Member Info for Kooba

don’t be sorry terry ..just stop making stuff up….

you described doing your own research as . “ trying to analyse the impossible.”

you have no experience and no understanding of markets or litigation evidenced by your posts fella..you just look increasingly out of your depth as you are proven over and over to be a duplicitous and nasty piece of work.

you clearly must enjoy getting your **** kicked …are you pretending not to be nigwit today or do you even lose track of who you are???

Difficult to know how you came up with your own estimates at many multiples of Edison left to your own devices…extremely puffy and unrealistic weren’t they!

Didn’t understand the point or Edison then or now do you…it is NOT impartial.

Have you ever seen a down beat Edison note or a cautious recommendation?

Of course not it is marketing material trying to attract people to invest in the company ..putting it in its best possible light. Thats the whole point ffs.

“So what you're saying is that you relied on marketing from Edison instead of your own research?”

No …where did i say that Terry..i said nothing of the sort.

But did come across this from you..

NigWit3 Apr '22 - 12:00 - 24329 of 40167

0 1 1

"seems you want everyone to do a thorough analysis of an outcome we cannot know..strange one ain’t ya."

For clarity I'd prefer it if everyone cooled off and made their decisions based on the better knowledge of others instead of trying to analyse the impossible. At present Edison are the best guide we have. We understand they are paid but they are also under an obligation to be impartial. Anyone who thinks they have sufficient acumen to invest in stocks knows, or should know this and how to interpret it.”

Obviously you based your opinion on Edison being the best guide before settlement…maybe others were allowed to as well?

Edison

A marketing communication under FCA Rules, this document has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research.

They have direct access to the company and would never put out anything the company did not want published..the company is responsible for what is published therefore fact check it..or certainly should.

The no mates thing is very funny though unfortunately really just confirms what a prat you are ..a whole country laughs at your name for having no mates and being an odious bore…how very fitting.

Its also ridiculous to think that what Nanoco said in public had any bearing whatsoever on Samsungs approach to the case ..they had of course full access to Nanoco submissions and there models …as well as their own ! To think that Nanoco puffing to their shareholders had any impact on the outcome apart from maybe getting an unrealistic expectation into the market is just bizarre.

Gibbering * but i guess even you worked that out terry..being such a clever boy.

£750m and £100m per annual royalty that you thought realistic was far higher than Edison ever guided to ..so they are not complete twerps even though they too pitched their low estimate too high…nothing like your efforts though which were quite ridiculous.

What are you gibberish about Terry.

Nanoco pay Edison £60000 a year to produce marketing material..ie put the company in a good light.

There is no independent thought and the company have sight and can correct anything before it goes out. I know the arrangements very well as i have mates who are customers.

So i have posted facts from their note ..cleared by the company showing cash burn of £4.8m in the current year…how the hell am i blame shifting anything you imbecile.

The company marketing through Edison estimates just over £15.2m cash by FY2025 ( JULY) ..that is still taking into account a jump in revenues beyond the r &d work ..something that there is now no visibility for ..so burn could be higher or lower depending on how things pan out. But cash burn on an optimistic basis put forward is close to £5m in the current year.so the cash run way does not extend to 5 years on what we know for now.

They paid the minimum promised out and kept more cash back than they guided to ..although there is no short term funding issue at all they have spent a chunk of the settlement to get down to £20m already..do the numbers and that is with some big interest credits going in too.

And that was before BT severance and consultancy arrangements !

Terry

“I'm behaving like 90% of shareholders”

When only 30% supported the management at the AGM.

A few minutes later…

“You can't count those who didn't vote as if they agree with you but that is what you're trying to do. It's delusional narcissism.”

What a self own …outstanding.

Feeks the main arguments made for accepting the settlement were because it enabled the company to move ahead rapidly with its organic business rapidly building commercial revenues ..the old cake and icing. The argument was that it was the ongoing litigation preventing the company securing orders and gaining new customers.

The same arguments were made with the change of management..any change might impact commercial development , they relied very heavily on that.

So they took a low ball settlement to progress commercial traction , they convinced a majority of shareholders ( some now walked) to support them to deliver commercial traction.

