Member Info for Kooba

They are predominantly an activist investor ..

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/8c570f79-e6da-5148-bd37-5ecacc647a46

An activist investor, typically a specialized hedge fund, buys a significant minority stake in a publicly traded company in order to change how it is run.

The activist investor's goals may be as modest as advising company management or as ambitious as forcing the sale of the company, divestitures or restructuring, or replacing the board of directors.

They ain’t going to sit still…there is no effective management at Nanoco the ceo and the chair are off..they are hardly backing the management..and It could take months to find replacement ceo in the meantime they retain a large cash burn.

They clearly see the potential of liquidating the business through trade sale of the company or its IP adding to the cash pile. What they do then might be the question…it seems clear from some recent activity Milkwood want a listed cash shell for an investment vehicle.

Lets see.

The only real income has come from demonstrating the patents are valid and were infringed upon really..and that seems a one off. Some of those patents are now running to the end of a 20 year life with virtually no commercial production orders and the patents are owned by the company. Many long term scientists left after the Apple walk , their names remain on the companies patents but the patents remain the companies.

I’m not sure the threat of anyone leaving will impact what happens here..I doubt any new strategy will involve more speculative r&d with no guarantee of end markets after over 20 years of being an academic exercise that will be the main change I imagine. Maybe someone might want to buy out an expensive QD r&d lab and team…but I can’t imagine who off hand.

Sum of the parts…it can’t carry on chewing through cash with no real sustainable revenues.

“The order is rapidly fadin'

And the first one now

Will later be last

For the times they are a-changin'”

Quite appropriate.

Busy boys..

https://citywire.com/investment-trust-insider/news/milkwood-buys-14-9-stake-in-tiny-tent/a2449520

TG2D…” Milkwood would be looking for Board Representation basically doing the same as LOAM did to screw over retail investors and the market yet again!”

I think rather more of a complete change in direction and leadership likely and extracting maximum value out of what is left..they are no LOAM… They will not suffer fools.

But they do have a very strong performance record in the funds they run…and are activist and they will want the money invested working.

I guess there are already talks taking place with the company on costs and direction…if they dont get the right answers then they can call a GM or ask to put resolutions to AGM.

Times they are a changing.

No Terry I just know a lot more than you as usual…not a difficult place to get to.

You just sound so ignorant most of the time , you literally call everything wrong.

As to big foot and lizards I will leave that to you..you are so gullible …I’m sure if BT told you the moon was made of cheese you would tell everyone that he was right.

See where we are in a few weeks hey.

You don’t understand anything do you Terry.

These guys are going for control and complete change..just wait not long now.

“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.”

It’s slightly unclear what obstacle there might be but it clearly is something not clarified in the original agreement. My understanding was that Nanoco would be free to sell the materials to other customers ( think I got from presentation) but this certainly doesn’t sound like they can. The alternative is that Nanoco know who STMs customers were and what they were being used for and want to pursue them which is information Nanoco said they didn’t know.

The question must be without a sensor device itself to integrate what would these customers want to buy dots only for?

I doubt very much that STM and Samsung are in any cahoots ..major competitors.

Agree though if we have spent so many years doing effectively piecemeal work at STM behest and do not own the IP to try to exploit at the end of it ..it further questions competency .

Ha ha from Terry the multiple id poster who has never been correct about anything with any other their many guises…just a parrot for a failed management.

What a Dunce.

Changes are afoot I assure you and will become evident quite soon…the new shareholders will not be hanging about watching the cash evaporate.

In the meantime we need a full explanation of the STM exit deal that cannot be a protracted process if the only chance of revenues is from using Gen 1 developed materials ..if STM block their use there is even less potential to extract anything from years of work.

End of the road for commercial strategies it’s just a sum of the parts break up or sale now.

Wake up.

Continuing to buy your shares back when you have no business model and little chance of developing any near term revenues , and virtually no chance of raising fresh equity whilst having only 20 months of cash on current burn rate i don’t think exudes confidence more likely just ongoing incompetence. There has been a massive change in the prospects of this company and they seem to be acting like nothing has changed.

Time to wake up.

Well having thought they were going to hang on to the remaining cash it looks like they are back in for the balance ..having seen huge volume lower down they now decide to reenter the fray…bizarre. As is the idea that this is value accretive with the current trading position. In the circumstances hanging on the remaining cash would have been wise..there is no oint in thinking it would send out the wrong signals when you have no commercial revenues one small r&d agreement and are burning £7m a year. They have already signalled a bad enough picture.

What they do next ..rather than just get on and complete the buyback is what we need to hear ..very soon.

