Member Info for Kooba

Maybe the company will start buying again here?

Picked a few more up just above.

Probably of no relevance!

Apple has filed a patent that reveals their work on advancing a micro-LED display with quantum dot layers. The new displays could apply to a future version of Vision Pro, smartglasses, an iMac, iPhone, iPad, a gaming device, Apple Watch, computer displays and more. Quantum dot technology could provide sharper resolution, superior contrast and more.

Apple's patent FIG. 10 below illustrates a cross-sectional side view of an illustrative display with quantum dot layers over ultraviolet light sources.

3. HMD-Dlisplay-with-Quantum-Dot-Technology+

This is a highly technical patent. For those interesting, read the full details of patent application 20240170619.

https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/05/five-apple-patents-published-today-cover-packaging-fabrics-for-vision-pro-future-hmd-displays-with-quantum-dot-technology.html

Just one of many possibilities Nanonano not something that i originally brought up but is a valid outcome whether the company is successful or not in its latest commercial endeavours.

Many thought nobody would sell at the tender price yet it was fully subscribed.

I think a takeover merely has to appeal to the majority of shareholders and if the price was attractive to that amount of holder irrespective of where the company finds itself then it can proceed.i would prefer that they demonstrated strong commercial sales and attractive margins myself before anyone has a tilt.

Having said all this i am still weary on the lack of visible revenue build and the chances of targets being pushed back..but i think that is probably factored in to an extent but will be reserving some firepower for the possibility and likely market reaction. Equally if they can demonstrate that have cracked it happy to pay higher prices on that eventuality.

Good weekend pragmatists ..im tipping Manchester to win the footie.

Yep a takeover or buyout is possible if the company's commercial ambitions stall at near current levels..it is also quite possible that the company finds itself on the receiving end of a aggressive bid if they become a ket material supplier in mass markets if the shares do not rerate properly to reflect that success. The other possible outcome on commercial success id they move the listing to NASDAQ where valuations of such businesses could achieve multiples of UK valuations.

Good speculative “punt” ..not put.

Still think there could be better execs and comms ..hoping the new non executive directors are getting their feet under the boardroom table and starting some much needed help on strategic delivery and any constructive criticism they think warranted to deliver the best outcome for shareholder value. I note neither has bought any shares yet , though NED share ownership is encouraged. They may be restricted already but unlikely as directors were clear to deal in the tender. but i think it would be seen as positive if the new directors became shareholders.

All fair points there.

The reasons for staying are there is undeniably a big market developing in nanomaterials..there already is in display and there are still many fields as well as infrared consumer device sensor applications , such as automotive , medical and solar that can be addressed and that present potentially huge markets. We are aware through Samsungs deal that they couldn’t get round the infringement of our patents..so they do have something not replicable without infringement…and a large remaining IP portfolio spreading across a number of potential applications..for a while at least.

The company now has the finance to demonstrate it can become a commercial success and deliver sustainable long term value through generating profits. There are no excuses now.

So there is good upside if the company can gain commercial traction and a demonstration of that before the end of this CY is important. In the meantime the enterprise value has shrunk back down to more like pre tender levels so with what should end up being 186m shares in issue with £23m cash at the FY end in July that is close to 12.5p per share so the potential of the organic business ,the IP porfolio and some plant and equipment is valued at less than £10m which is hardly discounting the company achieving what it is forecasting ..ie a jump in commercial revenues next year to put the company in a self funding ( cashflow breakeven +) position.so whilst it is reasonable after years of not generating commercial success to be somewhat cautious in accepting the latest guidance ( and it might slip again) the upside on getting a grip in what is an expanding market is far greater than the downside if they again fail to find a meaningful market for their wares. So on a risk reward basis the downside is 5p and the upside on an immaculate and top end delivery of products going into mass devices is going to be more like Cavendish targets i guess.i therefore see it as a good speculative put on a 1-2 year view. Worth sticking around ( or replacing stock sold in the tender) to see if 20 years of investment in r&d can finally become a serious UK technology company addressing global markets. I apologise if that comes over more bullish than usual ..normal service will shortly be resumed.

X That is indeed meaningful as i think it is a very rare example of anyone at STM ever mentioning Nanoco so from that perspective it is good to see. Few clues as to what and where they may be using the materials but at least recognising that Nanoco exists!

Not entirely sure how Nanoco would feel at being called embryonic!

2.

(of a system, idea, or organization) in a rudimentary stage with potential for development.

"the plan is still in its embryonic stages"

Since they were founded in 2001 that is one rather long gestation period! The fact they have validated IP and two global customers and are signalling the move from being an R&D company to be the world leader in commercial production in an established and quickly growing sector ..is some way away from being an idea for a start up.

They pay themselves far from embryonic money and should be in a position to correctly guide on how the business is to progress and inform their shareholders accordingly. They have made a serious investment in the FAB that should only be done if they expect a meaningful commercial return on that investment and over what timescale.

To be fair X I have gone through it many times using the broker research to FY 2025 to show that reaching cash flow breakeven in CY 2025 looking highly unlikely.

