Member Info for Kooba

All the talk of short term speculators is total crap…when the company raised money at 37p to achieve a transformation in value the combined holding of RG and LOAM was some 38% they had backed the company as a start up pre IPO so were the longest term “independent” shareholders ..RG has left the building and LOAM down to 8% so between them the longest term shareholders have dumped 30% of the company ( mostly into pi hands) so who has been the big sellers over the past 2 years ? Those two shareholders also did not support the fundraise at 37P RG was selling shortly before and Loam started selling shortly afterward.

So who has depressed the price pi’s who have mopped up when their largest shareholders dump or their long term better informed holders dumping aggressively??

They promised pi’s much when raising money ..they have delivered little in terms of the promised transformational value.

The biggest long term holders might have supported this board of directors..but they have also voted with their feet.

Agree and also why the quantum of the order is not disclosed ..again how is that commercially sensitive ..Nanoco has announced they are commercially supplying STM. For shareholders to get a grasp on what “build up” looks like presume they need a base figure to start with.

Ive researched thousands of companies over the years in some detail and normally am able to piece things together pretty much mostly from having more to go on directly from the company you can then go and corroborate separately ..here it relies totally on what the management tell you as there is no supporting information available.they seem to expect blind faith in them delivering value…which has not been that successful for shareholders in the past.i was hoping following some controversy around communications recently that the company would up its game in giving clarity ..instead it seems to be getting more opaque. ..for now. That seems to be being reflected in the lack of any new interest on top of the one month halt in the buy back.

Tm58

On the subject of logic and samples..try the interim presentation at 40 minutes from the horses mouth. Talks about integration time but engineering samples have been available since 2022..so as he says STM customers have had lots of time already to get to know the functionality.

https://youtu.be/Oun9bCyzCFA?si=AeOHMq-GuiXdw5ie

If you have time the interim presentation April 24 gets you up to speed pretty well… the q&as interesting but not always totally reliable .

https://youtu.be/Oun9bCyzCFA?si=J2L3vCZCBtzX15WR

Smithy I see you are a new contributor so welcome aboard.

You might want to do a bit of research into the company.

The 15 Nov order was not with the Asian customer.

The renewed development agreements with Asian customer and StM run for 2 years then BT says a further up to 12 months to commercial sales in the last presentation.so there is some timescales there.

Shorter term we seem pretty reliant on STM selling some gen 1 materials to their customers to meet the CF breakeven target for CY 2025.

So far no evidence of the promised build up in those revenues but could be any day I guess.

Carlos you really are a silly little fellow aren’t you…you really need to work on your self awareness and sort your act out…feeling queasy you say ..oh bless.

Lmao.

Carlos do you recognise this bag of crap you posted??

“The pedanticism hiding the negativity on here is just purely pathetic, Middle aged men scouring every last word to find a fault to complain about is lame.. I am embarrassed for you all.”

You have never posted anything remotely interesting or knowledgable as far as i am aware yet feel it necessary to have a pop at others who clearly know more and do some homework ..and you are embarrassed for us!

You then take offence at the term sunshine…have a rethink and work out who is looking for trouble.

BoracicLint Many thanks for your kind comments and wish you success in your future investing. Think definitely worth keeping NANO on the watch page as there is very decent upside if they deliver the commercial traction they aim for…likely see an uptick before anything positive comes out. In the meantime the lack of news and lack of ongoing promised buy back is seeing them drift to these expected levels.

“Why can't you look at it logically. “

I do nothing but that sunshine. At the time of the first commercial order

Brian Tenner, Nanoco's CEO, commented:

"Today's announcement records a critical milestone in Nanoco's evolution from an R&D first mover to an electronics materials production company. With our customers' global reach and ambitions for this technology, we expect initial low volume demand to increase gradually due to more end users and a more diverse range of applications.‘

MORE end users indicated there was an end user and many including myself were speculating on what end use there could be.