In terms of getting new customers ..which would be nice ! I’m afraid that a number of customers will not want to be the first commercial customer , many would have taken huge comfort if a firm like Nanoco had at least one existing commercial relationship ..rather than a track record of not moving to commercial arrangements. So STM walking not just from Gen 1 but Gen 2 work is reputationally damaging in my view in attracting anything new …many in the industry will also be aware of the Apple walk and the terms of the Samsung settlement which effectively places a minuscule per (large) device payment for using the IP ..and could be seen as a basis of CFQD value whether licencing or for product . The Asian customer is also in a far stronger position now they are the only game in town ..if they did want to extend work programmes or ever get to a point of commercial delivery interest as things stand they can pretty much dictate terms.

No easy way forward in current form I can see ..they have tried and failed to gain revenues from their IP and apart from litigating have never got anywhere. Patents generally last 20 years to give the inventor time to develop a market for their ideas, some core Nanoco patents only have a few years to run now with the only income from litigating…maybe a litigating shell model is the only way forward!?

The idea again from the interviews with the Edison note end June was they would be getting themselves out there a lot more now they had commercial traction so we should expect to see a lot more of them at such events ….oh!

Laughing stock.

We do of course only have Tenners word that no one else can produce CFQDs in any scale …it is not impossible that Qustomdot have discovered an alternative approach that they have patented that does not infringe. One would hope Nanoco know the industry well enough ..it’s also likely that if Quatomdotn is a start up and has little in the way of sales then there is little infringing case to answer as yet?

Quite small https://tracxn.com/d/companies/qustomdot/__yumVBsdmGTUMWtxXKOJ0oKBsRmgFJ4X82cl0oS9atV0/funding-and-investors

“Belgium-based QustomDot brings unmatched colors through quantum dot (QD) color conversion to microLED applications. The team combines QD synthesis, surface engineering and ink/photoresist formulation into patterned color conversion layers for microLED displays. QustomDot’s patented technology is cadmium free and can withstand high light intensities.”

Wonder who invited him?

Our old friend Jonathan ! We owe him so much!!

Surprised he didn’t get Nanoco to sponsor the shindig .

Eurodisplay 2024 Organizing Committee

François Templier, CEA-LETI (France), General Chair

Jonathan Steckel, STMicroelectonics (France), Program Chair

Sam Phenix, Phenix Consulting (UK)

Norbert Fruehauf, Stuttgart University (Germany)

Mateusz Nowak, Noctiluca (Poland), Sponsorship

Hugues Lebrun, Aledia (France)

Fabian Rol, CEA-LETI (France)

I guess the situation in terms of what the management promised and the support they garnered previously has now changed markedly. They defeated the GM challenge with hopes of near term meaningful revenues and cash flow break even , also on talk of being the better steward of the cash. Times change , the share register changes and so do imagined prospects.The company now finds itself in a far less defendable position..any bidder would be very aware of their predicament.

One might ask why Hansol / Samsung were breaking down TCL displays in the first place …did they suspect they were not as discribed or were Hansol trying to establish whether TCL were infringing on the licence that Samsung has effectively “paid “ Nanoco for ..under duress.

Either way it’s quite clever and damaging in trying to put doubts around a major competitors products and protect your own market presence.

I wonder what Samsung might do if Nanoco looked like they might licence or sell materials or even get taken over by a competitor?

I think the thing around TCL is they rather need to prove they are upping their game and buying from a credible supplier ..also if they can obtain good cadmium free product from a supplier such as Nanoco then it addresses the toxic issue too. Nanoco have said that they could be up and running supplying a pretty serious amount of quality display CFQDs within months even with some tweeking to customise the materials . It may be a cost increase to buy from the originator of the licence that Samsung uses but might not be a bad idea in terms of reputation. In the world of big TVs though buying Nanoco itself and controlling the supply would be small beer even at a decent premium. We can but dream…but something will happen and fairly soon i hope.

The TCL situation might rest with who supplies their materials and the quality..something BT alighted to with hopes of a display partner who was frustrated at QD quality i think he said. If it was TCL then might push them to change…so maybe a positive.

“There's an important distinction to be made between the two studies, however. Hansol’s report was conducted by literally tearing down TCL TVs. TCL, meanwhile, used its own QD film supplies to back up its claims.

In other words, TCL just tested material supplied by other vendors (of which there are quite a few), while the competing report tested actual TVs. It's possible that TCL sourced faulty QD films when producing these TVs. “

“Guangdong Region Advanced Material, a quantum dot film supplier for TCL”

https://www.tomsguide.com/tvs/tcl-under-fire-report-suggests-its-qled-tvs-might-not-have-any-quantum-dots

Luckily we already have a big hitter in the region for us.

“Nanoco Technologies Limited (Nanoco) and Guangdong Poly Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. (POE) have announced a Licensing and Collaboration Agreement. Under the agreement, Nanoco and POE will partner on the development of cadmium-free quantum dot products for various applications including advanced displays and lighting films.”