Member Info for Nanonano

I wonder if the second JDA has been dropped- that would affect income, and cash saved from a delisting would offset that.

Let's not forget the company was originally expecting to break even in 2027, then shifted a year, now it's simply 'medium term' which is far more vague.

By the companies own published costs they have enough cash to take them beyond 2028. So they must be expecting a significant delay in development or commercial adoption, if it happens at all.

Still no mention of that second JDA extension.

I think they’ve simply run out of options.

Don’t recall any interest from II’s since the STMicro cancellation. I guess like others who’ve held shares since before then they’ve been keeping their powder dry waiting to see what happened with the CDX and litigation.

In the case of Nanoco taking a company from public to private is unlikely to bring any advantage post litigation. For a start there isn’t really anyone left to sue, second any third party will be know the historic cash position of the company whilst it was still trading, thirdly the company has been constrained by its lack of sales. Both Jalal and ex-ceo Dmitry shave stated the same thing about Nanoco, great IP, great science but poor marketing and visibility.

They don’t clarify that. I offered a suggestion, ch. any not be correct, that a publicly traded company has all its financial information out there for all to read, which if financially challenged as Nanoco has been for years, can make them more vulnerable to a low ball offer when negotiating a deal.

Also you no doubt recall that LOAM appointed a member of their team to the Nanoco board leading up to he Samsung litigation. He wasn’t there to make them tea biccies.

Worth bearing in mind that Dialog did have some product in the market and that the rise of the company was far from smooth sailing, and reached the highest valuations in its final year of trading, and it took 16 years to get there. Nanoco doesn’t have that time to turn things around .

Nanoco never started out as a company wishing to manufacture materials, it sought licensees, but in following that business model they’ve been serially infringed and lost out. The same rhetoric with regards to the difficulty of producing materials and a having best in class plus the difficulties in applying them to a product in sensing was also used with regards to display materials, however it didn’t result in orders.

All fair points. He only had an advisory capacity until taking over the Chairman’s role from Chris Richard’s, and more direct executive control since Dmitry departed.

He's under no obligation to remain in any position with Nanoco, he could call it a day anytime he likes.

Jalal Bagherli must be worth tens of millions of pounds. He is reported to have held half a million shares in Dialog semiconductor when it was purchased back in 2021 for around 4.8bn euros with a little over 71mn shares in issue around 67.50 euro per share, and that was following his successful sale of Alphamosaic to Broadcom. So this chap has a very good track record, and really doesn't need to get involved in any tricky dealings.

Most longer term investors are going to probably be heavily underwater at present. I've been invested over 10 years, and this company is like setting alight your money without the benefit of providing heat, I'm sure there are a lot of others in a similar position.

Wouldn't expect ambiguous language in such an important RNS. Near term is generally interpreted as months rather than years. Medium term on the other hand is generally interpreted as two years or more.

With regard to the litigation and being a publicly traded company perhaps the public accounts were what they were referring too. These companies only had to look at their cash situation and lack of custom to know they weren't in a strong position to duke it out in an extended legal battles, so they can make low offers in any settlement deal.

I wonder how litigation against LG would have panned out had they challenged them before they handed cash back to shareholders? Perhaps they may have succeeded in negotiating a decent ongoing license with Nanosys/Shoei. I believe that was the strategy recommended by Hamoodi's proposed board.

"Who exactly is supposed to be organising a “billion to one” dilution, and from what existing position?"

Never said they were. That was what the company mentioned had been diluted by.

I highlighted the RNS mention of near term stable revenues vs medium term breakeven strategy. If they have sufficient funds to take them to break even then that language would likely be used.

“The company is neither currently experiencing any financial difficulty nor is it expected to in the near term,” it continued. “These cost savings will extend the group’s cash runway, with a view to being break-even in the medium term.

Spot the gap, near term for no financial difficulties and medium term for break even.

If they reckon they need more cash, reckon they’d go for at least a £10m cash raise, at present prices and risk what do think 1p a share if we’re lucky?

Billion to one dilution wasn’t it. Ouch!

Wouldn’t say it’s ridiculous.

Company already said they’d need to raise capital if they got to the stage of volume production orders. However before they even get to that stage the JDA’s would need to be seen through to completion. You would think one of their partners might want some skin in the game, seen direct inward investment in other tech areas.

Capital markets will want their pound of flesh.

I believed that’s already been addressed in earlier posts over the past couple of days. Cash burn is £300-400k per month, a.though that is offset to some extent by revenue from JDA’s to around £200-250k a month, so without any extreme shocks cash should extend beyond FY2028, assuming those JDA’s continue. Any further revenue could extend the cash runway further, but of course we should also take into account inflationary pressures, with what is going on in the gulf etc.

I think you’ll find he’s held a lot of positions in that area before so no doubt had some contacts.

I didn’t infer corruption. However to think that LOAM were simply passive investors owing almost a third of the company would be naive, and the board seemed genuinely shaken by Hammoodi’s challenge, after all he put together a fairly impressive team. He went about things the wrong way though.

I believe the company painted itself into a corner after they committed to returning £33m to shareholders in 2023 going into 2024. It was premature, and I believe motivated by the desire to secure LOAM’s support in keeping their jobs after the challenge by Tariq Hamoodi. They were acting like the STMicro business was a sure thing. Of course once the bomb dropped, the CEO was out, but his successor had much fewer options to work with.

The jig is up? They’ve said as much by stating their preference to be absorbed by a larger operative.

The LG action timing was odd. Either they were desperate for cash or it was intended to act as leverage to get Shoei to make an offer under CDX. Either way it didn’t work.

Slow adoption, or theft. Nanoco’s tech has been used at volume in consumer products for over a decade.

Certainly it hasn’t scaled in the way analysts expected (e.g. half or close to half of the display market), but Nanoco would have done more than well enough out of it to be a lucrative business had the original contracts been honoured.