Member Info for NGR1616

Sorry Steakandale but you stated that if we haven’t received orders by now then “we aren’t in it” and I’m arguing that if we have a short lead time why on earth would they [STM or other parties] place an order now absent of a call off from the end user themselves ? Makes no business sense disturbing cash flow in a JIT supply chain.

QD appreciate that but I’m also not going to allow those same individuals to denigrate the company unchecked. They are entitled to their opinions and they are mostly polarised with mine so I’ll continue debating them although TG2D isn’t really worth it neither is Troublesome.

Troublesome the company no longer has any 'going concern issues' because they settled whether orders come or not and that will remain the case until within a 12 month period the auditors identify cash burn exceeds cash available. That is now many years away thanks to the settlement and growing revenue.

If you have concerns, sell your remaining stake, if you even hold any shares.

SteakandAle I work for a company that has to make some pretty significant CAPEX decisions and those are often predicated by the upstream players in the supply chain. We've been burned before making something without the upstream commitment being approved and we will never again on a solus basis commit to purchasing materials, ordering equipment, studies, engineering etc without the upstream contact and PO in place What we do though is identify long leads with the various vendors in the chain and advise our customers what they need to do in order to reach their milestones....i.e. **** or get off the pot. I expect the SC in Apple if that is indeed the product to be even more refined. So perhaps the scenario is Apple have asked STM to validate their readiness and STM in turn have asked Nanoco et al the same.....are you able to deliver in x timeframe. It would seem Nanoco can produce pretty quickly so why do so in advance of an order? Those with longer leads may indeed already have PO's from STM or Apple but for Nanoco it would appear the lead time is short.

Kooba. It was mentioned in the EGM and I was repeating that statement that the company had voiced going concern issues which, had they not settled would have still been a remaining risk. Yes the lookout changes with raises and now that they have better visibility of orders and of course the settlement but for years up to the settlement that was not the case hence the motivation to settle was high given it's better to secure a companies future for its employees and shareholders than it is to risk it in court. One could say we have passed an inflection point but we don't want to invite Troublesome to fill us with his wisdom on that now do we!?

Kooba "Not spinning anything and they had no going concern issues…if you believe the management."

Management identified there were going concern issues.

It doesn’t matter how you spin it, they had going concern issues absent of a raise or acceptance of a settlement. There was no absolute guarantee they’d be funded through the appeal process assuming they won which wasn’t a certainty either.

But there are orders…..and cash and no debts whereas before they had debts and no cash and could only service debts by cash raises that are dilutive or another loan…..

Troublesome the terminology going concern is an audit observation based on accounts. Before the settlement there were concerns they were at risk whereas unlike you suggested, they are not now and won’t be for many years assuming good stewardship

The company was at risk as a going concern…..

Nanogeddon was postulating insider dealings, I simply described a possible chain of events that led to a decision to invest that wasn’t shooting from the hip as implied. Blimey you really do take everything literally despite when prefaced by « I can imagine «  and now you’re suggesting I’m in involved party? Flat earth 🌍 ?

TG2D had you paid to access information behind a paywall ? Did you carry out proper due diligence so you understood what the implications of a ‘smaller’ award were? No. Neither me did I. But I think it’s safe to say the well resourced, experienced and professional teams at LOAM and RG did. You can’t blame them, only yourself.

Is defending conspiracy theory that LOAM knew about this RNS before the market and bought shares to profit…..when its only gone up 1.69%….not allowed?

Kooba I literally said « I can imagine…. »

*you’re 🤪

Nanogeddon how do you know they weren’t buying on the 26th? Their holding increased by more than the 6m trade and that could have taken some time to broker.

I can imagine a scenario where some of their team listened to the call, then wrote a report, presented it to the investment team perhaps on a scheduled basis the following week before any decisions were finalised before executing trades. And all of this purely based on the guidance of commercial orders before the end of the year. Ie nothing to do with an RNS about a deepening relationship with the Asian partner.

Put it another way, you are implying they bought £900,000 worth of shares because they had insider information about this RNS…. That has moved the share price by 1.69%?

Sorry bud your spouting conspiracy theories that, like all conspiracy theories, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

You can please some people some of the time….

The results presentation was 17th October. LOAM had time to complete some further diligence. It’s easy enough to claim insider trading but especially given recent scrutiny I don’t see why that is the conclusion we should reach for every time.

Further on display, it all hinges on the supply chain playing by the rules. Nanoco has identified one panel that they believe contains their IP but not proven but a « good clue ». Nanoco has indicated they will engage.

I don’t expect any material news on this anytime soon but the opportunity for growth in display exists.

Nanogeddon i think you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. The LOAM increase comes off the back of a recent investor call where the company guided they expect confirmation of commercial orders this year. So why would LOAM wait ?

As for the Asian customer, when did they guide imminent commercialisation? All they have reiterated is the long development cycles lasting years and this is just one milestone.