Member Info for Kooba

NGR the assessment by TG2D that the company would need to sell some more ( a lot more) materials to reach cashflow breakeven and then to apply a realistic ( if not guided) profit margin to work out what type of sales would be needed to achieve that target was not inventing stuff..it was using available information to extrapolate what sales would be needed to meet that level of free cashflow..its sort of what analysts might do to reverse engineer such guidance.

Yes their fixed costs could go up more..then sales would have to go up even more.

Yes the margins could be different ..but i would have thought after 20 years of development and their “unique” materials they should command a decent margin?

Yes they could get some display revenues..but not exactly guiding to that any time soon now.

Yes they could get another development agreement could add a £1m a year revenues if they do.

Yes they are now sitting on cash earning interest ..which i have highlighted which has positive impact on cash breakeven.

So yes there are variables but it seems sensible to get a handle on what commercially would need to be achieved to meet that guidance. If you disagree that the company would need to sell a huge uplift in gen 1 material sales to achieve the guidance then i am all ears how they intend doing it.

Ngr

“..it is entirely possible they will miss guidance for reasons outwith their control. It can and has happened before here and to other companies. At this early adoption stage I’d weight it as the more likely scenario.”

Unless very mistaken you are saying that you think it is likely they miss their cashflow breakeven target fo 2025 something that you were telling others off for suggesting..you might have to publish NGR rules as I’m confused what you think is acceptable debate now!!

Ngr

Kooba I was the one who said the settlement could be much smaller than everyone seemed to predict.

Yep thought you would say that …must have been against the overtly positive company narrative of transformational outcome to shareholder value promised!! How come you get to disagree with what the company and their marketing churns out but no one else can ??

Other shareholders asking questions and looking at previous company comms and marketing and assessing the delivery has clearly not put you off being unrelentingly bullish and trusting of the management yet you think others are not as immune to being totally influenced by posters you do not agree with ..it’s odd. The same folk who seem to say that the boards were too bullish and unrealistic on the litigation and that only a few posters (normally themselves!) were cautious on what might pan out ..now want everyone to just accept whatever the latest narrative and marketing dishes out without looking for evidence. Thats odd. If the company disappoints on its commercial ambitions ..would such a cynical line of enquiry not have been the correct approach ..the same approach as those less excitable folk pre settlement.

Ngr

“No one will be inclined to invest if there are a group of embittered investors pouring scorn on the board on a daily basis. If your objective is to suppress the share you’re winning”

Yes a few posters on a bulletin board is the only valuation tool most investors use , I’m sure Loam and RG relied solely on the posts on here when they were running for the hills pre announced settlement..but hold on the boards were relying on marketing material and company statements then that were all very bullish ..how can that be ??

Blaming shareholders for the share price performance not the management of the company in any way is nonsense. Cherry cake nuts.

So far the evidence is one confirmed order with STM for 2 gen 1 materials that we have no idea of the size of the order except that it is small case use and barely registers in the interim results which showed revenues drop in the first half and 5 months later there appears no further orders.

The results and marketing material research do not support any revenue build up in the current FY to end July only the development revenues already known.

So there is just talk , no firm commitment in terms of future orders and thats about it.

Please do not question the companies narrative or try to work out how they can meet expectation they have put in the market because making such calculations may make said expectations look very challenging and there is no evidence of any commercial traction as yet that might justify their confidence. Just believe.

I think you are wrong ..if you sold your shares today you could not participate in the tender , the buyer would technically have the right . The day a share goes ex an entitlement is not three days before the ex date it is the day. So say you bought shares the day before a share goes they ex dividend ..the dividend is yours. Dont confuse trade date and settlement date. The entitlement goes with the trade date not the settlement date.

I didn’t vote and I’ve always got an axe to grind !! And to be honest what Loam do has a bearing on things far more than a few smaller holders. It’s clear that a number of pi’s are not participating and some directors aren’t so it’s possible tendering over the 38.5% will see a higher level of acceptance…maybe getting over 50% sold at 24p if you tender the whole holding?

Will be interesting how they trade tomorrow once the entitlement to participate is over.

The cash burn figure given is factoring in annualised £2.5m of development revenue. So they need income on top of that to eliminate the burn ..assuming fixed costs do not increase further.

What they do have is cash which should be a cash flow positive. Second half of current financial year should yield a short £1m..the expected £20m going into FY2025 should yield £1m over the year…which helps.

But it still leaves the need for significant additional revenues in cy2025 to move to cashflow breakeven to the order of £6m at 50% margin.

We could get some display revenues and another development agreement but nothing currently signposted.

In terms of orders they could achieve that kind of sales of Gen1 in CY2025 with a fair few small case orders but it looks highly unlikely that on the timescales given on Gen2 materials of them being sold in commercials numbers till well into 2026.. I believe that was the idea through scaling and validation?

So it is a tall order I reckon on what we know at the moment with only one contract signed and delivered and invoiced in mid November ( we don’t know when they actually got the order they only announced once it was all done and dusted for some reason…but one must think received 5 months ago..this currently does no demonstrate any build up or recurring revenue..just a one off as yet which is not evidencing any anticipated build up.

