth in the industry.

Bit odd since he is so important to the business that they didn’t mention it

“..and will remain as an employee with the business until February 2026.”

Could be he is being kept on as an advisor ..like Edelman was for the LG litigation?

We only saw about the Edelman position in the report and accounts not at the point he left.

Any arrangement should disclosable in the report and accounts.

Though since this was post period maybe we have to wait.

Should be able to see what BT was paid off though and other arrangements in next report and accounts.

He would not be allowed to sell as would be considered inside on the sales process and on the ongoing JDAs and potential ones so until they tell the market and cleanse directors and ex directors …by telling the market the folks that own the company what the outcome is he will be holding whether he likes it or not.

He did take full advantage of the opportunity to sell in the tender…that was when STM were still on board and we were going to be cash flow positive by now so already took money off the table. To be fair with salary and bonuses he has probably done pretty well relative to shareholders.

Think the “know how” argument rather thin when the founder , key researcher and “rock star” is shortly leaving the building.

There may well be non compete arrangements and confidentiality but they cant last that long. How much know how is leaving with him? One would have thought any buyer would want this key person contracted for a few years ..maybe he refused thats why he is off now.

We were told the company would be worth far less without him when the company was fighting off GM’s…it is difficult to see how in the middle of a sale process ,we are told is ongoing ,that the resignation has made the purchase more attractive.

Who knows what’s going on..

Clearly if there was absolutely no chance of there being an acceptable offer they would have to make that announcement to the market ..but to me it appears that things are getting protracted ( agree may be LG ?) or could just be getting the run around by one party still in the mix. From what the company told us on timelines it is doubtful from the vague nature of the recent update that we are further down the path of selling.

April int

“Making progress on strategic options with CDX Advisors LLC ("CDX") - contact made with a broad range of potential investors across relevant industries globally, with several actively engaged

· Expect to receive initial proposals from potential bidders during the summer.”

August trading update

“We continue to assess strategic options for the Group's operating business with a number of interested parties.”

Not progressing, not advanced , not mentioning the timetable previously given of receiving IOIs before end of CY Q2 in Int presentation and drawing to the end of negotiations with the finalists in current Q .

So while it might be fine and dandy and honing in on selling above that valuation figure, all done and dusted by the year end the guide given several times …i being quite clearly slightly less optimistic on them delivering a happy ending than many am getting rather down on that scenario.

To be honest after the April presentation i thought there was a decent chance (75%) of them selling for a good (£47m ^ ) price for the operations and IP . I now am thinking there is a far lower chance (25%) ..maybe others think the same hence the derating on the risk reward opportunity?

Not entirely sure the small director share sales now done some time ago are the cause of the the shares falling precipitously since the trading update. Now down over 20% and some of the volumes are quite high against average daily volume.

Nanoco's average daily volume in recent figures are approximately 387,230 shares over 3 months (from Financial Times)