Member Info for Kooba

“Posters afraid of the facts will always seek to undermine posters who find facts”

Once again i am sure you will inevitably prove your own point ..off you go dumbo.

“The facts are that the legal settlement of $130m …”

Quite laughable when you cant even get the figure correct.

As it goes

Nanoco will receive gross proceeds of $150 million (£125 million[1]), $65m for the IP Licence agreement and $85m for the IP Sale agreement, payable in two equal tranches by 5 March 2023 and by 3 February 2024. Nanoco expect to retain over 60% (over $90m) of this sum..

So they actually got $65m for the all past and future use of the IP which is why we went to court and $85m for the sale of IP ..118 patents that we are still unaware if they are being used.

So the facts are you again are very wrong.

As it goes I have been saying they should get the fixed costs down to protect the cash ,conduct a strategic review and put the business up for sale …all things you said should not be done Terry …..maybe they do read the boards??

you are so funny terry …a veritable clown.

bit like cavendish and their note ..where they can’t get the amount of shares in issue correct ..so the market cap and per share numbers are all wrong…the quality of what we pay for i guess..and no one at nanoco checks it even though it is seen as their own marketing material as it is not independent research…embarrassing.

you and your funny phone calls terry …surely you have even bored yourself with this **** by now…certainly bored the hell out of me. will you ever have anything relevant to say or are you going to plough this tedious furrow for ever…oh did you mention they won at the gm on the back of commercial promises and tales of cash flow ….they fell flat on their face trying to deliver that didn’t they …that’s your other irrelevant call that bores every time you post it.

you are just a sad boring little **** aren’t you terry ..i think just about everyone realises it …but you .

Note out from shop today ..doesnt even mention an ongoing sales process..just how they might get revs from sales and infringement ..same old same old…very odd..again questions whether the whole review is meaningful in intent or just going through the motions?

I see even on reduced cost base they expect cash year end July 2025 to be below £15m with a £5.6m cash burn current year.

I also see they are factoring in £6.6m of revenue this year £6m accounting so £600k down to r&d work ..it was forecast at £2.5m of r&d with STM who obviously contributed the lions share of those revenues.

Target price 30p now , down from 60p early this year ..but maybe just as optimistic at this juncture taking into account losing their only potential source of short term revenues.

I don’t think the recent NED appointments don’t hold a single share in the company between them so it’s nice they finally have some interest in the shares performing now they have halved since their appointment !

Basically just stick to “its just optics” and makes little difference.

If they sell the business and wind it up and let’s just say that there is 20p to pay out..and they get shares at the price prevalent at the time of the agreement so they would get any upside in capital gains rather than income..so would be a taxed as income on the benefit and a potential capital gain…its not really giving anything up but offers an upside if they can extract a premium offer for the business it seems to me. No sacrifice …these things are often done to conserve cash in companies where they have limited cash resources…doing it here is a gesture nothing more and the terms might be it benefits them.

10% of the capital return was placed in the EBT for future awards ..looks to be a fair few quid down the drain too…at shareholder expense as it must over provided for as it’s difficult to see how incentives are triggered right now.

“..13,750,000 of the purchased Ordinary Shares will be held in treasury and subsequently transferred to the Nanoco Employee Benefit Trust ("EBT") to meet potential future obligations arising under the Company's 2015 Long Term Incentive Plan and the 2015 Deferred Bonus Plan. This transfer to the EBT represents approximately 10% of the shares to be acquired under the combined Tender Offer and Share Buyback Programme.”

And they say they might award the shares out of the EBT ..where they bought about 13m odd ?at 24p recently for incentives ..guess that’s where some of the unaccounted cash from the settlement went too. More great use of shareholder funds.

They have failed in the commercial strategy and spaffed a fair bit of cash up the wall with this , the increased coats and the FAB..before we get on to other cash bonuses …now they are the right ones to sort it all out apparently.

It’s just optics from the non executives …might have been good to see the executives making such a gesture and sign of confidence that the shares offered value after seeing the sharp reduction in the share price on their watch.

It is just a deferral until year end or corporate transaction…it does not state what price the shares will be awarded at ..fixed or at the price at the time.

See its interpretation

I assume ..” including the potential for a sale of the trading business (including IP).”

As meaning, a sale of the trading business ..including the IP .

