Member Info for Kooba

Ooh and we had cash on the balance sheet from that fundraise before the settlement cash to..so that has been used too.

The loan notes were £5m ..the new Fab maybe £2m ..but explaining where the depleted cash has gone would be useful.

If they had gone to trial there would have been a result to base valuation on..so it would not be a total up in the air position of uncertainty we were in pre trial ..even if it was not fully resolved.

The company did state they had funding to cashflow breakeven even following the 2022 fundraise…that was wrong for a few reasons , firstly cashflow breakeven is unrealistic in any near or even mid term view. ..and the company has ramped up costs enormously since they got access to settlement cash.

Unfortunately small tech pre commercial revenue plays just find ways to spend cash when they have access to it..so they are chewing through what was left from the settlement at pace.

We were said to have got $90m net so £75m

They have paid out close to £33m to shareholders

They have about £19m left

Go figure.

Some are in denial at the position the company finds itself in ..there is no prospect identified that might provide any meaningful revenue for years..and then all on one unidentified Asian customer . The end of the STM deal means we even lose that R&D income going forward..so our cash burn likely £5m a year including it will actually increase further. We will have staff with nothing productive to do ..less r&d and no “expected” commercial production the company build headcount and facilities to address. You can’t just sit burning through cash like that !!

I doubt there is even 3 years of cash left and they need to behave like they are cash strapped now and rightsize the cost base to new levels of expected production..ie zero.

Paying big salaries and incentives to executives has not delivered any value to shareholders…I can only hope they find a realist who can rescue some value and I think they need M&A and IP experience to extract that value.

They have indicated often different sources of income from display before and after the settlement that led shareholders to believe they would have a means of diversified income..that has so far led nowhere.Nanoco saying they want to be able to market gen 1 materials they created over many years…they started pre official agreement with European customer..that was leading on from the Apple work is not really a new strategy of the company coming up with something to say when another avenues closes..its what they always do. Nb a single one off commercial order in over 20 years..what makes anyone believe they can suddenly find commercial deals of any size ? Also noting from the list of opportunities “These opportunities include sectors such as industrial, defence, agriculture, security and surveillance, healthcare, and automotive.” That they exclude key mass market potential applications ..whilst there could be some niche areas above only healthcare and automotive might be real scale…and im not sure we have been working on anything near those areas for gen 1…healthcare no for toxic content ..automotive temperature sensitivity and durability issues?

On valuation with little direct prospect of any revenues and on current ( pre very necessary reductions in cost base) the company will have about 7.5p of cash in 11 months time

A realistic assessment of how to maximise what is left of shareholder value needs to be done and whether there is any value to be had spending good cash after bad on developing products , products that have never found a market in decades needs to be done. With the life of key patents coming to an end in the foreseeable their key competitive advantage in CF is limited.

The company has stumbled from one all in deal to another and have been stuffed every time..can they really have another spin of the dice and lose what is left??

There was a formal sale process after Apple walked and from court documents it is alleged they turned down something like $90m from Samsung. There was 286m shares in issue then and £7m cash so $80m enterprise value. We now have £19m cash and 200m shares in issue ,,no enterprise value.

A wholesale slashing of all no essential costs and a strategic review with a formal offer process being front and centre seems the only option rather than continuing to just BS on possible small scale sales ..IF stm allow it..thats not a business model.

According to Terry the Titanic hitting an iceberg was a bit of a setback in its commercial ambitions i guess.

Once again Terry it looks very deceptive you criticising posters of getting over excited at the prospects of a higher settlement when they posted under their NigWit ID that they thought £750m plus £100m a year royalty was realistic court award…just for US. Early 2022 before they closed that account.There is no evidence put forward that they were right in cautioning i can see. It is of course possible with someone who has had many different IDs that they did post such smart in hindsight type posts but unless they can prove so ..it’s just made up crap. But they certainly saw a bumper payout coming and that might have influenced others to be super optimistic NigWit being a self professed expert an all. Who started the $bs ideas?? Naughty naughty Terry.

I am not doubting STM’s intent to produce mass market SWIR sensors incorporating nano materials I am questioning where they source the materials necessary to achieve the requisite performance ..I’m also questioning why after so many engagements Nanoco is never walked down the aisle just walked away from.

On the patents the core lead free patents that the gen 2 were to overlap on giving protection are the same ones validated through litigation it would seem so the clock is ticking …there may be much younger patent protection around the sensor products but certainly the gen 1 materials were not that well protected I understand ..they were relying on their industry knowledge and their ability to produce a reliable and consistent product , and produce in large quantities …this is something they have never be able to prove they can unfortunately.

It appears that Nanoco has never really moved much from being an academic start up and has mostly just done a series of small scale research projects in its over 20 years in trying to move to a commercial footing.

Saying that the position ..”reflects the nature of high technology supply chains for consumer electronics.” is just nonsense as this is a serial situation.

Most of what has been done with them so far will not be patent protected it seems..the gen 2 toxic metal free project would have but maybe they have garnered enough to go their own way already ..it would not surprise at all if they have an alternately supplier or setting their own facilities up.

