We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Perhaps you may have misunderstood. This was a call involving IR and management, not a public call. You know, companies and IR do host private calls with investors. Just as I am sure Geoff and his team do with investors like Capital Research, Camelot, Spruce House, and others.
Is that the same Camelot who was torched on Boohoo, whose fund was down 40% last year? and the same Spruce house was down 80% last year. World class seems to be a stretch here. If Elliott, Soros, Brevan Howard, etc were involved I think it would raise eyebrows but all the longs in Victoria are momentum players.
Don't be so defensive. It seems you are unable to accept any criticism of the company itself or even of cyclical / macro trends. Relax. I was only trying to share some useful information about one of Victoria's subsidiaries that a competitor shared.
Perhaps Victoria should have been more transparent about their plans to close down Saloni after paying EUR 100m on this not long ago. It seems to be a rather material decision and was not highlighted on the recent call. Again, it raises more questions over the company's compliance with disclosure obligations and whether Geoffrey truly acts in good faith.
With all due respect Mr Boulder, looking at the recent HY report profit margins have actually declined from H1 2021 (£75.1m EBITDA on £489m of sales) to H1 2022 (£88.9m to £776.1m). So, EBITDA margins are down nearly 30%... That is some serious margin compression and is not made up like some of the rubbish short sellers are throwing at this. It seems rather dangerous for a highly geared company. This is of course what is drove the Moody's downgrade / negative outlook.
One can only assume another downgrade is coming if the Spanish CEO is talking about a 'collapse in demand with no recovery in sight'. Moody's plans to downgrade is there is a 0.1x move higher in leverage, which seems a certainty. You seem to be pinning your hopes on the prospect of continued integration of acquisitions and hopes of cost optimisation, but that seems like a pipe dream in the face of collapsing demand, which the company's subsidiary managers are confirming. I am a rather conservative investor, but it seems to be rather dangerous to be carrying out this integration / restructuring plan at a time when the entire household goods space is suffering.
Headlam feels like the better play here as an asset light business and I also prefer Tarkett SA in France as the Wendel family own the majority of the business and may just take the whole thing out.
Flooring is going to be an interesting space this year!
The CEO of Cerámicas Saloni and Keraben warns of "a sharp drop in demand with no recovery date"
José Luis Lanuza sees a "strong contraction in demand" together with "high costs" and warns that the competition will send "wrong messages" about the restructuring of his company
https://www.economiadigital.es/valencia/empresas/ceramicas-saloni-keraben-caida-demanda.html
First time poster here - I am an investor in Headlam and am watching this entire sector closely as the slowdown in housing sales and home improvement spending could throw up some opportunities.
This morning, the Headlam management team held an investor call and were saying how Victoria has closed down Saloni in Spain and has fired nearly all their workers. They spent EUR 100m on this acquisition in 2018. It also seems to be in the press.
They also pointed to a Swedish supplier/manufacturer called Kährs who are reducing significant capacity for Lower demand.
The Victoria management team paint everything as rosy, but Headlam were far more sombre and see this as a market where they need to survive. They advised me to go on Carpetright and scrape the data with Python, as they do, and said it is clear there are many price reductions taking place.
You guys know this business better, but curious what you have heard. Headlam are more asset light then Victoria and I am wondering if going long Headlam and short Victoria after the recent run up makes sense?
LOAM probably continue to unload because they know they need to liquidate after all these years and a chance like this will never come (not even on any announcement over production volumes). Those guys aren't stupid, if they had 'good' information (in whatever form), they would have traded ahead of all us idiots dreaming for big figures.
I am coming home and waking up to more weakness (unsurprisingly).
I struggle for reasons as to why the company has not yet bolted to the fences to provide refined guidance on a gross settlement amount or even a net amount to the company, should we be so lucky.
I have asked the company for clarification on Brian's email and as to this gross and/or net amount, which he has simply ignored. I find it ironic, whilst the company may always claim they can't disclose the amount, the number of parties who can i.e. those linked to the lawyers, accountants, experts, and other advisors can. It just all seems unfair in the scope of the allegations made by the likes of GBT. He may seem off his rocker, but *some* of his statements do have merit.
You would have thought that management / the BoD had awoken from their slumber and further clarified things, but they want to put their head. The 'my dog ate my homework' approach have worked with LOAM in the driver's seat, but enough is enough.
