Member Info for nanostory

The below quotes speak for themselves. You have a clear agenda. I bet you will not agree if I say 1 + 1 = 2.

20/06/23 RNS: “SELF-FINANCING position that is expected to be achieved DURING 2025” [delayed by one year vs 21/10/23 RNS, see below]

@intrusivethought

"Possibility of cash breakeven 2025 was guided before. Hammi seems to be almost as misleading as he claims the Board to be. But then DD isn't really his forte is it.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/trading-update-proposed-fundraise-beynh75a3iy9cjk.html

6/6/22 RNS: The Company expects revenue in FY23 to exceed expectations for FY22. Depending on the size of the initial use case for sensing materials, the Company expects to achieve the CASH BREAKEVEN LEVELS OF REVENUE NOTED ABOVE IN FY24 OR FY25.”

Q4 2022 Earnings Call on Oct. 21, 2022 [just 4.5 months after the 6/6/22 RNS, the“FY24 (31/07/24) or FY25 (31/07/25) timeframe” changes to CY25 (31/12/25)]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4548254-nanoco-group-plc-nnocf-q4-2022-earnings-call-transcript

“ So the combination of that improving commercial outlook that fundraise and the reduction in costs and expected further reduction in our costs means that our ORGANIC CASH RUNWAY STANDS COMFORTABLY OPT INTO CALENDAR YEAR ’25. And that is actually beyond the point in time at which we expect to be self-financing. So actually, assuming we achieved that target of being SELF-FINANCING BEFORE CALENDAR YEAR ’25, then our cash runway actually will extend indefinitely as long as we can maintain that position of actually being a self-financing business. So those are the highlights for the year….

And then coming to cash, the fundraise we completed in June ‘22 r aised GBP5.4 million net of fees and takes our cash runway up to CALENDAR YEAR ’25, WHICH HAS PASSED OUR EXPECTED BREAKEVEN POINT [OF CALENDAR YEAR ’24 OR EARLIER]”

@intrusivethought: “Yes, all within the FY24 or FY25 timeframe.”

If you think FY24 is in the same timeframe as FY25, then FY25 and FY26 are in the same timeframe, then FY24 and FY26 are also in the same timeframe, and so is FY24 and FY30.

@intrusivethought: “And FY24 or FY25 was the STATED timeframe referred to. Don't start extrapolating your own crap. Jesus Christ Hammi, sorry nanostory, did you remortgage your house or something? Bloody hell.”

Within one year, there were three different delayed projections for breakeven; the FY24 or FY25 timeframe changed to CY24 and then again to CY25.

@intuitivethought: "Evidence to back up the claims might help."

Are you kidding me? The presentation is full of evidence. What are examples of evidence that you think are lacking?

@intrusivethought

"Yes, all within the FY24 or FY25 timeframe."

If you think FY24 is in the same timeframe as FY25, then FY25 and FY26 are in the same timeframe, then FY24 and FY26 are also in the same timeframe, and so is FY24 and FY30.

@Maxi19:

"I reread the Hamoodi presentation today and I was actually more persuaded by it than I was on the first read. The RNSs on 6 and 9 January are crying out for an explanation but all we've received is obfuscation. And BT's claim in the video to Hamoodi that he hadn't seen the damages reports looks to be a blatant fib"

I am glad to reread the presentation and understand it better. I encourage everyone in this BB to do the same before posting nonsense on this BB. If any of Hamoodi's concerns are speculative, please speak up.

May 19 2023 RNS:

Christopher Richards, Non-Executive Chairman of Nanoco, said

"We continue to emphatically reject Mr Hamoodi's speculative concerns. The Board welcomes scrutiny, but his misinterpretation of the past, and consciously selective and factually inaccurate disclosure, including the publication of heavily edited videos, presents a number of events out of context to create a false narrative to mislead our shareholders."

I urge the board to respond point by point why Hamoodi's concerns are speculative so that the shareholders can make the right decisions based on facts.

@intrusivethought

"Possibility of cash breakeven 2025 was guided before. Hammi seems to be almost as misleading as he claims the Board to be. But then DD isn't really his forte is it.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/trading-update-proposed-fundraise-beynh75a3iy9cjk.html [June 6, 2022]"

Oct. 21, 2022

Q4 2022 Earnings Call

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4548254-nanoco-group-plc-nnocf-q4-2022-earnings-call-transcript

And then coming to cash, the fundraise we completed in June ‘22 raised GBP5.4 million net of fees and takes our cash runway up to calendar year ‘25, which has passed our expected breakeven point [of 2024].

@Maxi19: "2019 was before I invested but I'm fairly sure the break even in that was year was about payments under the Apple contract rather than commercial production orders, and it wasn't that the company would break even going forward, but just break even for that year."

My point is that the board's prediction of a short-term milestone (whether it's breakeven or orders) doesn't make it any more credible. In June 2019 they predicted breakeven for year 2019 but ended up recording £2.4M in LBITDA. It would have been easier to predict breakeven based on pre-signed contracts than new orders yet to be received IMO.