Seems Steckel is a guy who would have many answers

Founder of competitor QD vision ..a company that Nanoco had action against in 2013.

He left for Apple 2014 to work in QD Area.

QD vision taken over by Samsung 2016.

Nanoco signs agreement with US Customer April 2018 (Apple)

June 2019 Apple walks Nanoco shares collapse.

2020 Steckel moves from Apple to STMicro.

2021 Nanoco signs with European customer..

2024 European customers revealed as STM extends

Mid 2024 they walk.

I think Nanoco has never really had a clue what STM strategic priorities were they just hoped they were aligned ..the idea mega co STM Wouldn’t have spent a few million on looking into a product without there being serious intent to release mass market devices is really naive…it’s absolute peanuts.

Fool me once …

Seems Nanoco are just the cheap research option of choice for a number of their past partners they have engaged with and whether there was any real commercial intent appears a big question. Never had senior management competent to play with the big boys…always too trusting it seems and are on a rinse and repeat cycle.

If they get similar treatment by the Asian customer in a year or so then there will be little left to sell.

Need to sell up now.

Wonder how the new NEDs feel having listening to the optimism at the end of last year before taking the role and now find themselves sitting on the board of a company whose commercial strategy is lying in tatters and must face an uncertain future with some tough decisions on cutting the workforce and writing off capital investments near term.

Strategically options look limited with the expiration of some key patents getting closer and the only revenue prospects being very small scale and with absolutely no guarantees, from a company that has had one flash in the pan commercial order in its history. The chair seem inept too ..far too protective of Tenner for years and clearly even having served through the Apple debacle could see this coming and allowed costs to balloon ..again.

Get the for sale flag up asap…

In hindsight would things have been worse had Nanoco gone to court ..

I think they could have been a lot better for shareholders ..but the result went well for others.

The big reason for taking the deal was it enabled them to go forth and build a commercial business armed with the validation and a stronger balance sheet..since that is now down the swanny they might hav been better just going for Samsung in court and focusing on the value there where there has been very significant financial success capitalising on some of our technology ..but they walked on the cusp of the chance of a very strong and potentially groundbreaking award…that was proven to be used in $10b’s of sales.

Oh well Brian has done well out of it all ..i guess…and still is!

“The Group is working with its customer to understand the range of possible outcomes and any potential impact on Nanoco beyond the end of the financial year. “

At least they now understand they have been hoodwinked yet again.

Again with Nanoco we are left with questions on what was really known and when …i am not sure how the Chairman can stay having overseen so much misdirection and disappointment.

There can be little trust in their overseeing anything anymore.

the icing was poorly executed and there is no cake…

the money spent on the fab is already redundant in terms of working for stm which was the whole point of spending $3m on buying their kit and expanding premises and commissioning it all. literally using the entire annual r&d revenues and expanding the cost base then a few months later stm walk…its like they are taking the ****.

they need to sell the company or what is left now..with only one ongoing r&d project and no other near term revenue prospects they can’t continue to be a valid business burning £5m a year.

“i just wish the company would drop the narrative of claiming to be a 'world leader' in the manufacture of quantum dots”

i saw that on line one and then read on…they are taking the **** surely !

Need to cut costs immediately and put the sale sign up..in a formal offer process before they sit and burn through the cash.

The IP still might have some value ..to others!

Ngr ..they said the same with Apple and all the other failed to launch projects..seems its important to get that across..but it doesnt explain the serial walking of anyone that gets close.

All the questions raised on why STM wer not marketing and never mentioned Nanoco or even QDs recently have been answered though. Anyone think STM are going to go into QD production shortly??

Some would say NGR that you and Terry were idiots believing the last update and the BT “resignation” being anything but being pushed out because he had read it all wrong but you remained too optimistic in the prospects against clear evidence that things were clearly f’cked. I’ll leave that to others though.

STM wanted the fab install and sold us the kit..which we spent Ms putting together and expanded the workforce…a few months later they walk.

Anyone who still thinks BT was not pushed is deluded.

Unfortunately though finding a new CEO of any worth is getting more difficult.

They now need to urgently cut costs back down..not more charity and trips to the f’ing zoo either.

well too good you were right stm are walking.

what an utter **** show.

I would say the answer is they could accept a legal settlement to the litigation ..things become more complicated when they sold assets for a very meaningful amount of money. Normally substantial asset sales (here the IP) would require shareholder approval to my mind..but i am sure they took all the advice and were convinced that such approval was not required in this case..though i don’t know why.

Regulatory. Relevance can be looked at here

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/LR/10.pdf

Nothing is comparable yet you want comparisons..over and over. It is your only argument . So that argument is pony then.

You think 90% of shareholders agree with your opinions?

I’m afraid i think you are in your little fantasy land again. Not many back your mate Mr Tenner anymore ..he’s done his bit and the support has walked away. Not even the refreshed board supported him anymore as far as i can see.

So if you think you speak for 90% of shareholders you need to have a serious rethink.

Terry

“I distinctly recall posters saying Samsung was a serial patent infringer and comparing the case to other, much larger, patent cases that had gone all the way through many appeals with damages still unpaid.”

what cases do you recall..id like to review.