Member Info for Nanonano

“ Michael Edelman is making up a bed for Brian on his big Yacht ”

Is it the Bayesian?

“I think Tenner was there to get them through the litigation “

What’s he still doing there now.then? I don’t believe, he was going anywhere unless pushed to do so., and you thought he was the cats whiskers anyway.

I expect he’ll be off for early retirement maybe try and secure a non-exec directorship or two.

Yep a pump a dump merchant, ignore him.

Fairly new on Nanoco aren’t you?

No doubt ramping to clear a quick profit and then disappear.

TW, you’ve been completely wrong about Nanoco and its management.

They’ve known this was on shaky ground for a long while now, it’s why they took the cash from Samsung, it why’s the goalposts were moved from near term to medium term. They even bs’d the investors with delay rather than cancellation, probably so the CEO could exit rather than be fired.

They’ve looked after their own interest first and foremost, burnt investors are just collateral damage.

The investment by STM is tiny in regards to its overall cost base.

Big deal to Nanoco, small beer to STM.

Fab will do little to improve prospects IMO.

For STMicro to walk away from not only Gen 1 but also Gen 2 says to me that something is seriously wrong.

Nanoco were in trouble five years ago when Apple walked, however there were some differences.

Firstly, they had several years to run on their patents, secondly there was an established market for the display products sold using their IP, enabling them to attract funding for legal action.

This time around they have more cash and a slimmed down company, but older IP, no further revenue from display, and no other established market to attract funding for any potential litigation.there is also now a big question mark over their ability to establish any future market for their product. This puts them in a more vulnerable position IMO.

The Asian R&D contract is three years away at least from any prospect of commercialisation, and Nanoco will be put of cash by then without any other business. This all assumes the Asian customer doesn’t cancel that contract too- why has STM walked?

So where is that other business? Seems display is a dead end, and any other business in sensors seems small at best, and these are the two key areas of Nanoco’s focus.

The guidance is waffle.

They simply don’t have the time left in their patents to recover from this IMO. Five years ago, they still had some reasonable time to run on their IP, now not so much.

This is the debacle with display all over again, but now their patents are almost a decade older.

STMicro was the last chance saloon for Nanoco, and they’ve blown it.

Who believes the Asian customer will see the contract through to a business opportunity?They’ll simply milk Nanoco for cheap R&D then drop them at the eleventh hour like everyone else does. However I don’t believe a Nanoco will last that long, their IP value is badly diminished, and they have about three years of cash left at present burn rates.

This is simply a privately funded R&D racket, and a lifestyle company for the board.

The tender offer was a final sop to the II’s.

This is worse than I expected, not simply cancellation of first gen but second gen too.

They haven’t got a business.

BT’s strategy has been a total failure.

Honestly this II’s descending to new lows.

You’re all at fault here, constantly provoking one another, and it’s got nothing to do with the discussion about Nanoco. I’m done here, final post from me.

Anyone who thinks a company CEO is leaving over what's written on boards like this is deluded. They have a thicker skin, else they couldn't function at that level.

This comes from a high place, and either things have gone very badly on the sensor contract or something else has come to light, perhaps in connection with the Hamoodi/Loam case.

You can have faith in a companies product but lose faith in the way it’s been governed.

Now you can chuck in the investment, or push for a change of leadership in the company.

Naturally a change of management carries inherent risk, out of the frying pan and all that, however I think BT lost good faith. The II’s may also be unhappy with the drop in value, as even though they sold down most of their holding , they still hold some percentage and those guys don’t have any loyalty beyond the bottom line.

I said it looks likely to take longer, so it's just my opinion of things. Simply that RNS combined with BT's departure doesn't inspire confidence that good news is about to drop.

I'm afraid if a CEO makes statements like a settlement would be multiples of a £100m company valuation, and you then deliver about £120m (£90m retained), of which a substantial amount is based on a sale of patents, it's going to bite you.

BT may have recovered from that if the company then demonstrated some solid organic growth, but after the 2nd July RNS it looks like sustained organic growth is likely to take substantially longer than was first forecast, assuming it arrives at all, and that leaves the company in a more vulnerable position.

This is about accountability, I don't think pity for the outgoing CEO is appropriate- he's been very well remunerated with investors money for his time on the board, and been at the helm long enough to be accountable for any shortfalls in performance.

A poor share price for a protracted period plus little in the way of commercial progress and details of contracts cloaked behind NDA’s are all factors that will soften confidence, whether by coincidence or intent.

Perhaps BT is probably better suited to a company either in the service sector or one that addresses a stable and mature market sector.

He appears competent at rationalising companies, something his predecessor was hopeless at, but I think he bit off more than he could chew taking the reigns at a hairy edge company like Nanoco. The relationship between Nanoco and large II stakeholders LOAM and RG was too cosy, and did not do the company or its other shareholders any favours.

I think the reward package for any potential CEO should be allied with the results they achieve, and primarily in the revenue they bring in. Contracts are of little value unless they turn a decent profit, else the company is just an expensive R&D lab funded by private equity.

I do think a buyout is now far more likely, I suspect many PI’s have been softened up enough to be more amenable to a low ball offer than they would have been either pre settlement or concerns about the adoption of Gen 1 technology.

I don’t think CEO’s walk the plank when there’s good news incoming, TW.

Perhaps BT will do the same for his next company that ME did.

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/next-gen-battery-developer-ionic-materials-closes-down