Over 18 months since the settlement..they are no nearer any sustainable revenue streams but have spent a chunk of the proceeds in building a cost base to provide for that eventuality ..a mistake made twice now at shareholder expense.

They got support because they promise commercial success..that support so far has been misplaced. Hence the head has to go.

Oh i think you have already figured it out !

I am not claiming what those who didn’t vote agree with me i don’t know what their views are …But you are claiming they agree with you…what does that tell you about yourself!

You cannot know what 90% of shareholders think.

The board got less than 30% of shareholders voting for them in the AGM ..That was the bulk of those who bothered to vote though. About half of that would be LOAM who have now sold over 2/3rds of their holding in the tender taking their voting power well down. Oryx were also a supportive holder with over 3% ..they sold before the tender.

So there has been a significant change since the votes last year and there never was 90% of shareholders supporting the board…nothing like it.

The main arguments you rely on are just boring , repetitive and factually wrong.

Quantum Dot Market to Grow at CAGR of 17% through 2033 - Rising Demand for Consumer Electronics

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/08/22/2933921/0/en/Quantum-Dot-Market-to-Grow-at-CAGR-of-17-through-2033-Rising-Demand-for-Consumer-Electronics.html

…estimates that the USD 6 billion in 2023 global quantum dot market will reach USD 28.84 billion in 2033.

Wonder if we will maintain our share of commercial revenue as the market grows?

This i thought interesting

“To keep ahead of the curve and get a competitive edge over China, the US government has dramatically increased investment on quantum dots and related sectors. Additionally, partnerships and cooperation are encouraged by the regional regulatory framework. “

With a number of US QD companies having been acquired by far east companies not sure how well this strategy is working. But in terms of remaining independent QD companies and their relative IP merits Nanoco does stand out as a cheap strategic buy on a global basis with likly no protection by UK government it could secure some important IP.

Nanoco never been more exposed to a takeover in my view.

Did you win any of the 20 plus litigation cases you claim to have been a party to??

How many cases were around patents and being heard in US courts?

Just checking on releventexperience to the case in hand.

And how have you been involved in so much litigation ?? What have you been up to , to get sued so often ?

Been through this before Feeks..Terry thinks it was BT’s job to puff up the possibilities and shareholders should have ignored him and done their own research…how when obviously we no access to the legal advice I don’t know. Terry just changes whatever he says to conjure a narrative where there is no blame on the executives on misleading and that he alone saw through it and predicted the outcome…there is unfortunately no evidence whatsoever of this, but there is evidence they were more bullish than anyone else.

The very idea a CEO is there to puff up expectation as he said basically blows up his own arguments anyway…that they gave the market over optimistic expectations . It also goes completely against their legal duty to put forward a honest and realistic picture of likely outcomes for the business they run.

Can you imagine Terry putting up a defence …case would over in a few minutes…so you agree the CEO misled their shareholders…thank you for that admission.

He is one very confused individual.

Yes there is the potential for a myriad of applications and security and authentication is a high margin sector always looking for new and effective ways to protect valuable products including currency ..maybe they should be talking to DeLa Rue ..but they seem to be on the block themselves at the moment.

The principal use by far is using our CFQD technology in QLED displays..so of all that annual revenue referred to in the sector we get an apportioned £6m a year.

I wonder whether the interest from a “couple” of big display companies mentioned ( see edison interview June 24) reemerges or whether that is very much now on the back burner too...it appeared they were looking for a MicroLED development agreement similar to STM and Asian customer ..but they also have said that with their existing "recipes" they could move quickly to produce QDs for a customer wanting CF materials to go into QLED screens. Maybe display provides a pleasant surprise at some stage ?

There is nothing in the price really for positives ..buy equally there haven’t been any for a while either.

And the companies to gain exposure to the sector..

https://www.securities.io/investing-nobel-prize-quantum-dots-nanocolors/

Everyone is presumably laughing at the TH case at Nanono I guess…that’s why they have appointed representation as a third party in the case…even though BT said it had nothing to do with the company I guess!