Member Info for Kooba

I think 16p a share equivalent for the operating business and IP on top of the cash in the listed entity would be a right result right now as it goes..assuming the buyer takes the operating liabilities as well as assets!.

23p a share pre wind up costs…probably only 18p to shareholders post knowing nanoco!.

Bank.

A ludicrously pessimistic assessment would be to see no offers and the company failing to achieve commercial sales in the next two years i guess ,whilst burning £6m a year trying to …

They have basically failed in achieving any commercial traction for the last 20 years in terms of track record ..but past history is no guarantee of future performance.

I guess we need to assess the lifetime of key patents when assessing the value and the attractiveness to potential buyers…also perhaps a factor in looking at a protracted sales process when the sole value rests with the IP ?

“In 2028, Nanoco Group will have several patents expiring, including key patents related to their quantum dot technology.”

At the time of the pulled FSP they had 8 years still to run..

TICK TOCK

Worth much more to whom though… no point to talking big values if no one is prepared to pay those levels…and you have a company that is burning £500k a month with no commercial sales.The real value was in by far the biggest display manufacturer in QD enabled screens securing a licence to use the IP for the life of the patents ..that is already banked.

The FSP was abandoned in April 2020 not because of suing Samsung in Feb…something called COVID apparently.

Nanoco Group has decided to halt its formal sales process (FSP) due to the impact of COVID-19 on the markets.

The business, a spin-out from Manchester University which develops materials used in the manufacture of monitors and TV screens, started formal moves regarding a possible sale on November 5, last year.

“But, in its interim results announcement today, it said due to the disruptions caused by COVID-19 the economic climate remains “highly challenging” and, as a result, the board has concluded that it is unlikely the sales process would produce an attractive outcome in such an uncertain environment.”

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2059243-tech-firm-halts-sales-process-due-to-impact-of-covid-19-on-markets

Interesting reading the end of this piece …same old same old!!

Https://www.edisongroup.com/research/encouraging-commercial-progress/BM-1530/

£33m paid out and market cap £15m ..£48m

Then there’s cost of money…something Nanoco are keen to raise when it suits.

Assuming every investor tendered and sold in a specific window is a stretch…not even the CEO at the time tendered a share because was so confident of the commercial prospects apparently…judging by the results and the large percentage that Loam sold many Pis did not tender.

Think many would be happy to take 16p plus interest right now.

Every process should have a determined target timeline to achieving strategic aims…things should not be open ended. Hence why the said it would be done at pace originally and that they would move quickly if there was serious interest.

If they have had no initial proposals in over 6 months I would venture it is unlikely that an acceptable offer will materialise. Whether anyone is in the data room doing any due diligence is unclear with no initial proposals having been put in yet why lift their skirts?

Idea of timeline on FSP no reason why a sale of an operating subsidiary where no shareholder approval necessary should take as long as, certainly not longer.

Example Timetable:

Initial Assessment & Strategy: 1-2 weeks

Prospecting & Lead Generation: 2-4 weeks

Due Diligence: 4-8 weeks

Negotiations & Offer Submission: 4-6 weeks

Legal Documentation & Closing: 2-4 weeks

As shareholders and with less shares in issue and no debt at that point that offer if they had accepted would have been far better for shareholders than what the company ended up with net as far as I can tell. The money lost in operations since that FSP has been money down the drain.

What is your interpretation of at pace then…you seem to think you know some things and are disparaging of others views, with what seems like little or no basis in doing so. Repeat offender and you seem to specifically try to call me out. Need to try much harder if you want to do that.

I base my opinion on experience and facts…you seem to base yours on giving the company the benefit of the doubt…many have tried. Before and have been disappointed.

Manage your expectation.

Company broker Cavendish

“Nanoco reported interim results in-line with our expectations, and the company expects to recognise additional revenue in H2, leading us to raise our FY25E revenue from £6.6m to £6.9m. The company has implemented the cost reductions that were announced in October 2024 and continues to make progress in its strategic process for potential disposal of its operating assets and IP. We are placing our target price under review until this process is complete.”

The increase in revenue is just one offs for the termination of the “European customer” walking.

Cash 31 July 2024 £20.3m ..cash 4th April £15.2m.

