Member Info for NGR1616

They are delivering and I’m able to accept that despite initial expectations, other factors can effect timelines in supply chains.

Can you not accept that ?

Troublesome with all due respect, what precisely do you expect BT and his team to do?

-Force Apple and other OEM's to adopt the technology that's still in its infancy?

-Lie about the timelines?

It's been set out for you as they see it with the data available to them. You can either believe it or ignore it.

Constantly complaining about it is irksome.

£8m p/a is breakeven

Troublesome - when are you going to post something witty? You try every day, almost after every other post for reasons I can’t understand and fail miserably every time.

Just read some of your posts before posting then hopefully you’ll decide for yourself it’s really not funny and save us all the pain. TIA

If you look at the graphs re Samsung market share in the past versus volumes and compare it to the forward projections then the revenue model might not be as small as you suggest Kooba. Perhaps it’s about taking the past ‘learnings’ and handing the papers to a potential infringer now about how being sued might look in future, bearing in mind the IP has been validated.

Once this ‘episode’ is over I would characterise is it as the true inflection point. The Samsung Files will be closed and the next phase can begin without any further concerns about the complexion of shares, dividends, tenders values etc - assuming it goes through of course.

Who said the return of capital would be anything but that?

I'm not surprised it's been received the way it has been for it could never be anything else. If you are disappointed it’s because you didn’t understand it.

Kooba makes a valid point re them being over funded - better to have to keep working than have the money burning a metaphorical hole in their pockets, but either way, holding onto the cash in the bank or re-distributing it was never going to be “transformational”

What they’ve announced is just one mechanism of many options they had but they all boil down to the same thing in my view.

What’s more important is do I believe the company? Do we believe what Edison or Turner Pope are saying when they assert the company is undervalued in their opinion and well positioned to generate long term shareholder value creation?

Or you simply dismiss it as underhand dealings, keep on moaning, and sow seeds of mistrust as a small group do here daily?

Sadly I believe the latter will continue because I’ve seen it all too often from small minded muppets, but personally I am sensing (intended) the company is giving out positive signals and I’d rather believe them than a bunch of bitter fools with nothing better to do than relive past misjudgements.

There are many options available to them had they retained the cash. I’m not suggesting they retain it forever but for now it could have been there to underpin growth opportunity as they transition from R&D to a production company and once profitable look at buy backs and dividends.

Meanwhile:

-interest

-R&D

-production line improvements

-PR

-legal process for litigation

-potential acquisitions of competing tech or complementing tech

I feel this isn’t serving much purpose now but it may provide a more reactive share price later if there’s a significant commercial development.

There never was going to be any value - in my opinion they should have retained the cash.

can you not see how ridiculous this sounds......

"again the board have executed a poorly thought through plan with substandard third party advice who clearly weren't aware of the previous 37p"

the tender offer wasn't conceived down the pool hall one night with a bunch of guys unfamiliar with nanoco. to suggest a third party of advisors didn't know about the previous 37p makes a mockery of every single word you wrote prior to this complete ******* summation.

there is however a greater takeover potential related to the tender offer in my view.

this entire episode is a ripple effect from the samsung settlement where people like you expected a different outcome. meanwhile others (like me) are invested for the organic business and always have been.

in the next 2-3 years the company (risks aside) could be in volume production in mass market consumer devices such as mobiles and wearables and potentially sooner seeing some positive display revenue as referenced in the turner pope note yesterday.

production capacity in runcorn is >£100m p/a and they are planning to improve production efficiency and margins.

this is where the money is at.

Tuner Pope pretty bullish on display and sensing with talk of high volume adoption in 2026 and a 3rd QD player being added and more on potential infringement discussions that might further support the 2025 profit guidance.

Yes it is biased.....but it adds a lot of colour.

Oh Gino ! 🫣

I don't think anyone should be surprised there is no satisfactory solution here for a company valued currently only on cash. There is no mechanism or scenario (at this time) that can dodge the reality that it will negatively impact the share price to some extent.

It remains a waiting game on technology adoption and all the risks remain of IP theft, competing technologies, low revenues etc.

So far the company has matched recent guidance. Of course you can argue about receiving the return to value in Q1 or that they delivered the execution of it in Q1 with todays announcement in line with guidance until the cows come home....it's semantics. If pressed you know what the company will say so I really don't see any point in labouring it over and over again.

But as for guidance, they are aiming to be a profitable company at some point next year or sooner. With less shares in issue perhaps that's the time we can see some benefits in our patience.

You should read back what you’ve stated and then have another look and then realise what you’ve written whilst with good intentions….is crazy!

Tintin i have tried to explain this (and clearly failed) before. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

As I said I’m not going to argue. They have left sufficient wriggle room is my point.

Written in haste…..

It was meant to read “ I’m simply suggesting that an announcement could come in Q1 in any number of forms which is the commencement of their intention to execute in Q1 but that the actual point (that for example a special dividend could happen) could be after the end of Q1”

Kooba I’m a bit busy doing some DIY so I’m reading and writing in haste. You have been suggesting there should be an EGM to vote through the return of capital so that monies be returned if a special dividend on or before 31st March. I’m simply suggesting that an announcement could come in Q1 in any number of forms which is the commencement of their intention to execute in Q1 but that the actual point that for example a special dividend could happen after the end of Q1.

In your view that would be a failure to meet a [tacit] commitment but in my mind it wouldn’t be.

I really don’t want to argue about it. We all interpret things differently.

If you don’t get your money in Q1 then my interpretation won’t look quite so ridiculous now will it?

I’m willing to accept more than one interpretation, you’re not. Let’s leave it at that.

Troublesome I did have you filtered but curiosity got the better of me. Must try harder. Not you though, I know you’re doing your best.

Troublesome you have nothing to add here of value and never have so instead of further embarrassing yourself with your trademark humourless posts, it would better if you just stopped-now. Not soon or shortly but right now. Y

ou are unerringly boring.