With hindsight and with BT saying he now doubts that any materials are in commercially available products does rather change that expectation and the likelihood of scale up or samples becomes likely as does the fact there appears no follow on orders ..or any other orders as far as we know. Using logic one can only use the information available ..the information is scant and there is not definitive answer to what is going on …very Nanoco like. So your guess is no better than mine apart from i provide back up from the company comms normally to give context. Your go to provide evidence the order was just for samples. ..good luck with that.

Forgot i had a limit in at 17p , got filled at 16.9548p..helps bring the average closer to the 17p target re-entry.

Possible that there is some buyback activity today just below 17p level see if it develops and there is a print out later. But theres a chance looking at some of the activity. Maybe they are in again at current levels..i certainly can’t get an explanation for events out of the company.

Referring to “they have stopped the buyback less than halfway through “

Well it’s either the company because they gave specific instructions to Cavendish different to fulfilling the £3m buy back they told shareholders would be continued to exhausting the £3m or the AGM. …Or it is Cavendish who have decided for whatever reason having been very keen ob buying up stock well over 20p that the shares now no longer offer value to Nanoco shareholders ..so you can take they as the company and their agent if you like,,not sure its that complicated is it??

Silly thing to say the price has just adjusted for the reduction in cash held to be a like for like valuation..exactly as forecast. Nothing to do with criticising anything ..but the lack of progress in the commercial revenues..7 months now since first commercial order and the fact that they have stopped the buyback less than halfway through i would guess are slightly more important factors than anything posted on any BB. I have replaced all the shares sold at 24p now and may by more with the excess cash left..the shares here do not discount the possibility of the company actually delivering what they guide to imo ..so the risk reward is pretty good. But you have the management to thank for the shareprice..no one else.

Yeah 2G2D ..but apart from all that !

I would imagine that board minutes and litigation committee minutes would provide evidence of what was discussed and known by members ..LOAM having a representative on both up to Sept 2022. I presume such documents could be asked to be presented at court. As to any conversion around the 6th January again there should be a record kept of conversations with those on the midnight call, was there any advisors on that call ? There should be a list of those on the call who could also be called to testify on the disclosures made…if it was a call just with 2 shareholders at midnight that did not disclose anything material in terms of the litigation settlement why was the call necessary ? BT narrative was that the call took place to try to get those involved in the litigation to take lower settlement figures, this included the Bondholders ( who were also shareholders) …can’t think how that conversation takes place without a disclosure that the settlement is low ball relative to earlier expectation. Either way the bondholders did not take a haircut and were paid in full including a very large success bonus.

Any thoughts that this is a good outcome for LOAM or Nanoco is misguided. They wanted the whole thing thrown out but it is deemed there is a case to answer so i very much doubt they are celebrating having to go through a full trial with repercussions that are not just civil.

If such evidence that they had inside information in January 2023 and were very active in the market based on that information is admitted in court evidencing earlier such behaviour …then there is a big problem …it was not an isolated large sale as the damages claim is based upon..but would then demonstrate that many transactions with multiple parties where made when there was not a level playing field. A much bigger potential damages case.

Why is that ??

Focus on..

“However, events in January 2023 as alleged by the Claimant are striking. If his account is proved correct, it may be that Mr Giles was indeed encouraging him to trade in the Third Party's shares with knowledge of matters that amount to inside information. It is of course the Claimant's case that Mr Giles was one of the people with whom he was dealing at the Defendant and was part of the Volantis team”

This is concerning..although the case revolves around a transaction between Hamoodi and LOAM in 2022…the conduct around Jan 2023 is raised.

“For reasons that I have identified above, the Claimant is able to show some evidence to support the argument that Mr Giles shared inside information with him in January 2023. The exploration of that issue is necessary in order to reach an informed judgement on the issue of the earlier allegation of the failure to disclose inside information.”

That could be a can of worms!

It seems Hamoodi brought 4 different claims against Lombard Odier; fraud, misrepresentation, unlawful means conspiracy to defraud, and negligence. All have the same cause of action and that is insider dealing.

LOAM sought to have the case thrown out but the judge has ordered trial for claims of fraud and misrepresentation, also allowing Hamoodi to amend his claims of unlawful means conspiracy and negligence later on... In short, LOAM have lost their arguments in having the case dismissed it seems.

Found it

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1314.html