Member Info for Kooba

No NGR that is fact …be sorry for not acknowledging the facts by all means but your rose tinted glasses don’t make me wrong. I am often accused i going into to much detail around what the company says..it annoys a few here as it points out many inconsistencies and failures to deliver key “milestones” on time. But i do know what was communicated absolutely.

TG2D …”they will spend their life's moving goal posts and inventing yet more excuses for yet more failure to deliver!”

That is the worry im afraid and with hindsight , such a wonderful thing , when one looks back there has been a series of events none of which has resulted in any long term increase in the valuation of the business.. but since that valuation is now very modest and the business fully funded and they are actively engaged with the two ( assuming Sony) biggest players in sensors they have a chance of cracking something that might change that 2 decade run. As i have said before being a shareholder you are allowed to question commercial delivery and corporate communications ..in fact thats the only reason why i imagine people might.

That’s for NGR and ended+ listened.

I’m afraid you are wrong again..many just ended far to intently to what the comany was promising ..you and others seem to there was some mass hysteria ..that is not the case at all the optimism was fueled by continued and ever more bullish communications from the company and it’s paid for marketing..the risk profile was gone into after they had taken the settlement in explaining why. Everything points to it being lower than they hoped or expected themselves. Why were they on the midnight call asking people to take a haircut on fees if it was in line with the best expectation of a settlement. Saying that expectation was all down to a few speculators is nonsense ..and you should know it. Whilst you unreservedly support the actions and communications of the board it seems , others quite rightly in my opinion are fully justified in feeling misled. I’m afraid their current communications is no better this time by giving so little information it’s difficult to know whether the company is achieving its commercial aims or not. A very strange position to be able to make investment decisions and provide confidence ..that fully reflect in the shareprice.

From that list it appears Christopher Mills who so fervently supported the board representing ORYX has also departed as you point out the list of major shareholders on the company website is significantly out of date in many respects

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/investors/major-shareholders/

In their defence “Christopher Mills, founder, director, chief executive and chief investment officer of Harwood Capital, a circa three per cent shareholder, who said:

“I fully support the board of Nanoco as they have a clear strategy to build value for all shareholders. I believe it would be highly irresponsible to support the resolutions in the requisitioned meeting in so far as the proposed new directors are not of the experience or calibre I would expect to see on the board of a UK public company in which I am invested.”

So another institution voting one way and exiting the other..they reduced below 3% and now i think are out.

Unfortunately as well as not convincing any new institutions of the value they can’t manage to keep the few they have left.

Higher percentage of shares owned by pi’s now than ever i reckon…must be a good thing?

From our friends down the road at QS ..why does Nanoco not do these industry view pieces as the sector leader??

https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/98042-machine-vision-trends-for-manufacturing

Fact is if they were operating i would be more likely to be buying more ..meantime as they have held off the price has drifted and i and maybe others hold off ..the last price they paid was 18.8564p per share (8th May) having averaged about 20.6p , the shares have traded below 17p so have traded materially below their last purchase. And wel below the average they have paid so far.

The £3m share buyback is part of the company’s obligation made a year ago to shareholders to return £33m from the second tranche received that was received towards the end of January . As well as providing a liquidity opportunity for those wanting to sell the idea was that it would be for the benefit of remaining shareholders by further reducing the shares in issue and concentrated remaining shareholders interest in the commercial delivery.

“..the Company will pursue an ongoing on-market share buyback programme of up to a total value of £3.0 million to provide a continuing value-accretive return of capital to Shareholders.”

So having provided liquidity for those selling immediately after the tender ..likely shorter term traders from what many think giving them a nice profitable exit on any balance not sold in the tender. They have neither supported a higher valuation or efficiently repurchased shares at an advantageous level for long term value accretion as did not allow for price adjustment.Now the shares are back a lower and more advantageous level to repurchase they are not buying and have not do for over a month.

There is no easy explanation why they are not pursuing the buyback here they have £1.7m committed capital left and they say it is in shareholder interests.

As to guesswork NGR i was referring to what shareholders have available to make investment decisions ..we can but guess how the company intends to deliver the CF breakeven promised as we have nothing else to go on. As to whether there is reason behind company forecasts then i’m sure there probably is ..just not shared.

There was me thinking steve jobs announced the first iPhone many months before its launch in 2007..and they announced the functionality and market position of most of their new products in advance to the public , see the much talked of Vision Pro . This is normal industry marketing practise to build demand ahead of launch. As to why STM is not mentioning the improved functionality of new products in the sensor market that include one must think USPs of having far more effecient QDs in SwIr sensing even though they have delievered papers and have had demonstrations on for years at trade fairs i can’t say.

One minute you say there is a clear roadmap next that it will remain opaque NGR

I think if you stick to clearer thoughts it would be helpful.

From Interims 27th March..definitely CY2025.

