Member Info for Kooba

I was impressed with the new ceo ..a breath of fresh air!

An honest if not fairly optimistic view of the prospects in disposing of the operations or alternatively the commercial opportunities.

It seems clear that the Chair favours a sale but there is a plan b of sorts across display and sensors.

As Mr Shashkov says though “actions speak louder than words”

So £46m they say is fair value of IP ..£20m cash £5m for the kit?

So worth £70m ..195m shares in issue

So they think worth over 35p per share then?

Can they deliver that value to shareholders?

Snowballs chance.

Means they are justifying the valuation in their accounts but I'm more interested in how much the industry places on the IP not Nanoco themselves. The IP does not provide any ongoing income ..but did result in the infringement settlement ..if you take their accounting of £6m a year i guess you come up with chunky valuation…unfortunately we have had all the money up front so already have the income for the life of the relevant IP from the only livcence already …all received and much paid out or spent ..Can’t access the report and accounts on either link yet ..

Didn’t say anything new to me…just that they are desperate to get any orders.

We had a jv with Plessey along the way..not for long though like many others.

Here’s hoping major customers are following the Nanoco linkedin vid’s if they are looking to buy CFQDs anytime soon. I’m sure having spent decades trying to get orders this new approach is bound to be a winner.

Nanoco down 37% year to date..market cap £22m

Just been looking at the performance of what had been a tricky counter Nexxen ( ex Tremor) and where its has gone since Mr Summerton ( and another new NED ) was appointed to the board in Jan this year…seems he was invited to join the board for his knowledge and expertise.

Nexxen shares are up 87% year to date with a market cap of over £500m.

I note the board of Nanoco do not think him good enough to serve as an NED on Nanoco board.

The last 3 board appointments have no UK listed experience and 2 have predominantly worked in privately owned companies…and none of them own a single Nanoco share.

Sammy I am well aware of the issues in small mid caps and that few institutions are still actively investing..some of the names still playing have now exited Nanoco after years of holding an investment position. Loam appear to have given up having been invested before they even listed.

So the position with Nanoco is not down just to small cap malaise it is down to them serially missing targets and failing to deliver commercial traction year after year after year …and once again building a large cost base before being let down again …as Nanoco said themselves they will keep money back from distribution as they would not be able to raise money again…maybe another reason why they don’t think being a listed is for them .

As to funding a tilt at any third party litigation they can always go back to litigation funders and see if a case is strong enough to pursue..fair bit of legwork already done if the party is infringing the patents validated.

If Nanoco can’t find a buyer and can’t find any customers ..just how undervalued are they I wonder?

Nanonano I have regularly pointed out that the value here might be to stymie others in the field so agree on that point…maybe the Asian company could be added to the list , but since they are only committing £600k a year in r&d it does not appear a major project .

The fact that the giant Samsung has unlimited use in display ( Micro led too ?) and is the biggest player sort of devalues things …but I hope to be pleasantly surprised if they find a buyer at a decent price…it would make a real change.

My expectation however is that there are no acceptable offers and the company spins the dice again on some commercial projects and jvs and off we go again.

The other worry is they keep referring to the business being unsuited to a listing..what is that teeing up??

Ok dipper tell what has gone well here to get up beat about ?

Tell me if the latest smorgasbord of opportunities in the strategic review makes any great sense .

What is evident to me is having low expectations on this company delivering is a far better way of managing expectations than getting all excited at what might be…systematic disappointment is the regular delivery …and may well be again..but as explained since the price is now discounting much of the past disappointment maybe there is upside from here…they talk much of delivering value..bout time they did isn’t it.

Dipper if that was aimed at me ..then i see the potential to get more than 11p out of the situation but doubt 24p anytime soon even on a sale of the business ..why would i sell here then exactly? You don't have to be a raging bull to see potential upside from depressed levels but it pays to be sceptical in most investment situations i guess , to be honest Nanoco rarely surprise in a posiitve way..i genuinely hope i am wrong in what they manage to deliver with regards value.

