Member Info for TerrorWit

Bachunut, the company's own guidance is the basis for my comment - not speculation.

No one can force a purchase at a low price without buying shares on the open market, which would cause the price to rise anyway.

L2Play, my honest view is it's just noise. The stock is illiquid. A few 100k blocks probably don't signal anything material.

Feeks, execution means the JDAs moving from development to commercial supply — which is what the company has guided for. The prospects depend on those customers scaling. I don't have a percentage, but the path is clearer now than it's been in years. The next results will tell us more.

My personal view is that the market is being too pessimistic at the current price due to retail noise.

Nanonano, every new platform business faces setbacks. That's why I'm patient. I assessed the risk up front. The imminent results will show whether the current strategy is on track.

Nanonano, reassurance isn't the company's job. They've stated their plan: breakeven from the JDAs by 2027. The settlement clears the path. The cash is there. Whether they execute is up to them. Watching is what investors do.

Are you looking for reassurance that everything is still on track Nanonano?

* Business as usual.

The share price has no effect on the company’s operations. They’re carrying on with the JDA’s and executing their business plans which have been made perfectly clear numerous times. So far as they are concerned, it is Business is useful.

Flying higher - on my reading , you just completely proved my point about gormless speculation by adding your own.

It's the same retail noise that drove it to 70p once. Back then no one was focused on the signal from the company — and looking at this thread, it's clear how difficult it still is for anyone to focus on it now without drifting into gormless speculation.

Why? It’s a cashed-up Business with advancing JDA’s that recently announced it wasn’t prepared to sell current levels.

Here’s an Example of how royalties are often reported:

The Walt Disney Company (licensing royalties)

Disney earns large amounts of income from licensing its intellectual property (characters, films, trademarks etc.). In its annual report it explains how royalty-based licensing income is recognised.

One section states that licensing fees and royalties are recognised based on contractual royalty rates applied to the licensee’s sales. 

In other words, Disney publicly discloses:

• That it earns licensing royalties

• How the royalties are accounted for

• The total revenue those licensing activities contribute

But it does not disclose the exact royalty percentages or contract terms with individual licensees — those remain confidential.

⸻

Link to the company’s report

You can view the document directly here:

https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2025/01/2024-Annual-Report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

If you scroll to the revenue recognition / licensing section, you’ll see how the royalties are described without revealing the underlying contractual terms.

———

For clarity, I am not saying there are royalties. I am just saying no one can say they are not royalties. My view is that we don’t really know, but I think it is unlikely that both Nanoco or Shoei voluntary gave up their rights without a payment mechanism that respected the value in both sides.

…. And Shoei kept everything under seal so why would they suddenly stop?

Kooba, that's plain wrong. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, no listed company would be permitted any secrets around the monetisation of its IP. How many RNS announcements can you find where others have provided similar disclosures?

Anyway, I've already provided the relevant regulations and their correct legal explanations. It’s not my problem if you don’t want to accept them.

That's not an argument. It's the familiar pattern: assert certainty, ignore the confidential terms, and belittle anyone who asks questions.

Nanonano - you can use AI to generate a summary that confirms your beliefs, but the AI is just scraping public information, not interpreting the confidential terms. It can't say whether royalties exist because the terms are confidential. I do not know whether the royalties exist or not, but I do know that if they did they would be confidential in order to protect both parties from prejudicing future commercial negotiations with other customers and suppliers. If they exist royalties will show up as income eventually in the accounts but they need not be allocated as being derived from any particular source.

Sammy88, royalties are the standard way of monetising patents. Dismissing them as "dumb" while believing there might still be a sale is a preference, not a fact. The only thing we know is that there are confidential terms that are material — and they don't include a sale since that would be a headline

Nanoco's job is to manage the business, clear the path, and report material developments — not to pre‑emptively list every patent held by every potential competitor. The fact that Nanonano didn't know about Shoei's sensing patents isn't a failure of the company. It's another failure of his own research. He states "no royalties" as fact — but he doesn't know. He claims Nanoco "can no longer afford" litigation — but they have three years of cash runway. He calls LG a "misstep" — ignoring that it added cash and validated the IP.

This thread is now a useless museum to the performance of posters who find themselves unable to contribute to any productive session.