Member Info for Kooba

They dig a hole not knowing securities regulation at all which they effectively accuses the management and their broker Cavendish of unlawful behaviour ..then keep digging ..when you are in a hole you have dug and there is no wa

Gone broke

Most companys have a standard share buyback authority rolled year by year. Nanoco significantly extended thei authority for the capital return in a GM. They said the share buyback in £3m would commence 11th April and continued under a broker agreement with Cavendish until the £3m exhausted or the next Agm. Straightforward there was the understanding that the buyback would be continuous and that the reason for the agreement was that it was independent of the company . Pretty straightforward ..what is not straightforward is why they’d stopped for over 6 weeks before a profit warning. Perhaps you can explain why?

NGR the company had already put in a safety net of £20m ..they then increased that to £23m at the last moment to pay the minimum £33m promised that changed in March ? At the same time te company reiterated guidance for current year.

Your theory seems to be from the end of March to the beginning of May the company got very cold feet on their forecast and when they might see orders ..so much so they stopped the buyback which they had not control over…and you think that was clever to preserve the cash?

Raises quite a few questions for me.

I was not aware of guidance to a display deal in this financial year ..so understand why they warned on that …again though i think with the interims that was moved past 2024fy end as well.

NGR at the point they kept money back ..because they thought there was genuine risk of them not meeting expectation they fall into troubled waters ..the whole point of the buyback being independent of the company as they advised was that such situations didn’t arise.You are saying they pulled it because of there inside information over the orders position.

X good spotting they were guiding to 2024fy for some gen 1 ..but they would argue that guidance changed with the interims when they clearly shifted to 2024cy…its their usual goalpost move, which is why they haven’t moved the goalposts this time ..they just don’t know where they are anymore.

They moved guidance to cy2024 for next orders but maintained the current year forecasts ..which they will now miss.

But a theory should not implicate the people involved in a complicated timeline of deceit that would breach their fiduciary and regulatory obligations to their shareholders or the folks perpetrating such theories might be guilty of spreading bogus lies about the behaviour of the directors.

Anyone who thinks they kept more money back than they said they needed in March or stopped the buyback on 9th May because they knew the price would fall when they finally informed shareholders should report the company to the fca as it would be clear breach of regulations.

They maintained guidance to the market throughout this period culminating in a very upbeat note at the end of June..they could have easily asked that be delayed until the market was informed but didn’t. I’m afraid those thinking they are defending the company are in fact doing precisely the opposite.

I’ll explain my views first before you entrench yourself in MAR rules.

-we are all agreed they are supposed to paint the company in a positive light !?

No accurate to the best of their knowledge

-so they prepared a bullish piece

Seems attached interview early April

-but at the same time they had concerns over the lack of follow up order

So early April

-so they decided to ask for an update

When?

After they had kept more cash back

-in the meantime the CEO and CFO thought perhaps it prudent to pause the buyback until we know more

They thought they would stop the buyback on these concerns 9th May

-upon hearing there would be no orders in FY24 but that there might be more confidence in orders in FY25 and they will be in a better position to update the market in October they restarted the buyback

Have they heard that FY2025 will be better ..they didn’t say that did they?

they then released a trading update

Well they finally tell their shareholders having had concerns from early April and stopped the buyback early May without saying a word and allowing a bullish note to go out just before the warning?

If you think that makes sense and is being honest then you are wrong.

Agreed they have just accused the company its directors and the guys at Cavendish of breaching ongoing obligation to inform the market of material changes in trading expectations and that they kept more money back and pulled the buyback on that knowledge…not that Cavendish who were executing the buyback should have been informed anyway.

Now NGR is at it too…saying makes sense to halt the buyback if they knew no orders were forthcoming against guidance and meaning they would miss the numbers. That would mean they were aware of the situation on 9thMay and should have informed the market without delay at that point NOT just stopped the buyback because there was a change in expectation!