Nanonano ..my point was they lost the contract since the tender….so there was a big change in underlying value..you were comparing taking 24p at the point of tender with taking 24p now…chalk and cheese.

Nanonano

You dont see a change in the prospects of the company since the tender?

I see a huge difference , i took the tender in full at 24p …making the mistake of replacing most at 17-18p …

The largest shareholder tendered in full at 24p when STM and the thought of cashflow break even in 2025 was a thing..and has now sold out altogether at 9p …there is no clear route to any revenue near term that i can see so there seems a significant reduction in value as a result to me ..and the market generally it seems.

I see little prospect of even achieving 24p if everything is sold..so rather academic anyway i guess.

Yep!

Nanonano

The shares have taken a belting now as another commercial avenue is found to be a dead end..probably far more was in the price when Apple were in play to come out and there were no immediate routes to commercialisation then.

As a test woud anyone take 24p now ..in a similar situation to nov 2019?

hands up 🤚

When they went into the FSP the shares were 12-13p so 24p might have been better received at the time than you think…with Samsung now with a fully paid up licence for the life of the patents they wanted ..it would not be worth anything like that to anyone now.

Always thought the key IP might be worth $20-30m or so but as you have said the facilities are more of a liability than an asset to most buyers ..be interesting to see if anyone is interested…we should find out “at pace” …..but i doubt that very much.

If there is an offer of $10m that secures all jobs and gives the executives a role and maybe an interest going forward or a $25m offer for just the IP ..what is the best offer? A shareholder would say $25m for the IP and wind the rest up…what would a new ceo say is the best offer?

If you are right and there is much interest where is the visability around what was highest?

Could be said it was the highest for all the assets true ..but might not be highest in terms of what shareholders receive.

I understood that in the previous effort to sell the company they turned down a significant offer from Samsung ($90m?) there was less shares in issue than at the time of the tender so was a very meaningful premium over where the shares are today , Samsung no longer have a reason to bid apart from owning the technology outright and defending it better than Nanoco have..but they have probably got what they wanted. Can’t really think who would want the whole shooting match anyway apart from a management led buyout for peanuts …many might be interested in the IP to disrupt the competition and strengthen their position going forward.

That is the reason one needs to be aware that conflicts might arise in terms of what “the best offer” looks like as there could be a big difference between a shareholders view and a newly in position CEO who holds no shares.

On the new CEO we are told he has a great track record but because of him working for a private equity outfit there is little to go on ..apart from he left in June and was looking for new opportunities ..bit like BT is now.

Troublesome ..BT is no longer a director or employee he is clinging on in a consulting role…apart from some reason doing a piece to camera recently from the fab in all his Nanoco branded gear. So there is no reason for him to be on the presentation call at all , he has no authority to speak for the company anymore , even though on LinkedIn he still shows as CEO.

And I agree all of that too..

Apart from we haven’t heard anything directly from Milkwood as to why they want representation on the board and why they bought in and see value above the cash position.

I’m afraid taking third hand information from the boards position is not good enough …but Milkwood expecting support without setting their stall out is neither.

As things stand without communicating with the the large number of pi’s I don’t see them getting anywhere..even if I do favour more shareholder scrutiny of the ongoing process.

That may be the case buy removing the owners of the business in having a say in the disposal of all the operational assets and IP is a price to pay. Selling the assets developed over decades leaving a listed shell is something I think needs shareholder consent.

The new CEO and Chair elect who will oversee the strategy don’t own a share between them …no skin in the game and no alignment with shareholders.

The fact they are refusing to allow the largest independent shareholder a say in such a fundamental process with huge implications for shareholder value is also a concern.

The board needs to remember who they serve….for once!

Https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/dam/jcr:985ecccb-f52c-4dea-829a-c434a4761206/Formal%2520Sale%2520Processes%2520%2528Jan%25202023%2529.pdf