Member Info for NGR1616

I've typed the relevant parts in CAPITALS to help you Kooba.

Question was "more or less assuming we should see visibility of a commercial order in H1 FY23 by Jan 31st and production H2 CY23 I'm assuming you know what the product is and what the size of the order is....can you give us an idea what kind of revenue

Sorry Kooba but you have just confirmed for me what I already knew. He specifically illustrated the accounting position was base don low volumes but didn't know what the end product and volumes would be. Go and listen again.

.....but they are "business planning" S&A and they have decided in their planning, absent of commercial volumes of production orders, to delay recruitment until they have better visibility. Prudent.

What company in its right mind would embark on a recruitment drive before it has seen the size of the order book?

"In addition, the validation of Nanoco's IP provides an opportunity to build a licensing programme to leverage further value. The Group has identified a number of potentially infringing third parties and has created a team to pursue them, where economically viable, and early stage activity is already underway......."

"If the Group's prospects improve further or the self-financing point arises earlier than 2025, the Board will consider further returns of capital in line with developing an appropriate dividend policy for a profitable and cash generative business."

NB "Forward looking statements inherently contain risks and uncertainties as they relate to events or circumstances in the future. Important factors such as business or economic cycles, the terms and conditions of Nanoco's financing arrangements, tax rates, or increased competition may cause Nanoco's actual financial results, performance or achievements to differ materially from any forward looking statements. Due to such uncertainties and risks, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. Nanoco disclaims any obligation to update any forward looking or other statements contained herein, except as required by applicable law."

Kooba it is you being misleading. My position on NED's is correct, I simply couldn't be bothered reading your post in full but yes didn't appreciate you were discussing execs but that was not misleading.

You on the other hand, in relation to the accounting position for potential orders the company are accounting for are misleading.

You are either being deliberately obtuse re the accounting assumptions the company are making, or stupid. BT has not claimed that the company expects it to be "not a mass market product" only that it can't account for any other outcome because of the lack of visibility. That's prudent.

Either admit you are [repeatedly] getting this wrong or expose yourself as stupid. Your choice.

As maxi correctly points out this was discussed last week and your version is inaccurate Kooba

Kooba yes I realised what you meant about one second after posting 🙃

I actually support NED's being independent and not invested in the company simply so they remain un-motivated to gain financially by their influence and instead only look at the bigger picture not the short term. That said many will accumulate shares through vesting but that's not likely to have the same potential for any sort of manipulation compared to investing your 'own' money.

It's technicals on very small volumes driving the SP. I wouldn't be getting too excited yet.

whoever the investor here, the success of the company is not a given. we cannot force adoption of the tech and are reliant on (for example stm) to provide an application using it then selling that to the end user (e.g. apple). so why a ned being cautious with his or her money is an issue puzzles me. or in other words, who gives a ****.

That much trusted publication said in March "the settlement frees management to concentrate on getting the company ready for volume production in anticipation of receiving its first production order later in CY23"

Cant do that without Runcorn. Just saying!

IT ……… ;-)

Perhaps they are negotiating…..

STM, website has this "ince 1999 ST has been an industry leader in the design and manufacture of imaging sensors. The current product portfolio spans a wide range of traditional image sensors from entry level VGA to 24 Mpixels and will soon offer products with 100’s of millions of pixels"

I wonder is Nanoco plays any part in this increased pixelisation capacity

Thanks for the link to refresh. The onus is on STM not Nanoco to deliver commercial revenues. Nanoco has delivered the material and STM need to sell it to the 'user'

Not sure a change of board would influence this. Just saying :-)

Kooba I read your post and respect your position. I haven't exercised myself thinking along such lines so can't really say I agree or disagree re the chair but I do agree with you that changing the entire board who (if they are to believed) sound like they have some traction in the supply chain towards commercialisation for a new board might destabilise that 'traction' which to me is not a good strategy at the moment.

On Nanonanos' point; I was alarmed at the suggested manifesto to sell Runcorn and change the direction and strategy wholesale. I just can't see that being the right thing to do just now; that said I'm open to changing my opinion in time if there are further developments that don't deliver. But right now I'm not willing to do anything but sit on it in this news vacuum other than the noise from a potentially disgruntled significant shareholder.

I was voicing my opinion and what I’m doing with my investment.

I’d rather sit and wait than ruminating over it - doesn’t do anyone any good moaning as nauseam expecting the board to go back in time or force adoption of their technology. I’m not responding to the expected responses after simply tempering expectations as we know how getting over excited lands us. And I include myself in that as I feel victim to the overhyped litigation expectation and subsequent running to the hills when it became clear the settlement was going to be underwhelming. I said £50m at the time and didn’t sell because I was invested for the tech from before the litigation was announced and see no reason yet to sell. By the year end I’ll expect an update to vindicate my decision or I may decide on that information that indeed the board has failed to deliver unless that is related to upstream supply chain delays out of their control.

If you’re not happy with your investment you can always sell TS!

I think it’s sensible to expect very little in the short term and possibly medium. If something ends up in a phone and or display it’s different but right now I’m just putting this in the bottom drawer. The cash position is assured in the meantime.