We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
There is indications from STM of future sales that has led the company to issue guidance as they see it. They absolutely could and quite possibly will miss it. But they could and quite possibly will achieve it.
My company stopped issuing guidance because the demand for our services dropped. There was the potential that demand could pick up in the financial window but there was no clear indication when or if it were to what extent top they withdrew guidance for a time. Now with confirmed orders and more discussions about future demand there is some stability and guidance was reintroduced last year.
Nanoco could (and some appear to suggest they perhaps should) say they have no idea what lies ahead. But if they are receiving indications they will be getting repeat business and that is likely to grow then it is incumbent on them to publish that information.
For me this is about mobiles in 2026 and other sensor applications will be the cherry on the cake. Reflect on that.
Because they are professionals…..they for example probably have access behind paywalls. They probably discuss matters with their peer groups. They will have defined parameters for risk to work to. All things PI’s don’t have except for voicing ill informed opinions here of course.
They do have evidence and it was explained to you in the investor call. They advised they expect more orders and a ramp up. But it is just guidance and not legally binding so you are being a bit provocative using terminology such as insider trading and insinuating more practices that merit FCA review.
As I said, if you don’t trust them sell.
Pete, Im afraid people got carried away with their own enthusiasm. If it was such an easy win where were the institutional investors? There were no new ones that joined the $500m party and those already invested sold down.
Why? Because they are professionals and knew the risks and understood the guidance. Many did not.
Furthermore there is no requirement to sign any more "commercial deals" at all to reach break even. I think the intention is to reach it under the existing arrangement. It's PO's we need but I assume that's what you meant. But of course more deals would be welcome (as referenced in the risk of a single customer BT mentioned in the investor call)
I really don't want an argument, just a wider perspective.
For example....
-how do you know the cash burn will remain the same - perhaps there are additional costs in setting up the fab? Perhaps it will go up further on the back of new production demands?
-How do you know margins will remain as is for example? - they guide they are aiming to improve production efficiency.
-How do you know what the price point will be for new contracts for example? - perhaps initial orders are loss leading?
My point is we just don't know.
But, if you don't trust them-sell. I trust them just now, and aside from trading just now have no immediate intentions to sell or reduce my holding.
I understand why you have arrived at that figure, but these are not facts, they remain your opinion.
Until the board specifically guides differently, you can't make claims of discrepancies, misdirection, misleading or misguiding until there is more to go o. It's just your opinion but the broader point is your 'opinion' ( and that of other similarly minded individuals) in my opinion is harming ALL of our investment.
Where have they guided they need an extra £10m in revenue? They have only stated they will be self financing during FY25, and not published anything in relation to revenue. That's your interpretation.
I was being ironic. I'm sure the phrase rings a bell with some. Even you could probably find it with some research.
If you think I have BT on a pedestal you are, as you are with most things, mistaken. It's just that for me he's not failing.
Troublesome, in my opinion, the more naysayers that sell up and leave; the better for Nanoco long-term. Nanoco is undervalued for a reason. The sentiment here is toxic.
Potential new investors will likely be persuaded not to invest. We need new investors to increase the share price - the catalyst might be news, but absent of that negativity won't help.
Anyone unhappy with the board performance, hoping to exit at a higher price should have taken up the tender offer and sell out, or leave now at 21.5p while they can if they missed the tender deadline - because the SP will drop shortly.
Essentially I hope and recommend every single litigation coat-tail surfer leaves, or stops criticising past events. I've decided to trust that the company will continue to deliver as per guidance, precisely as they have been. Until they mis I see no reason to change tactics.
Blaming the board, the funders, the advisors, LOAM, RG, Edison, TP and anyone else 'you' associate with the settlement for the outcome is avoiding self responsibility and instead suggesting every afore mentioned party was, or is complicit in fraud.
Remaining here and continuing to voice 'your perceived mis-trust' in the board will unlikely bear fruit for anyone.
Why is that a tall order? The sensor’s aren’t even in any devices yet as far as we know. In 2 years time they could be in mass adoption in mobiles! You should listen to what BT says sometime so you can understand scale.