Still burning about £500k a month close to £6m a year…

Year end cash looking like below £14m.

If any bidder was keen they would know the company its IP and its operations pretty well…its not that complicated a set up. If they were serious they would have moved “at pace” to secure the purchase if there was any competition expected …i think NANO are just drawing out a process that has not attracted any acceptable interest hoping they can get some commercial traction by “the summer”! If they were in any way in control of the process and there were “bidders” they would have set a firm timeline for initial proposals. Seems to me they are just stalling in keeping this going in the background desperately trying to get some more revenues through the door to justify continuing as a going concern whilst burning through the balance sheet.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/NANO/interim-results-investor-presentation/16990672

Should check out their linkedin overview

“In the display market, Nanoco has non-exclusive manufacturing and marketing licensing agreements with The Dow Chemical Company, Merck KGaA and Taiwan's Wah Hong Industrial Corporation. Nanoco also has a strategy of direct sales in display and in its other target markets, including lighting.”

This is the showcase for a company currently trying to sell their operations …how professional.

Thats not journalism that is paid for promotion by the company i believe.

I understood firms pay directors talk to cover them ..bit like edison.

But it is wrong and clearly not been fact checked by the company before it was released.

November 2024

As part of this process, the Company commissioned an external valuation exercise of the value of its investment in its subsidiaries, within which the Group’s intellectual property resides.

Any external valuation would have to have checked the current validity of the various patents…there is no evidence that Nanoco has not managed and. Made every effort to protect its IP .

They have whittled it down , sold 118 patents to Samsung and must realise that it the only real potential value in the business. Whether others agree we will find out…eventually if not at pace.

If someone wants the IP but not the operations…thats easy if the bid is high enough , they pay £50m for the IP and the company can close down the operations and wind it up set aside £10m , would still be a good payout of 25p per share.

Not sure if folk are not just trying to find excuses and refuse to accept the price is running ahead of developments..or lack thereof. Hope im wrong but expectation management is a thing here.

Sammy what do you think will be in the data room…it wont be breakdowns of their sales and customers..there arent any . The terms of the Samsung settlement must be easy to provide to show the scope of the licence. If the advisor and Nanoco have not got all that information around the IP portfolio ( having just had it externally valued) available i doubt they are serious in finding a buyer.

3p a share for the operating business and ip would be selling assets for £6m they told us were worth £50m. my opinion is they have not received an acceptable offer not any offer.

i doubt they could say to shareholders they have done a decent deal at anything far closer to the valuation they published…hence why i think they go it alone. there could be protracted dd but the whole thing is not exactly a complicated business…there is no business just the ip , a cost centre that may or may not have value in the personnel and some kit that might be worth something..liabilities in the lease and the personnel if they don’t want them. shouldn’t take long if anyone is serious.

the ip valuation

the valuation report received by the company supports the carrying value of £46 million as reported in the company’s balance sheet contained in the group’s annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 july 2024.

https://www.***************************/nanoco-publishes-2024-annual-report-confirms-46m-ip-value/4121178452

Ddubya

Its second gen sensing materials.

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/asian-customer-moves-to-the-next-phase/32893/

So Westhamtim you think the company 5 months plus into trying to sell the business are well advanced and engaged in a sales process. Clearly the ceo was bullish on level of interest and that they would receive an offer back in December but 3 months later and a having of the share price to me tells a different story. Just an opinion from years of prior experience leads to my opinion but of course I might be wrong and you are right and they are just about to spring a wonderful surprise sale and distribute 30p plus…the delay just to tie up some loose ends.

I hope you are right and I am wrong.i really do.

Much truth in there.

Though …and clearly backed the existing team.

I think Loam as you hinted at were very influential and were largely behind the tender approach..it worked very well for them as they maxed their exit at a premium..once that was through i think they were no longer supportive and dumped out after the STM walk.

Who was to see STM walk…well anyone who has followed decades of Nanoco …everyone walks every single jv sales agreement tue up ..all lead to nothing.

We still have the Asian customer.spending £600k a year…one wonders just how serious that is . If they were closing in on a gen 2 material that could set them apart in the SWIR sensors market i rather think they would be slightly more committed in progressing it. It is extremely small beer work and doubt it will lead anywhere…like all the rest.