Member Info for Maxi19

Yeah the current share price is a bit crazy and has been driven down by traders exiting following the litigation. As a small cap Nanoco is also completely under the radar right now - I haven't read any proper articles about it recently and you saw on the March analyst call how no questions were asked apart from one from Edison who are paid to research them!

So really I just don't see any downside from holding for 9 months, unless you think Samsung won't pay up. And imo there's big upside.

I have to say, the idea that "the market" has a view on Nanoco doesn't make much sense when the trading volume is so low.

Another point to remember is that the two materials are in final validation. That's a big deal. Final validation generally leads on immediately to mass production (as far as I am aware).

@nanostory, I think the difference between the historical facts in points 1-3 and now is (i) the shorter timeframe of the current prediction, and (ii) actual orders are anticipated, rather than just visibility/potential production orders.

That's ok wasn't trying to catch you out.

What do you think about my other points?

By the way nanostory, when you say it was changed to an earlier date only weeks after being asked to resign, are you referring to the anticipated orders in 2023?

If so, that's no correct as the trading update on 3 February also said orders in 2023.

Nanostory, thanks for going back and finding all these extracts.

Like you I spotted that break even in 2025 point and thought it meant another delay.

However, rather than a reflection of changed circumstances or delayed orders, I think it may just be an assumption used to justify not distributing more capital for the meantime. If they had said they expect to break even in 2024 then it would beg the question why they aren't distributing more given that the Samsung cash is arriving in 2024. So pushing it to 2025 allows them to justify retaining the £20m. Even with "orders anticipated" this year, it's probably also an appropriately conservative estimate as those orders could be low volume.

I said yesterday that if this anticipation of orders has changed to beyond 2023 then they would have to update the market. So let's wait and see.

Happy to hear your thoughts on that.

Unless you have all your shares in an ISA, I don't see the reason for a divi over a buyback.

There's an argument that divis encourage better corporate governance but it's not particularly persuasive.

I know what you're saying BeContrarian but a decent lawyer would never advise that a low share price would exempt disclosure.

BeContrarian, I have the Disclosure and Transparency Rules and the Market Abuse Regulations in front of me and without going into all the detail I don't think that argument would work.

The board should play on the safe side either way. If orders are no longer anticipated by end of 2023 then just disclose it now. If that information comes out later then questions will be asked about when that anticipation changed and if the directors want to risk breaching MAR then that's up to them.

Also, in the context of Nanoco's history it's a huge deal. BT has said we're nearer to commercial production orders than at any other time. If the timeframe has been pushed back then obviously we are further away and that should be disclosed.

Until this year the board has never said it anticipated production orders, it only talked about visibility.

But stating that it anticipated orders by the end of 2023 is precise information, and so if that anticipation has changed then it must be disclosed as it is clearly precise enough and would significantly affect the share price.

This is a message to the directors, who I assume read this board from time to time:

In March you said you anticipate production orders by the end of 2023. Although the disclaimer in the forward looking statement provision says you have no obligation to update forward looking statements, if commercial production orders are no longer anticipated this would certainly meet the threshold of insider information and would require disclosure under the Disclosure and Transparency Rules, as it would likely be used by a reasonable investor as part of the basis of his investment decisions.

So, if the timing has changed, please update the market. Otherwise we will all assume orders are still anticipated by the end of the year.

To be fair to Kooba, if the company now expects the organic business to become self-financing in 2025 then it suggests they aren't expecting high volume orders soon.

That said, I wonder whether the expectation that the company will become self-financing in 2025 serves to justify the retention of c. £20m of the cash for the business. If they said they expect it to become self-financing in 2024 then it would raise the question of why they don't return more capital. But they leave themselves the option of changing the dividend policy if the prospects of the business improve before then.

If they were no longer anticipating orders by the end of 2023 I'm pretty sure that would have to be explicitly communicated to shareholders. So I'm a bit less pessimistic than when I read the RNS, although on the whole I'm not pleased.

This is the devil in the detail. Does this mean commercial orders are no longer expected by the end of 2023?

It would be helpful if the board didn't slip in these pieces of bad news into other announcements. Just be upfront and deal with it full on.

Kooba, probably best not to have that debate again.

You're right that BT said that the accounts assume a low volume case. But in the same response he says they have no idea whether the first application will be high or low volume.

Kooba you say "they anticipate that initial order will not be for a mass market product".

Pretty sure they given no indication of the kind. They have just said it could be small, could be large. We discussed last week the fact that the accounts assume a modest order, but that's not based on actual expectations.

Kooba, the directors will know a lot more about the potential orders than they've disclosed to shareholders so far. Size of order, likelihood of it materialising etc. Would that not be inside information?

I reckon they couldn't trade right now (even if they wanted to, which is another question) because they have visibility of orders which would probably constitute inside information.

I was as disappointed by the settlement as the next man, but I'm willing to give the board a chance of redemption. If we get into production for the sensor materials and if the SWIR sensor consumer market explodes and we're the only qd supplier then maybe we'll think taking the money was the right call.

Agree troublesome, but "expectation" is too strong for a formal RNS and I think "anticipation" in this context gets you to the same point.

If that makes sense.