"What I think may be happening here is that they are assuming 2025 as the break even year to justify the retention of £20m. Because if they expected break even in 2024 it would be difficult to justify that amount. I don't think it can be interpreted as an expectation of the first order size (although I may be wrong about that, and actually my first reaction was to think orders had been delayed or were likely to be v. small)."

Back to #1, my conclusion of the board's inconsistency is based on my literal reading of their statements, whist you assume both statements are truthful and any inconsistency should/could be justifiable. I agree to disagree.

@Maxi19

“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.”

The current prediction is not any shorter than the 21/6/19 RNS predicting breakeven in 2019.

Back to my point #1, I don’t see how changing “visibility of orders around the end of H1 FY23” to “actual orders by the end of 2023” would delay breakeven by one year.

@maxi, points #1 - 3 are fairly conclusive and give me no confidence in any statements from the board. You are far more optimistic, patient and understanding.

@Maxi19, I stand corrected on #4. That said, based on pages 37 and 41 of the Hamoodi presentation, I suspect he was putting pressure on the board even before Feb. anyway, good catch.

28/3/23 RNS

"We are closer to commercial production than at any time in our 20 year history, with orders anticipated by the end of 2023”

This statement is not credible and makes no sense because:

1. While the orders are anticipated earlier than before (ie, by the end of 2023 vs. visibility of orders by H1 FY23), the newly issued 20/6/23 RNS says breakeven is delayed to 2025 [previously 2024].

2. Long history of repeated delays regarding visibility, order, revenue

3. Long history of repeated delays regarding breakeven

4. Changed to an earlier date for the first time only weeks after being pressured to resign

>>>>

VISIBILITY, ORDER, REVENUE

2020 annual report

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/n/LSE_NANO_2020.pdf

“potential commercial production in 2022” (note this is not “order” but “production”)

2021 annual report

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/n/LSE_NANO_2021.pdf

“visibility in late 2022” (previously "production") on “potential sensing production revenue in 2023” (changed from 2022)

2022 annual report

“visibility of commercial production orders around the end of H1 FY23” (changed from “production revenue in 2023” to “visibility of production orders around the end of H1 FY23”)

10/3/23

Hamoodi letter seeking the board’s resignation

>>>>>

BREAKEVEN

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/x886z5x

21/6/19 RNS [breakeven in 2019]

The Group still expects to deliver a cash breakeven positon, as previously announced, for the twelve months ending December 2019 and to have a cash balance of approximately £6.0m at that time.

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/rebuilding-organic-value/28010/

16/10/20 Edison [breakeven in 2023]

Management’s target is to progress nanomaterial development and scale-up programmes, so the company reaches this break-even level within three years [2023].

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4548254-nanoco-group-plc-nnocf-q4-2022-earnings-call-transcript

Q4 2022 Earnings Call [breakeven in 2024]

And then coming to cash, the fundraise we completed in June ‘22 raised GBP5.4 million net of fees and takes our cash runway up to calendar year ‘25, which has passed our expected breakeven point [2024].

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/x8ep7jx

20/6/23 RNS [breakeven in 2025]

Given the substantial achievements of Nanoco to date, the Board intends to continue investing in R&D and commercial activities, through to the self-financing position that is expected to be delivered during 2025.

So many reasons to celebrate

21.5p (filing date of SS lawsuit) + transformational value from settlement = 19p now

£55M (enterprise value on filing date) + transformational value = negative £9M now

Https://twitter.com/F_Lindberg/status/1433683270487658530

"The Billion Dollar Patent" in Swedish on Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/episode/32aWkn0YP9r4mwvJy740MG

Https://seekingalpha.com/news/3913229-neonode-gains-after-winning-patent-trial-against-samsung

Samsung is appealing the IPR they lost but the infringement lawsuit against them is proceeding (after the stay has been lifted).

@maxi and @troublesome,

Thanks for this civilized exchange of comments/opinions. We may agree to disagree. You both are clearly more patient/understanding. For me, enough is enough. I wish the board were more straight forward in their communications and not confuse investors with anticipate vs. expect combined with visibility vs order ; lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome vs our own low case damages model, neither of which was ever disclosed by the board and hence is meaningless to shareholders; "as noted previously, the IP sale of 118 non-core patents" when what was noted previous is the sale of "a number of.non-core patents" and on and one ... Anyway, best wishes to you whatever and whenever you decide with your investments.

@troublesome

Replacing the board does not necessarily mean replacing the executives and won't be disruptive. The said, I believe the ROI's for the CEO and the CFO are extremely poor, whilst the ROI for the CTO should be determined based on what the fact-based assessment ultimately reveals. I trust the new board with a clear track record will do whatever is sensible with the executives. If my doctor assures me it's not cancer and keeps saying I will get better in a. year, then two, then three while my health continues to deteriorate, I would definitely look for another doctor who has a proven track record in diagnosing and treating my suspected cancer. My doctor gets paid for every office visit as long as I visit but I am the one who will suffer from any misdiagnosis.

