Member Info for Kooba

Utter nonsense from Terry…picking a valuation point where the market thought they would get justice…alas the shares halved and more as reality bit. Zero point in trying to extrapolate a spike one day move …and daft to even try to.

Well the presentation did spell out the events that have transpired for those that listened so no real surprises..but confirmation of both the legal action and second active JDA have certainly turned a few heads. Hope it continues as no intention of selling any unless they move into the mid teens.

If they say things like truly believe and committed..in the terms they did to answer questions posed by shareholders of the companies they are tasked to run .. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than thinking the opposite….

So you dont trust what the new CEO is saying to the shareholders…ok thats a view.

As is we have done well out of our engagements with Apple directly or indirectly..

We have done a lot of very low margin development work i suppose but have received just one commercial order worth a few $100K..They have been some way away from being the ideal partner to progress this business…as to what they are doing with CFQDs in the Apple Mac might be something else to consider. You might have thought the first port of call might be your very long term QD developer..but it seems not.

Also having listened again to that penultimate question at 1.05…he clearly states Nanoco “ belongs in a different form of ownership..”

I’m not sure he can be more hard line on seeking a deeper pocketed trade or financial buyer…whether there is an acceptable buyer at an acceptable price is a different matter.

On listening he definitely says that “STM were working on behalf of Apple” so that clears up who the STM large end user was and how he expects mobile device up take of QD SWIR technology in the next few years….Nanoco effectively been done by Apple twice it seems.

Hellojello

You might want to revisit the presentation…the first question in the Q&As as to whether the board are committed to sell the company or just going through the motions..seems quite clear to me.

“New ownership of the business is absolutely in the interests of the shareholders and the company…

Truly believe it is the path to higher value..

https://youtu.be/8UFpGfe1FiU?si=1m0Z3JZYcwf75yS9

At 32 minutes.

What is the agreement between Nanoco and their legal team I wonder. No win no fee?”

The indication is that the second JDA income will offset the legal fees..i doubt that any decent US firm will be success fee only , but there of course could be success bonuses as with the Samsung case..does this align them with shareholders on the magnitude of a settlement??

As with CDX i understand much of their renumeration will be success based on a sale…though i think there was £200k attributed to the cost of sale process in the last results presentation.

Again quite where the benchmark is set for that success in terms of valuation of the business is not divulged.

Upside downside risk reward is very favourable though.

Your opinion of what a “fire sale “ price looks like and what others think might of course be different..you are factoring in any and every potential positive…others might realise that in the past not every potential positive has been delivered at all or delivered in anything like on the timescales given. It certainly looks like the company has turned a corner on a number of fronts but it is still not a sustainable model and the senior management seem keen to have a change in the ownership structure to better progress the business.

So i remain fairly pragmatic in my expectation and would be delighted to be surprised on the upside.

Not entirely sure what folks expect from EMBERION?

Emberion Limited's latest turnover from December 2023 is £643 thousand and the company has net assets of -£5.4 million. According to their latest financial statements, Emberion Limited has 12 employees and maintains cash reserves of £116 thousand as reported in the balance sheet.

In nothing from LG or other future commercial revenues are in the bag by any means.

And the timing of any future revenues and the costs of having to take on LG if they do not roll over will not be a small matter.

I’m positive but realistic and not counting chickens that haven't hatched…very much not an investment case with Nanoco.

Yes indeed…but there is quite a difference to being cashflow positive and burning through balance sheet..a big one.

If you are burning £6m a year ongoing and will have £13.5m end current financial year..it’s not a bottomless pit and has dropped from over £20.4m during current financial year.

Flying..where is the cashflow positive business you talk of ?? Nanoco burn £500k a month…keep to facts hey.

I am well aware of takeover panel rules ..I am pointing out that the company has traded at cash or even less several times over the past few years and that there was an opportunity to launch an offer for the company at far less than £50m enterprise value being touted by some now…in fact I think if someone launched an offer at 20p now they would probably get it.

Just because you do not agree with a view does not make it illogical..it means you just hope for a better outcome.

I can place a value on the declining cash , the rest of it in terms of what it is worth to potential bidders or even on potential future sales..bearing in mind previous lack of progress ..no idea. So just guessing at a value on knowns and from what the company narrative has said rather than just coming up with a high number because it suits. Everyone loves a high number …but who is going to pay that price. The whole company has been buyable as a listed entity for far less than 30p a share for quite a while in reality and it doesnt appear to have attracted any interest so far.

The narrative remains that the market significantly undervalues the value of the technology that was when the shares were trading at 14p..hence they undertook a strategic review and commenced a sales process to prove that value and find a better and more supportive owner away from being a listed entity.

There are a lot of moving parts in what they are trying to achieve right now ..i have far more faith in the new senior leadership team ..who have put their own money in at 14p putting their money where the mouth is than the previous set up.

I hope that faith is rewarded and that shareholders come first in any proposals in the near future.

30p is not impossible but would involve achieving close to a £50m exit for the operations and IP.

I think that might be a tall order…but something north of £25m must be a realistic expectation which together with the remaining cash would see a 20p plus payout.

Thats if a buyer emerges of course…always best managing ones expectation with this counter.

The company seems in a better position than the end of last year in terms of there being catalysts for revaluation. Over the next 6 months there are several opportunities for further events improving shareholder value.

Offer for company materialising..competitive??

Quick settlement with LG preventing injunction..improved cash or ongoing cashflow position.

Further JDAs with 10 ongoing engagements…sensors or across other sectors?

Other display supply or licensing opportunities in CFQDs.

Hopefully moving into a period of more positive news flow ultimately seeing an agreeable monetisation event this CY.

Probably the market is not yet factoring in the possibilities…but not really that surprising!

“LG's market share in quantum dot TVs is substantially lower than that of Samsung and therefore investors should not expect a similar order of magnitude of settlement.”

“The net impact of litigation costs versus JDA revenues should be broadly neutral on near-term cash burn (£0.5m/month). We believe the current valuation reflects a pessimistic scenario for Nanoco. Quantum dots are still expected to gain significant adoption across sensors and display,”

https://d3s3shtvds09gm.cloudfront.net/7cbdf84913748aa7d39ea078039919ec.pdf

If one thinks about it it is very much in Samsungs interest that Nanoco does challenge infringers to the use of the patents they are now paying for…would they want the competition to be infringing on what should effectively be a monopoly position in mass produced CFQDs??

Only thing is if they want to protect it more aggressively or gain access to use the technology in SWIR sensor products and other applications ..they may come back to buy it all out after all. They may even value an arms length r&d facility to generate novel IP of their own…what a radical idea!!

Certainly dont think LG would want Samsung as the owner of the technology enabling CFQDs their new sets allegedly rely on.

I shall dream of an auction !!