Others seem to interpret that to mean a sale of the trading business ( with a licence over the IP) whilst retaining the IP to pursue very recently identified miscreants into signing licences or going to court.Others seem to think they sell the business and assets and then for some inexplicable reason then start researching new technology and seemingly start again !

That is why I believe that the messaging is confusing..and the cake and eat I comment.??you can’t seek the operating company and assets and still pursue the opportunities therein…makes no sense.

If as stated by the chair ” We have concluded that it is in the Company's best interests to appoint CDX Advisors to review the options for the Company's trading business, IP and other assets, including the potential for a sale of the trading business and assets.”

Surely you are just open to liquidating the whole shooting match and paying shareholders out through the listed entity ..the other comments are a fall back if /when they don’t get acceptable offers for the operations and assets.

I guess further updates in timing with the results but this could be drawn out affair and no buyer may be found (again) and maybe they are just going through the motions in trying to “protect” shareholders , as they have before which has led us into this hole.

The wolves at the door are Milkwood who want to sort this mess out themselves not a caretaker ceo whose abandoning ship and a tired Chair who has overseen huge value distruction in his 9 years as Chair…was not saying they will run out of cash…as i put up the numbers showing that ….that you then used !

But burning £4.5m a year with no real potential of reducing that in the next few years is not sustainable or ann investment its just living off shareholder funds.

Keep ‘em peeled

In terms of the strategic review options think in tenner terminology you need to except you can’t have your cake and eat it…for one there is no cake under that litigation cherry as yet …for another i see the “trading” business without IP ownership as having a negative worth. You can’t sell a heavily loss making production facility with no sustainable turnover without including the IP in the deal.. i think the IP is the only really sellable asset , and still not sure who would be a buyer.

I think the whole announcement is buying them time and making it look like they are doing the right thing because the wolves are at the door..again.

A relook at others infringing …again. Last time they broke down dozens of displays and found one potential infringer worth pursuing ..and didn’t even do that it appears. Now under pressure and following a further investigation (righto) they think there is good potential again..where i wonder? And is it really worth chasing ? Nb a number of core validated patents are running down and the settlement was based on years of serious infringement ..any infringement based on what they took from samsung would be a very small number like for like.

It appears to me they just want to hold onto the reins for as long as possible and the process will be dragged out. The market response again quite sensible in barely moving ..talk of 60p a share seems somewhat off target though they could end up with 20p if someone is interested in paying something reasonable for the QD business, IP and other assets.

Even once they have cut costs by £2.6m the company will still be burning about £4.5m a year..so hopefully will have circa £16m end July 2025 now ..about 8p per share.

I wonder for once if the company might surprise on the upside in terms of winding this up…or is that just hope over experience.

The idea they can sell the trading business as a going concern without ownership of the IP is fanciful and likely impossible. It has no commercial revenues and is just a major cost base and liability with little realistic prospect of any revenue growth , probably the only thing anyone would want to buy is the IP itself. The idea they keep certain staff as a patent troll is again somewhat fanciful ..though it might work under different experienced management .i note in the announcement tho

“As a business actually using its IP in its own operations, Nanoco is much more strongly placed to both successfully enforce that IP and also to achieve a better outcome than other non-practising entities. With our financial resources and experience in protecting our IP, the Company is now in a stronger position to take advantage of the growing market for QD displays.”

“Pursuing these commercial and licence opportunities will require investment and the maintenance of our unique team and asset base. The Board is confident that the Group can succeed in pursuing these commercial objectives with the appropriate investment of money and time.”…

That is basically saying they think they are better as a trading company in QD’s markets to pursue litigation…i probably make them right. So if they sell the operations and most likely the IP along with it …the chasing infringers is not a business that is left.

A bit like they will sell everything and just set up again to develop new materials on their own as a start up ..

That is why the announcement makes little sense and is not joined up…though it offers ideas on the IP if they have no takers for the business..i guess they had to put something for that quite likely eventuality. Always some carrots dangling.

What the announcement is is a prospectus of sorts to try to attract buyers ..if someone comes in for the IP ,the trading business and other assets they are out of the QD game.

Terry it strikes me with your serial bad takes on any announcement by the company it is you who can’t comprehend anything they say as you get it wrong every time.

It’s just a delay they just need more time , they wont cut costs.they will expand r & d they won’t sell…wrong wrong wrong wrong…and again you are wrong on this too.