I am readying myself to see a net $70m to $100m outcome (to Nanoco) for this event and that would be nothing short of destructive for our IP. After a number of discussions with lawyers and technologists in this specialty chemicals industry, my understanding is that Nanoco would also have to surrender any claims to third party manufactures related to Samsung-linked infringement.
The patent peace with Samsung, which Brian Tenner speaks of regularly, is likely to cost a lot in terms of our ability to license and/or monetise Nanoco's IP. A bad/desperate settlement deal does no one any good other then management, creditors, LOAM... PIs get left in the cold with BT's nonsense guidance. Don't believe a word he has to say after this.
outcome) . A grave litigation outcome is priced in now, so why not face it and get ahead of it in order to steady the share price (even excluding any allegations of impropriety, which still may be relevant here.
This whole situation is bonkers and the authorities would w
Putting this aside, all signs considered, it leaves me expecting a very low outcome, but it should also leave shareholders thinking how to organise for legal proceedings against Nanoco and the D&O.
99.9% of investors (0.1%) were looking at this as a truly transformational catalyst, not for it to 'secure the future'. We already had a cash runway out to FY25. Securing the future sounds like making sure salaries get paid for the next few years. It should never been marketed as a 'transformational event', with those close to the company championing a multi hundred million dollar payout. You saw from what was dug up today, this is not being made up; since 2020, Edelman and Tenner both validated a $10-20 per TV royalty as a minimum and now Tenner wants to back off that number completely as if no one in the company ever mentioned it. It is a simply a disgrace... he cannot delete history.
All I will say is, this wouldn't be the first time I have been lied to by a CEO and it wont be the last. I just don't like the fact pattern and end result (or at least for now, the direction we are heading).
And to whomever was making some smart a$$ remark about me being a lawyer or not; I did practice law and am now a lobbyist, so I know a bullshilter when I see one.
@Tonnacombe - every single capital markets regulatory lawyer and broker I have spoken to (primarily in the US being based here but same thing...) echoes the same thing. That it is all very murky and typically what you would see in a pump and dump.
Interesting point re a NOMAD not wanting to issue a second RNS in the context of an AIM company.
Well, we will be down sub £100m market cap and look the part of an AIM SheitCo, so we might as well behave like one as we wait to join those ranks.
I think it was already provided, but here:
Dear Dario (apologies if this email displays oddly as it does on my screen - I'm working on an iPad just now replying to a forwarded mail)
Thank you for your enquiry which has been passed to me. I am still in Dallas and on US time so apologies for any perceived delay in responding.
I must firstly point out that we cannot provide any inside information and also that sharing anything directly from the draft settlement agreement would be hugely detrimental to shareholder value as the final agreement still has to be negotiated, is subject to judicial oversight, and contains very clear confidentiality requirements.
That having been said we can comment as follows on your specific queries:
Range of guidance?
The Company has NEVER given a numerical quantification of the expected or potential damages. We have consistently referred to the potential value, in a successful jury trial outcome, of being "transformative for the Company's prospects and for shareholder value." That is the guidance the Company has given and what the Company would refer to as "expectations"
In a number of public Q&A sessions when asked what "transformative" means - we have responded "transformative when measured against the Company's market capitalisation."
As a couple of reference points - our market cap when we filed suit was c. $75m, when we announced the settlement on Friday it was around $150m and when we were ramping up to production with Samsung back in 2013 / 14 it was nearer $400m.
So in a very real sense the $500m we have heard in some reports is a product of speculation by some investors interpreting or inferring from Company statements.
We have avoided giving narrower guidance due to the number of variables in play, not least of which is the difference between settlement values and jury awards. If the draft settlement value had been outside the range of expectations then we would have had to update the market accordingly.
Tax status of a settlement
We do expect that any income will be available for offset against UK tax losses. We disclosed in our Annual Report this year that the Company has opted into the UK Patent Box tax regime which means that any excess profits (above losses) will be taxed at a 10% rate depending on a number of factors. However, the position is complex and will depend on the exact structure of the final settlement as Korean withholding tax will come into play as will the Tax Treaty between The UK and Korea. But in summary there are tax assets and policies in place that should protect as much shareholder value as we can.
