Member Info for Maxi19

The RNS is obviously not great. Delayed next order and no JDA yet on display.

But if the RNS had announced another order but said cash breakeven delayed to CY26 that would have been much worse. Ultimately it's by the by whether low volume demand is there over the next year. What matters is whether and when the high volume demand materialises.

If the company announces that it expects a cash breakeven delay in October then that will be worse news than today.

If a product is launched which is linked to us and people take notice then the SP could rise quite quickly. Alternatively we could be in the same position this time next year.

Why STMicro haven't touted their QD tech more is a bit of a mystery. It's v.likely it's in the VD55G1 based on the QE at 940nm (which they then deleted) but they haven't listed the SWIR sensor on the website. Two possible theories: 1) commercial sensitivity and 2) keeping it secret because the gen 1 materials contain lead sulphide. Anyway, it's slightly frustrating but it is what it is.

Haha just after posting that it goes down to 19.4! What do I know!

Yeah I appreciate it's supply and demand basically, but it's still odd. It's now 19.9 so a 0.3% spread which is mental for a microcap.

I think it's quite possible this pushes to 25-30p without any news, just based on buyers vs sellers.

The tender offer and subsequent high volume trading days means there can't be many shares out there for sale for less than 24p. A moderate amount of demand should therefore push the price higher.

I note that the bid has risen from 19.4 to 19.82 over the last hour or so despite there being no trades. How can that be? And what does it mean? Or is it just arbitrary?

As I've said many times previously, I think BT and the company really messed up the Samsung settlement comms and were extremely defensive when they should have been more open with shareholders.

That said, I'm confident about the outlook here. We all know the upside - significant revenue from sensors. The risk of not selling many dots is, I think, fairly low as far as these things go. Without wanting to parrot BT, the customers wouldn't be spending an absolute fortune if they weren't confident about selling hundreds of millions.

I have a theory about why commercial orders have been delayed. I think it's to do with STMicro's new 300mm fab in Crolles. They announced it in 2022 but it was only fully agreed in 2023. This caused a one year delay in proposed ramp up, which aligns with the delays our end and the delays in the iphone under display Face ID predictions. If the new sensors are being built in that fab they are restricted more by how quickly the fab came ramp up production, rather than by customer demand. It may be a bit of both.

Display and IP licenses I'm not holding out much hope for, but if we get anything there it s a bonus.

Nanonano, don't think we were ever given a reason. If you can't point me to one happy to be wrong.

SmithyB, before they updated the VD55G1 page it said it has a quantum efficiency of 55% at 940nm.

If you look at the presentation Jonathan Steckel did on EPIC on YouTube there's a graph showing the exact same QE for QD NIR sensors, whereas the silicon QE is about 15-20%. So there is a very good chance it has QDs.

Kooba I think the pause is purely liquidity driven.

In the latest Investor Meet Q&A, BT did say the time the buyback took would be affected by the share price and liquidity. We're going to have some trading updates, results and hopefully new orders before the AGM which should provide liquidity events.

It's all supply and demand ultimately. There were 30m shares tendered that didn't get bought. Some of those will been sold subsequently but some are probably still looking for a buyer. If a big buyer isn't stepping in the sellers may be sitting on their hands.

Counterintuitively, if the buyback offered more liquidity for sellers wanting to exit, could this have increased the SP fall? And could this be a reason why it's paused for the moment. Since the buyback paused the SP has drifted down but not as quickly as it was when it was ongoing.

According to Hamoodi, Mr Giles at LOAM told him on 6 January 2023 that he'd attended a late night call with Nanoco and that he shouldn't expect a high settlement. Which if correct surely means:

1. LOAM traded on insider information on 6 January when they dumped loads of shares.

2. BT's claim that the late night call didn't disclose any inside information looks porous.

Am I missing something here?

The circular did mention the possibility of the whole £3m not being returned by the time of the AGM. Clearly Cavendish told them this could happen.

I expect there's a best practice for buybacks to ensure they can't be seen to be driving the share price higher. Cavendish were heavy buyers in the first month. Perhaps they're giving it a month on its own to find it's level.

I think it's due to low liquidity. Immediately following the buyback there were loads of shares for sale. Now there are hardly any.

The pause in the buyback is probably due to current liquidity and the fact they have ages to complete it.

As Kooba says, Cavendish are acting independently and so know nothing more than we do. I really wouldn't read anything into it.

It's unlikely there's something significant behind the pause.

Cavendish are carrying out the buyback independently. This means if there's inside info that hasn't been disclosed there's no need to halt the buyback.

The SP has fallen 20% over the last month. Perhaps best practice is to pause buybacks in such scenarios to avoid the impression of trying to support it too much.

Similarly, volume has come down. The share was already illiquid so perhaps they have to wait for a bit so they're already volume reduces.

Perhaps the guy at Cavendish responsible is on holiday.

Xenon, what you have posted here is basically what I have posted previously if you look back at my prior posts, so it is good that someone else has followed the same train of thought.

But you're right in that it doesn't sound like a fire sale so I'm slightly more optimistic now that this could end well for shareholders. But as I've learnt recently, asset sales on administration are often v.heavily discounted due to the lack of seller warranties so even though imho the assets should be worth way more than the company's net debts I'm still assuming the worst.

JPP, it seems that all the assets have been bought so the only thing Saietta Group Plc has is cash. In which case if it does have a surplus after paying off creditors it won't have any form of business so is v.likely to be wound up with the surplus distributed to shareholders.