Member Info for TerrorWit

Uprising to be quelled with Adobe Acrobat.

… And reality.

"It does address Corporate Governance code issues of board composition though."

How did I know it would be Kooba, he should get a prize ...

---

Kooba Wins International Award for Being Right on the Internet

In a presentation cermoney widely described as inevitable, Kooba has been awarded the inaugural International Prize for Sustained Correctness in Online Commentary.

The judging panel noted his unparalleled record:

"Few commentators have demonstrated such fluency in being right about everything, including the things that turned out to be wrong," said the panel's chair.

In his victory speech, Kooba struck a characteristically humble tone.

"I am humbled," he said, pausing to allow the word to settle. "Truly humbled. Nobody has ever been as humbled as I am at this moment. The humility I am experiencing is unprecedented in its depth and sincerity. I have been right about many things, but I was never more right than when I predicted I would be right about this."

He concluded by explaining why the award itself was further confirmation of his pre-existing correctness, before graciously accepting several other awards he had also predicted he would win.

The ceremony closed with a brief presentation on the UK Corporate Governance Code, delivered by Kooba, which he assured attendees was entirely relevant to the proceedings.

Who will be the first person to claim its confirmation of whatever it is they already believed?

Flextrader

We've been around this loop before. You're still analysing the vote as though the electorate remained static, while ignoring the possibility that the delisting proposal itself attracted short-term traders with very different incentives from long-term shareholders. The evidence for this was manifest.

• Complains others post too much, after spending the campaign posting repeated get-out-the-vote messages.

• “Countless ways to cut costs.” Names none.

• Voted against the one cost-saving measure the board actually proposed. Now complains about costs.

The questions remain unanswered.

The market is signalling that Nanoco remains a high-risk technology company that has yet to demonstrate a clear commercial route to meaningful revenues.

If commercial progress is too slow and cash burn is the problem, why vote against one of the few measures that would have reduced the cash burn?

If you think the current board or a new board of directors is going come up with some miracle instant remedy, then you’re forgetting that they’ve already conducted strategic reviews and found that the only route forward is been to continue to commercialise the existing joint development agreements to make the company more attractive.

Now, by voting against the delisting, you have tied their hands.

Muppets are very good at complaining about what they are against but useless at coming up with any better alternatives.

One poster is looping, still fighting last week's battle because he can’t assimilate the data.

Whether it was a misjudgment or not isn’t relevant.

I think the share price is most likely static for now.

The only scenario that changes everything is commercial success.

If the JDAs convert into production orders, the share price re-rates, the market looks functional again, and the urgency to delist evaporates.

If they don’t, the adjourned resolution is still there.

The board likely modelled the vote based on the shareholder register as it stood before the announcement: long-term holders, institutions, and the usual retail base with historically low turnout.

What they may not have allowed for was that the delisting announcement itself would attract event-driven traders buying large volumes at depressed prices specifically to oppose the proposal and profit from the vote failing.

That is not necessarily a misjudgement of the existing shareholder base.

It is the shareholder register changing under their feet.

If anyone wants to see a genuine reason why the company would like to remove itself from the main market (other than the obvious fact that it saves quite a lot of money) then this forum and the majority of its contributors would be exhibit A.

I’ve noticed that when people run out of arguments, they start name-calling.

“Terry.” “Connected to the board.” “Fool.” “Dreamer.” “Nobody.”

None of these provide any evidence about why I am wrong.

They simply avoid the question.

It’s infantile.

This also exists, and its forums seem curiously familiar: conclusion first, evidence rearranged afterwards.

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

I see the Strait of Hormuz is back in the news today.

Hormuz sounds remarkably like hummus.

The connection is therefore obvious.

1. Hummus contains chickpeas.

2. Chickpeas are small.

3. Nanoco specialises in small stuff.

4. Therefore SpaceX is probably involved.

This also explains why no formal announcement has yet been made regarding the second JDA. Commercial negotiations relating to orbital chickpea deployment would clearly be highly sensitive.

I can seriously see a five-bagger here.

For obvious reasons I cannot reveal my source.

DYOR. 🚀🥙

I see I’m living rent free inside the heads of certain individuals on ADVFN as well as here.

All because I entertained the radical possibility that a company seeking to save £700,000 per annum might actually wish to save £700,000 per annum

Quite. One only has to look at the long list of highly successful independent quantum-dot companies to see how uniquely incompetent Nanoco has been.

Perhaps if you stopped airing historical grievances and gave them half a chance.

What strikes me, though, is that despite all the certainty in posts here, the company itself appears to be carrying on with the rather mundane business of trying to commercialise its technology.

Which is considerably less exciting than unnecessary hostile-board theories.

But the only action that matters.

Having reviewed the delisting proposal again, I have concluded that the market is focusing on entirely the wrong thing.

The company stated that it wished to save approximately £700,000 per annum. However, this explanation can safely be discounted. No rational board would undertake such a significant corporate exercise merely to save money. The obvious conclusion is that a far more important development remains undisclosed.

For decades, ice cream portions have been getting smaller. According to research I found using Claude, this trend is forecast to reach nanoscale by 2035.

Nanoco is a world leader in nanoscale materials.

The connection is therefore obvious.

The proposed £700k annual saving was never really about preserving cash runway. That is merely the cover story. The more plausible interpretation is that the company is positioning itself ahead of the emerging Quantum Ice Cream market.

My research suggests that raspberry ripple and pecan flavour quantum dots have already been successfully validated. However, pistachio remains a significant technical challenge. Sources indicate that the flavour gamut achieved to date falls materially short of commercial requirements, although management is believed to be encouraged by recent progress and all milestones have been met. Pistachio is, quite literally, proving a tough nut to crack.

This also explains the secrecy. No board would want competitors such as Ben and Jerry’s, Häagen-Dazs or Wall’s to discover the full commercial opportunity before the flavour gamut has been fully validated.

SpaceX may also be involved, since ice cream melts on Earth but would remain stable in deep space. A future licensing agreement covering orbital dessert applications therefore cannot be ruled out. Also, in case more evidence is needed.Elon Musk is wellknown to eat ice cream sometimes.

For obvious reasons I cannot reveal my source.

DYOR.

Those are not all simple statements of fact.

Some are facts; others are interpretations.

Fact: the first sensing JDA moved into scale-up.

Fact: the company said the second JDA was progressing, although no further extension has yet been announced.

Fact: the strategic review did not produce an acceptable offer.

Fact: the board did not secure enough support for delisting at this stage.

Interpretation: the second JDA is dead.

Interpretation: the shareholder base is hostile to the board.

Interpretation: one JDA cannot support a viable investment case.

Interpretation: the Shoei outcome proves Nanoco cannot defend its IP.

Those interpretations may ultimately prove correct, or not, but they are not the same thing as facts.

What continually surprises me is how often a relatively straightforward proposal becomes wrapped in increasingly elaborate theories. The stated rationale for delisting was to reduce costs and extend the company’s cash runway. People may disagree with that strategy, but disagreement with a proposal is not evidence that a more complicated explanation must exist..