Much to deliver to meet their guidance .

Agree both.

The Mail piece was literally just a marketing piece and as good as written by the PR , there is little original or balanced just fed. The quote saying the court case is nothing to do with Nanoco though I believe is not true. Worth checking who is a party in the action if folks can bother to fact check.

Wondering if the company feel that putting some sensor volume numbers in the Mail is a valid way of informing the market of their revenue numbers and we should ignore the company sponsored research that makes no allowance for any commercial revenues?? At least it not behind a firewall. ..but if they had any guidance whatsoever on the scale of the order it should have been given to shareholders not a bloody newspaper !!

Nanonano.But how can that square with the actual revenue numbers announced with the interims incorporating the first order..how can that stack up? The revenue was down from £1.6m to £1m like for like due to the delay in STM committing to follow on 2 year development agreement. If they had got an order of anything meaningful it would have plugged that gap.

I have a query into the company on this ..awaiting a reply ..will I get one as it’s difficult to answer without being more transparent ?Perish the thought.

Ngr..ffs Yeah, I’m just reading soon

“He might have an undiagnosed or known health issue and I think your comments were completely unnecessary. Kooba backing up similar opinions surprised me as I expected better tbh.”

You dish out a lot of abuse Ngr if you know the personal circumstances of every poster you abuse then well done you if not then don’t make up situations you know nothing about. Your extremely defensive behaviour around BT i find really odd but I don’t know your background.

Tell me do you genuinely think our Brian looks and sounds like a young thrusting leader of a global technology leading company just breaking into its first commercial contract in his company branded shirt ? He has no experience in bringing a start up to commercial success..he is a number cruncher by trade and likely did a good job cutting costs when it was needed , but .an FD turned CEO out of circumstance with a background in mature industries is not what this company needs. People are allowed opinions on the abilities and presence of the folk that run companies they are invested in without getting your clearance first and your expectation of other posters is just your expectation it means nothing to a poster like me whatever you expect.

I tend not to pick arguments then back down and be really defensive but that’s just me.

Nanonano..interesting figures is that what you consider the first order will deliver?

First half (real) total revenue was £1m down from £1.6m ..with the FD targeting £2.5m of r&d revenue for the full year and forecasting £8.5m for the full year, £6m being Samsung accounting.

To give the earning you suggest you are looking at an order of circa £700k ..not sure how that can be on the numbers reported since they encompass some stm and full Asian r&d revenues for the half year.

You didn’t specify the first order but there has only been one order announced.

Edison £8.6m rev Cavendish £8.4m rev forecasts for full year which makes not allowance for anything above and beyond the £8.5m guidance given direct from FD pre the first order in Oct.

Trying to work out any actual commercial revs is rather tricky ..and I do not understand since we know the actual customer why confidentiality might cover the size of the order.

Your point would mean never question a board or executive of a company you hold if you see the value of your shares halve after promises of a transformation in shareholder value just sell up or just accept the poor resulting situation and suck up the new value enhancing story without any question. Much of what I have posted is not just about BTs new branded shirt as it goes..mostly is around the delivering of the current guidance with a complete lack of transparency in how it can be delivered…blind indeed !!

It’s not at all ..if he is the front man for the company it’s important to have a credible image and narrative if the company wants to make Nanoco look like a world leader as they claim to be ..some professionalism around appearance and explaining key questions on disclosure might make the money being spent on the PR exercise better spent.

I stand by my point you are allowed an opinion if you decided to hold as the valuation was so low…it doesn’t mean yo forfeit a view surely !!

“…turns out the market attributes little value to the organic business.”

This one must hope is the change to come if the company delivers on their latest guidance..but since the market seems to value that guidance at very little. It’s probably a rather good punt from these levels ..so again whilst being relatively optimistic from the sub 20p pre distribution levels it’s unlikely much more gets factored in before signs of genuine traction which could give us a roadmap to the company guidance of cash flow breakeven during 2025…that looks ambitious on what we know now ..which is very little !!

The problem with the you decided to hold so can’t blame the management is that the shares for an extended period traded at a discount to cash ( or what was thought cash ..looked like 20p plus turns out less than 18p pre distribution) We ended up holding a company that shed any value for the remaining business when obviously we were told the settlement was the cherry on the cake in terms of value..turns out the market attributes little value to the organic business.

A mistake in my reading to as I thought it would be worth 10p ps..wrong.

We are stuck with the same CEO making promises but even with them at the helm the risk reward favoured holding..does this mean we cannot question and critique the way the company is managed or the protracted commercial delivery or the complete lack of visibility around the first order …no I don’t think so at all. Maybe if more questions were asked pre settlement folks wouldn’t have relied so firmly on the company spun narrative ..the share price might not have reflected their guidance and the shares would have been trading more in line with the outcome ..one thing is for sure not being cynical and looking closely at what is said and done is probably not the correct approach on where we find ourselves, blind faith certainly should not be the valuation tool.all imho.

Oooh that’s a b-stard!

Not so much for me but maybe for BTs next interview?