Member Info for Kooba

Ngr

Question - you have portrayed yourself as the speaker of truth and fact....why don't you take to task posters like TG2D to task as vigorously as you would I or others like me with a positive leaning? In fact why do you not take them to task at all? It would be refreshing if you did.

Not your job to tel me my job !!

I state what i see is the case and am a sceptic so i am more inclined to challenged the bull narrative…which seems to be the correct approach.

Finally it seems the life work of some like yourself not to question anything the company says and to defend BT to the hilt to an extraordinary degree considering the company valuation.

So while i might not agree with the most negative posts there seems plenty of challenge to me.

Ngr..the forecast of £8.4m from the company ( backed by paid for) ..showing £2.4m being the r&d work ( same as previous year) was made with the finals ..they made no provision for there being meaningful gen 1 sales in the financial year..go back and check..they then said that they were in line to meet that expectation at the end of March and expected further orders by the end of the CY. Then suddenly the FY2024 numbers are going to be light and they have no idea when they may get orders.,,it does not add up and points to a more serious change in expectation than a 30 day delay…in something that apparently was not necessarily expected by end of this month anyway.

Thinking this is a minor delay is a mistake..in my opinion.

I don’t subscribe to the ending of the relationship with STM no..it clearly states they are progressing their Gen 2 work..but there is great uncertainty around the prospect of further Gen 1 orders and it does not appear to be a simple slight delay in receiving further orders and them being on target to meet CF break even CY 2025 ..if they had any visibility they should have clarified..they have bought themselves some time ( oct) ..the tone of the update was rather gloomy for the sunshine pump that BT normally is so the read through is not bullish.

The fact the Asian customer moved straight from gen 1 to gen 2 programme without any commercialisation intent on the first materials could be what STM has now decided.

The share price is probably discounting that scenario to a large extent..but it further questions the companys ability to determine its future.

Ngr maybe i should put a wonky face up after that post..to try to make it funny?

Perhaps the update has been prompted by the new neds who have asked for evidence of being able to meet the guidance given to the market ? The forecasts and CF breakeven expectation was put into the market before either was on the board…so they were not involved in forming that guidance some of which was put in place around the time of the GM when the executives were saving their skins?

The new NEDs are both far more experienced in running technology companies and correctly forming guidance of commercial delivery than anyone else on the board as far as i can tell.

There are alternative explanations.

Truly sad folk are the ones who can block posters they don’t agree with but don’t and just constantly moan about them because they have no viable view apart from just trust the management..something that has become rather a stretch for most .but don’t believe the puff from the CEO because it is his job to talk it up. Oh and the CEO knew things were wrong before the tender thats why they kept more cash back and thats why they halted the buy back ..because they knew a warning was coming… that implicates the management in serially breaching Mar rules , rules that they clearly know nothing about.

If ignorance is bliss, Nige must be in paradise…or some timeshare in Spain more likely.

Seems the big boys are pulling back from MicroLED an area that Nanoco is self funding. The timelines to genuine commercial traction in the article appears its no near term opportunity.

‘ it'll easily be 5 to 10 years before micro-LED can be considered commercial’

https://www.techradar.com/televisions/oled-beating-micro-led-tv-tech-looks-uncertain-as-lg-and-samsung-wobble-but-hope-is-not-lost-yet

Their ranges are constantly evolving as one would expect..

The VL53L9 dToF sensor is already available for lead customers, with mass production scheduled for early 2025.

https://www.imveurope.com/article/stmicroelectronics-launch-new-dtof-itof-sensors

Has anyone looked at these products? Doesn’t mention QDs of course but some things form clues?

“I was surprised by the lack of information and usage examples for this sensor group. I asked the STMicro folks and learned that their primary market is smartphones, which practically eliminates the need for marketing.”

https://www.hackster.io/vsupacha/experiencing-vl53l8-multizone-tof-sensor-aa2d50

Good point and possible but it does say An acquisition or disposal of voting rights on 5th July prompted them breaking the 3% threshold..that was just after the profits warning. So i figure even if they were already a holder they made a market purchase to take them over disclosure levels.

NGR

It's a hedge fund I think is the point Kooba is trying to point out which means they could be taking a position to go short.....but hedge funds go long too.

No they take concentrated long positions (only 5-10 holdings) and engage with the management it seems and have been involved recently in ousting the management of one investment.

They hedge their long positions by having a spread of shorts in other companies and indicies i imagine..so they are market neutral.

The idea is they think their longs can outperform whatever the broader index does leaving them market neutral.

I would think they will buy more here to get to at least 5% as that gives certain rights and likely more like 10%.