They probably are looking at selling the assets separately under advise as it is likely more attractive to a buyer without any legacy liabilities that be current or might emerge.

Where does it say… “..the R&D part of the Group will continue to invest and produce new IP to license in the future.”

What the Chair does say is “… We have concluded that it is in the Company's best interests to appoint CDX Advisors to review the options for the Company's trading business, IP and other assets, including the potential for a sale of the trading business and assets.”

So if they sell the trading business..there isnt one really is there just the r&d work , they sell the IP which they think could be valuable in pursuing new licence agreements and is the basis for their existing r&d work and they sell the other assets..which can only mean the lab equipment. So they sell everything same as Nanosys did as a clean deal with all the assets connected to QDs being sold…hopefully for cash. That leaves the listed PLC as an investment company (cash shell or SPV ) for a complete change of direction or for a reverse vehicle or just as the mechanism to distribute the cash.

Nowhere does it say it will start again in new premises and new equipment to start researching new potential materials again with no IP backing , thats just nonsense. It would also swallow cash for decades before any revenues and won’t own the core IP to even work on specific projects as they have tried recently.

Well Terry i said they need to aggressively cut costs without delay and put the business up for sale…you said no i knew nothing about business and they should double down on r &d .

Do you think you are still right and the board are now doing everything i said should be done are wrong?

Surely you have to admit that either you or the board are utter tools and i figure now Tenner is completely sidelined its not the board who appear to be taking the right action albeit in a somewhat mix messaged way. So that leaves you.

Still got to see how Milkwood responds but i think the board have certainly tried to get ahead of them here and wind it up themselves. See what transpires.

AI could have written a far better update too…this one really makes little much sense.

Its confident in the IP and getting revenues from that as the sector expands…”after further investigation”…but company needs to stay operational with the team in place to do that and needs money. They need to keep the company’s activities going to stand a better chance leveraging off the IP i think they are saying.

And at the same time ..

They exude confidence in the delivery of commercial traction in the future…with jibberish about whether it’s as a listed entity or not.

then this..

“The Board reasserts that whilst this process will be undertaken at pace, the Group's considerable financial resources mean that the trading business will continue to be supported to grow and not compromise its potential.

Next lines

“With this in mind, steps are already being taken to rationalise the Company's cost base. This includes reducing headcount, reducing the size of the Board during FY25 without compromising appropriate corporate governance standards, and by reducing non-critical operating costs across the Group.”

Basically the message is that it could succeed if the right investment was made in it commercially and in its licensing endeavours it seems to me.

So what to do

Promise to pay out more cash even though still burning £4.5m a year.

And

Put the whole thing up for sale.

Its all very strange and doesn’t talk about a new CEO OR who will be leading this project in maximising shareholder value , surely its not Brian the caretaker who can’t even comment on such a major strategic change at all even though is “acting “ CEO ( think he has been for a while) and is not taking a pay cut like the non executives it seems ..he “earns” three times what the chair does but it seems the chair is doing all the leg work here.

Apart from moving towards right sizing the cost base and waiting for the investment bank to call with some ideas what is there to do ..maybe cutting costs by £2.9m is a better idea and the NEDs with more experience lead the execution of this strategic review.

I reckon all this is a bit rushed through and doesn’t really join up but is trying to keep the board in control and trying to thwart Milkwood and get ahead of whatever proposals they were making…which they have been i understand.

We are basically back to the GM situation with the incumbents promising much and “protecting “ the shareholders from a terrible boarding party …and what did they deliver? Sweet F A

Maybe the executives want to buy out the business now they have removed all the enterprise value out of it as a fire sale..maybe the final two fingers up to shareholders?

This CDX outfit are a US company..i can’t see have had previous exposure to the sector or the companies in it.

Difficult to know why they have been selected ..but I’m sure they will earn good fees for their efforts whatever the outcome and a big fat fee if there is a sale irrespective of how advantageous it is to shareholders. Management and Advisors have always done so much better out of this situation than anyone.

https://www.cdxadvisors.com/team

Whilst talking of short and medium term niche applications today…have they given any clarity around the end of project terms to enable this?

“The Group will be negotiating end of project terms with the European customer. Amongst other matters, Nanoco will be seeking the removal of any obstacle to its direct pursuit of already identified small scale market opportunities. These opportunities include sectors such as industrial, defence, agriculture, security and surveillance, healthcare, and automotive.”