Brian Tenner, Chief Executive Officer of Nanoco Group plc, said:

"Delivering our first ever commercial orders was a huge achievement for the whole Nanoco team. Sales volumes of first generation materials are expected to grow gradually over time to deliver a cash breakeven position during CY25. Adoption of the technology in mobile phones would lead to further significant growth.”

So cash flow break even in the next 18 months.

First commercial order received 7 months ago and was less than £150k i reckon.

To get to cash flow breakeven they would need eq annualised increased revenues of £4-5m i think obviously depending on margins they can achieve ..we have no idea of the minimum commercial order size in the stm agreement , the size of the first commercial order or the margins they can expect on further orders. So all guesswork isn’t it.

We are promised a build up of gen 1 revenues resulting in a cash flow break even point in CY2025 i think that is what people are seeking evidence for ..they have set out the timelines for gen 2 as likely over 2 years to commercial sales.

No one is expecting or wants the ceo to make stuff up that is clearly the point ..investors will want a clear and deliverable timeline to commercial delivery that is met to that timetable with no moving goal posts ..evidence supporting any narrative , a narrative of near term commercial breakthroughs dating back to the settlement would be just dandy.

As posted expectation management is indeed key to getting supportive shareholders..no more misses.

“Maybe there is an alternative agenda that favours a low share price? I’ll put that on the list of maybe’s.”

Food for thought.

https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/insights/rise-public-private-transactions-key-considerations-companies

The senior leadership team at the company could do worse than to read peer to peer pieces on good ceo communications and market expectation.

https://www.criticaleye.com/inspiring/community-update.cfm?id=332#:~:text=Ultimately%2C%20it%20is%20the%20CEO,and%20storyteller%2Din%2Dchief.

I think you could look at every years strategic aims since inception to find they have not met ambitions. Ambitions must clearly be to commercialise their technology and make a return on the capital invested creating shareholder value. Tell me when they have ever met that ambition.

The list of what positives might happen is lovely.

None of that explains why after apparently taking the loose stock out and with some like me reinvesting ( an important part of the bullish narrative post tender) the price continues to flounder.

It is part of the well paid ceo role to attract investors and get the businesses value recognised..they have made a crude effort around the interims and undoubtedly have tried to bring in new quality investors that does not seem to have worked … then back to radio silence and swathes of confidentiality. Maybe there is an alternative agenda that favours a low share price? I’ll put that on the list of maybe’s.

Answers on a postcard.

The conclusion would seem either

A..the market is wrong ( i don’t find this to be a common event) and the leading shareholders who have sold their holdings down aggressively over the past 2 years are wrong and that the price massively underrates the business.

B ..that one needs to question the commercial delivery by the management that they promise in the near term commercial traction ..the company has a reputation for not meeting its ambitions.

Happy for alternative views on explaining the disparity ..but sensible ones that don’t just mention what is posted on boards ..as thats nonsense.

I note PVX you posted why the stock would not fall into the teens post tender ..can you explain why that has proved wrong and do you regret being overly optimistic in your posts? Would that have influenced readers actions..i hope not.

PVX

Quite a few made up accusations there..stick to the facts

On risk reward of investing see other post..as said it quite simple why you might invest but question delivery.

Why is a company, a world leader in a fast growing sector where they have strong validated IP and a state of the art manufacturing facility capable of over £100m of revenue who has r&d programmes with two of the world biggest sensor companies and has a strong balance sheet that covers many years of burn trading where it does? The company have guided to strong commercial traction in the near term and say they will be cash flow breakeven next calendar year trade at a modest (£8m) enterprise value? The IP and plant alone must be worth more than that let thats without the prospects of the strong commercial traction they promise..tell me why the market values the company at such a low level relative to the narrative the company projects?? I am genuinely interested to know your take why..also why have the two biggest holders from 2 years ago have sold so much of their holdings , they must know more than me and have run for the hills it seems just when the company says it is to succeed. Why is that?

A clue the answer is not what i and others post on bulletin boards ..

“Some”....thats me isnt it…I’ve explained so often about risk and reward..pay attention NGR .

If the shares were pricing in the success the company and the fan boys say is coming i would probably be selling…as it goes it is pricing in them continuing the jam tomorrow and not delivering much ..get it? So the risk ( cash backed ) reward ( they might just do it ) or someone bids for them makes it an interesting play. So is it ok if i manage my own money and my own views? Thanks i will anyway.

If you believe all that im surprised you claim to be invested..why are you ?

Problem is the board set targets not aligned with delivering genuine shareholder value so it means those running such firms can have a great year when the shareholders have a rotten one…all renumeration should be linked to demonstrable shareholder value.

The management has everything to prove in delivering value and no evidence it is on the right track yet.

Brian Tenner total renumeration FY2023 £660k after over 100% cash and shares bonus. Further long term options at zero cost exercised during the year.

Share price fy2023 was down 50% 37p down to 18.5p

Its working for the few ..not the all! Not bad dough for the ceo of a company with about £8m of enterprise value and saw the shares halve.