I hope this answers your queries and that the wait for further detail once a final agreement is signed is not too tedious - subject of course to commercial confidentiality but also subject to publication rules as a UK plc which means that an adequate amount of information will be released to allow investors to understand the impact of the settlement on
That's not how the market works. We aren't living under Stalin.
Management has not responded other then with the mass email they sent early last week. They are toothless and useless. In the United States, there is no way they'd have been able to announce a settlement without a figure, certainly not to keep it outstanding / unknown for 30 days.
The figure is ultimately going to be revealed to the market, so what is really stopping Nanoco and/or Samsung from guiding / providing a range. It is all very odd, particularly as LOAM continues to sell down.
SCUMBAGGERY.
Yes, because it requires 30 years of capital markets experience to call up a broker and rip off private investors with a bullisht pitch deck, suggesting the lower bound for a settlement / claim resolution is multiples of market cap.
Are you the Nanoco office fluffer?
BT has been CFO and Group Finance Director at a number of listed companies and so he is clowning us all if he pretends he doesn't know anything about market/investor expectations. BT and co read these boards, without a shadow of a doubt, and will have known what everyone was thinking here. Y'all (and me) have been played like (Irish) fiddles.
As GBT showed through his research today, the company had guided $10-20 per TV as the lower end guidance in 2020.
Then, when Mr. Turcan leaves the board... it isn't even announced as a separate RNS. It is announced in a useless trading update which has no tangible information and is buried at the bottom of the page.
Commenting on the directorate change, Chris Richards, Chairman of Nanoco, said:
"I would like to place on record our thanks to Henry for his contribution to the Board. He leaves the Board at a time when the Group has funding in place beyond the point in time when the Group expects to become self-financing. We will continue to work with Henry and his colleagues at Lombard Odier, our largest shareholder, and remain grateful for their continuing support. I know they, like us, are extremely excited about the forthcoming trial and the Company's longer term prospects."
Now, look at the bullisht coming out of Chris Richards in the same update. Last line pls... so they then go on to blast out all their stock. Good read on things and how misleading, old man.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/NANO/trading-update-directorate-change/15624420
Just trying to piece together why Henry Turcan joined the board and more importantly, why he left. So when he joined, the RNS stated:
“I am delighted to welcome Henry to the Board of Nanoco. As a significant shareholder representative, Henry has been closely involved with Nanoco for a number of years. The additional capital markets experience he brings to the Company will further support the Board’s efforts as we work to deliver maximum shareholder value from our organic business activities and litigation against Samsung during a potentially transformational period for the Company.”
So, it was for his "capital markets experience" - why was capital markets experience necessary? Nanoco had just raised an expensive unsecured piece of debt from Lombard Odier and Richard Griffiths. Questions should be asked whether he was even independent for this reason alone. How can you be a independent representing a creditor and as a shareholder? Did
From the annual report, we see that the company lays out the following as a typical agenda for a board meeting:
A typical Board agenda continued
| CEO report on Samsung litigation
and third party funding (focus item);
| CFO report on financial performance
and rolling forecasts (standing item);
| CTO report on technical and IP
matters (standing item);
| Company Secretary report on
governance issues and any material
litigation (standing item);
| investor relations update (standing item);
| reports from Committee Chairs (Audit,
Nominations, Remuneration and EHS)
(standing item); and
So, all board members would be privy to significant detail about the proceedings and would likely be reviewing memos etc provided by the likes of Mintz. But wait, the company also formed a Litigation Sub-committee, as they note in the annual report:
"The Board felt compelled to act to defend the group against what we believe is Samsung’s wilful infringement of our IP portfolio in a number of areas. Given the potential value of this action, the Board established a Litigation Sub-Committee to work with the Executive team to oversee the litigation strategy. This Sub-Committee includes the Board Chairman and the Senior Independent Director, together with the CEO, CTO and Litigation Special Advisor, and meets monthly."
Who is on this committee - did Henry Turcan sit on the committee? Why did he then resign the first moment he could in September i.e. when it became clear trial was not going ahead. As the GBT lunatic put it, settlement offers would have started to roll in the weeks and days prior to that September 12th trial date. The key question then being, did Turcan already know about the poor offers which were arriving and thus wanted to hit the eject button so they could trade? Obviously it would look strange if they sold right away (and the co would likely restrict them) but just weeks later, sure, why not.