The cash burn forecast by Cavendish to July 25 is £3.5m for current year £3.8m to £4.8m so even with increased interest income there is significant burn and that burn is forecast to stay high throughout FY 2025. How they move to breakeven in the 5 months to CY 2025 I have no idea.

Anyway I doubt very much that the buyback is cancelled and yes it would have to be announced..they have already kept more back (£23m) than they said and at the above burn rates they have already got a decent contingency should their forecasts end up being put back ..so maybe that signals their confidence in being self funding next year?

You seem to Carlos!

I’ll post what i like as it goes sunshine i look forward to you making a contribution above and beyond just moaning about other posters that is coherent ..in the meantime you can block me its simple. Then you wont have to spend your valuable time complaining. I seem to be one of the few that is buying at moment , small buy today, perhaps you can explain what my agenda is exactly as i am unaware that i had one …Chin chin

Yes thin today but that has not been the case everyone of the past 12 days. Also how do Cavendish know what the volume is going to be by the close as to whether they deal in the morning or not? Also if they were on the bid in size it might bring out a decent seller ..by not participating or advertising they aren’t going to get anything done anyway. The fact is there appears to be a hold off for some reason ..i’m trying to find out why but not holding my breath…previously they have referred to the buy back thus to me “the buy back was put in place to provide a continuing value-accretive return of capital”

It definitely part of the minimum return of capital promised so again why not continue to meet that obligation?

Some were concerned that the company would struggle post tender to find any stock to fulfill the buyback , by stopping buying any shares that they say increases shareholder value is perhaps more of a concern?

I dont know 2G2D i just don’t see a basis for buying £1.3m worth of shares at 20.66p average and then not buying even though there is a clear commitment to but back another £1.7m shares when the shares are trading 15% lower.

If as some think there could be some positive news flow with further product orders and maybe further r&d project ..then you might have thought in the interest of the shareholders who approved the buyback they might just get on with it.

Just as a quick example of why the buys and sells on advfn and other trade reporting systems are not correct..they often just assess a trade one way or the other depending on what side of the spread the print is.

So spread is 17.32p-18.1p the print in 10k at 17.6375p is shown as a sell.

It is a buy off RSP system but because it is on on the wrong side of middle ( being 17.66p) it shows as a sell. So careful what you read into trades sometime. Te shares seem therefore well offered inside the spread.

That would be odd. The company has stated that the buy back is being conducted by agreement independent of the management. I woud be done by the corporate broking /dealrs at Cavendish that would not be wall crossed with any inside information so on that basis even if there was positive or negative newsflow coming they should know nothing about it. The company itself should not make anyone inside who does not have to be. So i find it difficult to know why it is news related and officially the decision on how to conduct the buyback is down to Cavendish not the company.

Well Carlos you promise to return cash to shareholders , you do the minimum amount promised and part of that was in the form of an on market share buyback. They put the capital return to shareholders who approved it. They announced they had commenced the buy back on 11th April and had given authority to their broker Cavendish to execute said buyback with £3m committed. They bought back 6.3m using £1.3m then after 8th may they just stopped.

They paid an average of 20.6p and paid over 23p for some stock…they obviously thought these levels were value accretive in terms of shareholder value long term. Now after 12 days of inactivity the shares have drifted significantly below those levels paid and they are not active even though they have £1.7m left of the committed capital. Perhaps you can tell us why they have just stopped without any reason..in terms that make sense.

Maybe wrong but be surprised if they announce a buy. Might drop them a line , but although it is normal to continue with a share buy back programme once started ..and even more so when the decisions are made independently under a broker agreement they could just say they don’t know..its down to Cavendish . ..why do Nanoco leave so many questions , nothing seems that straightforward …ever!

No tell tale print out to Nanoco on the close ( yet) so doubt that they are there. Also if market participants knew Cavendish were back active i reckon it would reflect positively in the price.

That they closed down a bit might indicate still on pause.

Well i normally evidence comments from comms from the company..not sure you can do much more than that…I’m afraid the comments on here not being as informative as you would like feeds directly back to the company not providing enough information to be able to verify their current guidance. Perhaps you should be informing the company of the lack of detail and information on their commercial endeavours not a board populated by shareholders striving to make sense of what they have said.

Is that fact or conjecture??

‘That was meant to say "the guidance is low volume sales of gen1 at first in 2024"... What's a year between friends!”

X you were right first time the actual guidance is for low volume application sales of gen 1 fy24 and fy25..so the gen 2 not out of development till end 2025 early 2026 before any optimisation and scaling. So sales fy24 and fy25 dependent on gen 1.

Not entirely sure that gen 1 is not necessarily a starter kit as it appears the gen 2 is firmly aiming for mass market devices.

“As previously announced, the Board's expectations were for a first commercial production order prior to the end of 2023 and that the first use of the Group's materials would be for low volume applications during FY24 and FY25”

This is the big query ..if gen 1 is all they have to sell in low volume and currently sales are virtually non existent then how is it going to build to the revenues necessary to become self funding before gen 2 is available in CY2025 as forecast.

I would like to believe that is possible but can’t figure out how as i think they would need significant sales ( above shop guidance to FY2025) to get to that position. Sure things can change but forecasts should be based on what the company is aware of ..and they say they are aware of very little !