D-i-r-e-c-t-o-r-s-t-a-l-k

edison is a trusted publication? they are just a marketing vehicle for the board.

edison’s 9/6/22 *************

https://*************.net/nanoco-group-what-can-we-expect-from-samsung’s-historical-us-infringement

"assuming that samsung’s us qd display sales totalled 25m units over the five years to end-2021, upon which it is realistic to estimate a low-end royalty payable to nanoco in the range of us$8.0 to us$12.0 per display. this amounts to lost revenue in the range of uss$200 and us$300 million for the us alone."

20/5/21 nanoco's actual damages report submitted to court (hamoodi presentation, page 16)

"minimum damages are calculated based on the dow agreement by applying a $6.06 royalty rate to [redacted, likely samsung sales] for the period february 1, 2015 to october 4, 2021. resulting damages are $43.9m."

“Monetising patents is what Nanoco have been aiming to do since their inception, they look to be on the cusp of doing that with regards to recurring income, and now someone else wants to waft in and take the tiller- hmmm.”

What recurring income from licensing patents? Yes, someone else who has a proven track record in monetizing patents. Note the core patents litigated against Samsung were developed long before the Chairman and the CEO joined the company. The current Chair and CEO's “contribution” to the Samsung litigation was mismanaging the case for a net loss while hyping expectations.

“Or possibly they would simply like to flog off the IP, temporarily drive the share price higher and award themselves huge bonuses in the process and then disappear leaving shareholders with a shell of a company.”

Sorry to say that you seem to speculate negatively without facts about the new board whilst generously accepting the current board’s chronic misrepresentations, abysmal litigation management and outcome, and the current market cap with the lowest enterprise value in Nanoco’s history. I think you are grossly underestimating how difficult it would have been for the proposed chairman to grow Acacia’s revenue from $4M to $251M and its market cap from $110M to $2B in 8 years. Do you know any other individuals with that kind of track record? I have much more faith in him (than in the current board) that he will do the right thing, whether to sell or license certain patents, to maximize shareholder value.

“This is a brand new material in a brand new market. Outside of Samsung who behaved in a disgusting fashion, the adoption of QD’s be they cad free or not has been small and largely confined to one industry- display.”

I agree but why does the board keep stating $7.5 - 10B of “addressable” display market year after year in annual reports whilst Nanoco’s market share has been and will likely continue to be 0%? Even the 2022 annual report states the addressable market as of 2022 is $8B for sensing, $8.5B for lighting, and $10B for display. These are quite misleading. That’s why I question the truthfulness of any statements from the board.

“That now seems to be changing and quite rapidly. There’s still risk, but it’s much lower than it once was when the company had to break out the begging bowl every couple of years.”

I hope you are correct, but I don’t see any facts (not rumors or speculations on the BBs) to be as optimistic. Again, please share any facts to the contrary. I keep an open mind and will gladly to change my view based on facts.

@nanonano, as you know, I respect your knowledge in the QD industry but have an entirely different perspective on Hamoodi’s presentation.

“Who replaces the board though, and with what strategy? I saw little in the document put out by Tariq’s group that inspired confidence. The chief two bullet points I saw were - sell off Runcorn, monetise patents.”

The proposed directors have much more impressive backgrounds and track records in building profitable businesses. For instance, the proposed chairman’s record in building numerous profitable businesses (especially at Acacia as a public company) is impressive by any standard. The current board promised transformational value (knowingly IMO) and wasted money by engaging expensive/questionable advisors and related lenders ($1M for Edelson and $5M for Epstein, $5.7M bonus for LOAM/RG) but delivered a net loss for shareholders. As I posted in a separate thread responding to @Maxi, the board has been projecting, changing, and missing commercial volume production for at least 5 years. Having been fooled so many times, I don’t see any reason why their latest projection is any different. If you have any facts to the contrary, please share. “with what strategy”? What strategy has the board ever articulated? I don’t even know why commercial production has been delayed so long because the board doesn’t provide any clarity.

The current market cap being £10M below cash (effectively assigning negative value for all 370 patents, negative value for the organic business, and assuming £10M loss under the current board) speaks for itself and is an unbiased reflection of how the shareholders collectively view the current board. I have no doubt that the new board can do a far better job in monetizing patents without hyping expectations. As to the organic business, considering the never ending delays in commercial production, we desperately need a board member (the proposed interim CEO) who knows the QD industry and can spearhead an objective fact-based assessment of Nanoco’s core technology and help make the right decisions to maximize shareholder value. There is no check and balance under the current board. The current Chairman and the CEO are incapable of doing that and rely 100% on the CTO, who unfortunately has never produced any profit in his entire 22+ year career. I cannot imagine the new board would blindly sell Runcorn whilst the organic manufacturing business has great potential. Doing so would be stupid for any board.

“Without Runcorn you can’t manufacture materials, so that would mean licensing a third party.”

The new board should keep Runcorn if manufacturing (vs licensing technology) is deemed viable based on its assessment. As you know, Nanoco has a dual strategy of manufacturing on its own as well as licensing others to manufacture in exchange for royalties (about £100K/yr). Unfortunately, neither approach has generated any profit, so I cannot pre-judge which

@Maxi, thanks for your reply. So CFQD is not for consumer SWIR sensors except for ST and possibly Sony?