Guys you are making them sound like crooks..whether you intend to or not! You clearly think that they were aware of a serious shortfall some time before they told the market! And released highly bullish marketing Material during that time.

Nov 23

“.. pleased to announce it has now fulfilled its first ever commercial production order, having completed shipments of two different first generation materials for use in infra-red sensing applications in electronic devices.”

(Sensing applications in electronic devices..interpreted as there being an underlying device.)

( noting order was not for one specific material but 2)

Dec 23

“The initial use case is expected to be for a low volume application measured in millions of units, whilst demand is then expected to grow gradually, enabling Nanoco to become self-financing during CY25”

(Talks of a use case..indicates there is an underlying device..though could be the sensor itself)

Feb2024

“The initial use case is expected to be for a low volume application measured in millions of units, whilst demand is then expected to grow gradually, enabling Nanoco to become self-financing during CY25”

(Again talking of use case..indicates specific function)

March2024 interims

Critical milestone of first ever commercial orders achieved

o Shipment in November 2023 of two first-generation materials for use in infra-red sensing applications in electronic devices (cameras and imagers).

( first mention cameras and imagers ..again applications and devices lacking specificity )

“Sensing

In November, we fulfilled our first ever commercial production orders for two different products from our first generation materials. This milestone and the status of our direct customer is a clear endorsement of our technology. We expect further orders to be fulfilled during this calendar year, depending on end user adoption and demand. The wide range of potential end use applications for our materials reflects a key strength of our materials and the underpinning IP - they are a 'platform technology' that is applicable to a wide range of markets, applications and form factors.“

( guidance was for orders this calendar year..not financial)

The warning clearly indicates they factored in further orders in financial year 2024 but that is not what they told share holders..it also does not add up ith previous guidance that the ongoing r&d work would be the same as previous year £2.4m and the Samsung accounting would see FY revenues at £8.4m..they are now below that figure. But clearly the warning is that they have now no visibility in any future demand.

I have access to see trades through premium membership elsewhere ..not difficult. And you can access through the Stock Exchange link provided.

The information is on my screen and i posted a link to all trades yesterday. Every buyback made has been done with Cavendish “working the order” during the day and then printing out one trade to Nanoco ..so you can see what the have done the day before as that print matches the buyback confirmed the next day.. This time there was no print out to the underlying customer so it looked like they were not operating ..all transactions should be reported,

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/NANO/nanoco-group-plc/company-page

Yesterdays trade data can be seen here.

Oh they did a share buyback…but it wasn't printed out yesterday..so not included in the daily volume.

Well at least they didn’t significantly increase the fixed cost base without any surety of demand like they did before Apple shock …oh.

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

― George W. Bush

Thanks George,

Yes I made the mistake of thinking Nanoco’s guidance must be very strong having gone through all the litigation questions , but no they clearly were just wishful thinking again . So error was believing guidance from only a few months ago was well considered ..but no same as always overly optimistic. They still seem to have no idea where they stand..but CF breakeven 2025 seems a long way away.

Oh well took some funds out and same shareholding in cheaper…going to stick.

10p cash on increased shares in issue and cash burn and they have Ip that maybe as has been the case so far someone else might be able to profit from. Management needs a shake up ..neds need to step up.

No share buyback yesterday and difficult to see a print looking like a buy today..maybe they have all they have to do at these levels to keep some powder dry…like they did in May..how encouraging!

Yes X very aware of that one ,,the guidance for the year comprised entirely of samsung and the 2 r&d programmes coming in at £8.4m ( go back to full year presentation and Liams forecast) there was no allowance for gen 1 sales per se. They have in fact never made any comment on the size of order one or any expectation for any further orders, save for estimates for FY 2025 by Edison and Cavendish , and their cash flow break even target…all of which must have included additional gen 1 sales. There was never anything defined for FT2024.

Can you post a link to that and the section $1m of orders for further materials to fy2024 end.

I was not aware they had every made a specific forecast of gen 1 revenues…or made an rns on 24th March for that matter.