A San Francisco activist hedge fund..might liven things up.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/10/10/2757724/0/en/Anson-and-Cable-Car-Send-Letter-to-MEI-Pharma-Stockholders.html

Shoei is Japanese company ..rather manga i thought.

Https://nanosys.com/

Those that said they were finished ..might not be so certain.

However Nanoco are a world leader in the development, manufacture and supply of quantum dots and other semiconductor nanomaterials.

“If it turns out that Gen 1 has been give boot by STM, I think the company may come under pressure to seek out a buyer.”

There certainly would need to be a decent explanation of how they misjudged with their guidance ..shareholders were strung along on tales of commercial traction just round the corner for a number of years ..in fact i think their CF breakeven guidance came about when they were defending their jobs at the GM called..so was used as evidence of the great things coming so keep them in role.

If it proves to have been wildly over optimistic then there needs to be information on why they thought it was going to happen…and what stops it happening again.

That was a post by nigwit which is you in its entirety ..i did not write that and have never written anything like that around the settlement ..i can understand exactly why you want to disown it and say its out of context which it is not because it sets you in a very bad light. A sort of two faced know it all that was more guilty then anyone of puffing a high settlement.

You wrote it you own it.

An example of the kind of estimates some with little litigation experience were bandying about pre settlement. This was in £ too so real money..oh thats you Nige ( aka terrorwit) isn’t it .

Who would have thought when you are the only one who understands anything getting it so wrong.

That is far far higher than any edison estimate ever mentioned, its $1b up front and a huge licence fee per annum ..must have been a huge disappointment what they settled for against that kind of feasible outcome you set out. Does make you look a right dick though now criticising others dont ya think?

NigWit 18 Feb '22 - 18:07 - 24073 of 39740

None of this short-term trading matters though. It's all about the main event.

I mean, what value would you put on a settlement of, say, ?750m, plus ?100m PA license fees and a supply contract with STM?

... all of which could quite feasibly be just the beginning. “

6 weeks after they stopped the buy back according to some a clever move knowing that orders would not be forthcoming and they would have to change guidance ..they allowed a piece of paid for research deemed marketing material to be released that painted a very rosy picture of trading and outlook ..just a week or so before they delivered the profits warning…which included a bullish C suite interview.

Again if they were aware at this point as some suggest and allowed that to go out that clearly influenced a positive reaction by the market and corresponding share price rise then they were misleading the market against their internal expectation.

I am not accusing the management of such behaviour others on here are …however the timeline of when the company became aware of the likelihood of failing to meet expectation reinforced with the interims and did it influence decisions around the capital return is an important question .

Quick recap on a company’s continuing obligations as a listed company

Once listed, a company with a premium or standard listing will be subject to a continuous disclosure requirement designed to prevent the creation of a false market in the company's securities. The company will be required to publicly disclose any inside information that directly concerns the company.

Broadly, inside information is information which:

Is of a precise nature (for example, it indicates a set of circumstances which exist or may reasonably be expected to come into existence and is specific enough to make conclusions as to the possible effect on price).

Relates, directly or indirectly, to one or more companies or to one or more financial instruments.

Has not been made public.

Would be likely to have a significant effect on the price of those financial instruments.

In determining the likely price significance of information, a company should assess whether the information in question would be likely to be used by a reasonable investor as part of the basis of their investment decisions and would therefore be likely to have a non-trivial effect on the price of the company's financial instruments.

So if they were aware or thought reasonable that a situation was likely to occur that key follow on orders would not be forthcoming the company had information that would have been significantly impacted the share price ( as it surely did) if as put forward by certain posters that that information influenced the companys decision to a retain further funds than originally signalled and that was the reason the company stopped the agreed and “independently” managed share buyback would clearly be in breach as they allowed expecation in the market to remain that they did not believe would materialise.

After they had announced the minimum capital distribution and the increased level of retained funds ( £23m ) they still with the interims 27th March stated

Outlook

· Expansion of our range of services to include sensing device development work when Fab is fully commissioned during H2 FY24.

· FY24 performance expected to be in line with market expectations[3]

· Continued progress as a full-service production company with the goal of becoming cash breakeven during CY25, in line with previously set out timeframe.

So if their decision to keep more cash was because they realised they would miss..they didn’t tell their shareholders.

So there was every reason up to the profit warning that the company was fully on track to meet its guidance. They stopped the buyback on the 8th may 5/6 weeks after the interims…again if they thought that the outlook had significantly changed enough to stop the buyback they did not tell their shareholders ..but must have told Cavendish who used the information to decide to pull the buyback ( others interpretation) ..i would like to know why and get no response at all.

..when you are in a hole you have dug and there is no way out ..best stop digg