Member Info for NGR1616

I estimated £70m if I recall correctly. Feel free to lookback, but I'm not wasting my time.

You are posting often about how corrupt the company is, how is misguides and misleads yet their every update is more positive and contains the missing details you crave. Of course one day you may be proved right in your suspicions, but STM micro gives me confidence the tech will be adopted so you are more likely to end up with egg on your face. No offence, but given how wrong you were about the settlement, I'm inclined to listen to the company, make my own decisions on what they are 'telling me' and not listen to the moans of a disgruntled and (IF the company continues to deliver) soon to be further discredited individual like you.

I doubt you are right on many fronts ;-) Only time will tell.

Kooba good points. Add display....

TG2D I see that you are still bearing a grudge. Fair enough.

Personally I saw through the estimates. But you shouldn't conflate the 'potential damages award' with a more likely settlement. It was fair as it took away ALL of the risks of losing or winning and validated the IP in a much shorter time frame. It gave the company a financial footing that wasn't dilutive for existing shareholders or reliant on further loans.

LOAM and RG are professionals, better informed about risk and able to access data we couldn't without paying to get behind the paywall and if 'you' did I suspect 'you' would have ignored the pertinent guidance on low outcomes and still only viewed the headline numbers being bandied about in poorly researched press articles possibly hyped by those who stood to gain the most. Nanoco are not the first company to become overhyped afterall. They won't be the last and I hope it happens again though when they deliver again on guidance but we should not be surprised if there are some delays.

Had they not had a deal with STM and no orders or other deals in the offing I'd be far more circumspect but I believe in time this investment will bear fruit.

And if they don’t I’ll own up….

It’s an interesting example of human behaviour. I have very little trust issues, yet HH could be right. Of course of Nanoco do deliver HH will simply cite that in the past they lied and manipulated to his cost. Perspective is everything.

So you are not invested and will remain un invested?

HH do you think Nanoco are not doing anything that Edison are suggesting? How would you feel if they end up with an STM sensor in a mobile and a new display supply agreement?

Inflection in revenues. Got to laugh at this of all the phrases that could have been avoided….

It’s not just from the company though there is activity from the customer to watch so we can try and join the dots but yes officially from Nanoco not much to go by. I suspect that’s partly due to NDA’s but also because they don’t want to expose the truth that the glide path is long and we only just intercepted the localiser.

I said I’m trying to ignore the personal stuff. You seem to be perpetuating it rather than accepting I’m trying to move on.

i'm trying to ignore the personal stuff. it's a challenge at times especially when particular individuals goad but responding to their nonsense doesn't do the discussion any good what so ever.

i want to discuss the business, not banal chat to prove who has the least wit or the smallest ****. i get the impression for some, it no longer works anyway.

any one detected a device with a stm sensor yet?

All I’m saying is Cavendish have full discretion and we don’t know all the parameters. So don’t ask me.

Are you sure that’s all the parameters?

There’s more about parameters in the circular but they are not described beyond there are parameters

Well they have the order now so whatever reason for the delay it seems we are on track. I look forward to BE FY25

There are parameters that they operate in. I haven’t seen those‘parameters’ but perhaps they contain some sort of information that could explain why they are paused.

Cavendish have full discretion. Stop spreading misinformation.

So are we saying that nanoco should ignore guidance from upstream in the supply chain and / or never give any reciprocal guidance on expected developments that might lead to orders especially when there may be factors outwith their Control? And unless I’m mistaken i think they said they were looking forward to rather than we expect?

And also we are to not consider the STM order means anything at all?

Sounds reasonable. We need to know the sensor to be sure though. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that further evaluation was needed given that Nanoco’s product was only validated last year. Any samples prior to that could only be classed as pre-production variety. I’m not saying that the evaluation is still ongoing but I can’t see how any company would put a sensor into a device without evaluating the performance of a production version of the sensor with the validated Nanoco product. It’s possible therefore that the initial commercial order from STM was for two purposes. Evaluation and production/stock building.