Member Info for TerrorWit

A steady set of results that systematically dismantles the permabear narrative and lays a solid foundation for the two primary value catalysts.

1. The Commercial Business is Real and Growing: The strategy is no longer a hope; it's a validated, executing plan. A second Asian chemical customer is a huge vote of confidence and proves the business model is replicable. The JDA extension de-risks the scale-up path. This is what commercial traction looks like – it's a process, not a single event.

2. The Financials Are Secure: The cost base is under control and the cash runway, supported by contracted revenue, is more than adequate to see through both the ongoing commercial development and the...

3. Active CDX Process: The board confirms discussions with "several parties." This is the key takeaway. After a long outreach, multiple suitors remain at the table. This is a competitive situation for a valuable asset, which is the optimal scenario for maximizing shareholder value.

The past year was one of transition and preparation. The company is now leaner, more focused, and has multiple shots on goal. The silence was indeed communication, and it signalled an ongoing process. Today's RNS confirms that process is live, the business is advancing, and the cash is there to see it through.

The foundations are solid. The path to value realization, through either a sale or commercial success, is clearer than ever.

Analysis of the Latest Bear Moans

1. Kooba: The "25 Years" Argument. This is his foundational, all-purpose fallacy. It's an appeal to history that ignores the fundamental change in circumstance: they now have a validated, paying partner in a high-growth field (SWIR) and are in a formal seller-led process. He dismisses the JDA as "tiny," refusing to acknowledge its role as a de-risking, validating step, not the final destination. His final point about the board being "surprised" is pure mind-reading—a classic emotional projection.

2. FlyingHigher: The "Anchor to Share Price" Argument. This is a classic of lazy analysis. He suggests a bid will be a simple premium to the current, likely depressed and illiquid, market price. This completely ignores the concept of fundamental valuation (£47m IP valuation + cash), the value of the JDA, and the strategic value to an acquirer. It's an argument that says "the price is low because the price is low."

3. Nanonano: The "Fund Raise Price" Argument. Equally lazy and emotionally manipulative. He anchors the discussion to a historical fundraise price (adjusted for inflation, no less!) to create a sense of insurmountable loss and hopelessness. It's designed to trigger loss aversion in other investors, not to analyze the current asset value.

Why are these people here at all? What sort of lives must they have addicted to posting dribble day in day out on a micro-cap?

My analysis is for healthy minds. I can't force it on those who are so determined to be sick,

Maxi19's point is the only one that matters from a regulatory and strategic standpoint.

The board's silence is not a vacuum; it is communication in itself. After providing specific guidance on the structure and timing of a seller-led process, their ongoing silence can only be rationally interpreted one way: that the process remains on track relative to the expectations they set.

To do otherwise—to be knowingly off-track and not disclose it—would be to deliberately mislead the market. The UK MAR implications of that are severe.

This is why the recent JDA renewal was so critical. It wasn't just "good news"; it was a material, positive update that strengthened the asset being sold during the sales process. It provided a tangible data point that the "structured process" is active and that the company is simultaneously executing on its operational plan.

This worry machine stoked by Kooba and Nanonano will always demand more, sooner. But for rational shareholders, the current silence, framed by past guidance and recent operational success, is entirely consistent with a complex M&A process advancing as planned.

The burden of proof has now shifted; it is on the pessimists to explain why the board would remain silent if their own guided process was failing.

Maxi19, that is an exceptionally clear and rational summary of the disclosure framework. You've moved the discussion from speculation to obligation, which is where it needs to be.

To build on your points, this framework is precisely why the recent JDA renewal was so critical to the FSP.

1. Timing & The JDA: A potential acquirer was looking at a company with a key JDA expiring imminently. That represented a significant "ask" and a near-term risk. The 3-year extension de-risks the timeline for the acquirer. It provides a multi-year revenue stream and a clear, validated development path, making the "conclusion in 2025" far more executable and the company a more stable asset.

2. Structure & The JDA: The renewal reinforces that the value is in Nanoco Technologies Ltd—its IP, its R&D capability, and now, its proven commercial partnerships. It makes the stated structure of selling NTL more coherent and valuable.

3. Price & The JDA: The £47m IP valuation was a snapshot. The JDA renewal is a tangible, post-valuation event that strengthens the argument for a valuation at or above that level. It provides hard evidence of the technology's commercial applicability and future revenue potential, moving beyond theoretical accounting value.

The permabear narrative will now inevitably shift to "the FSP has failed" if there is silence. But your framework exposes the flaw in that thinking.

Silence, for now, is consistent with a process advancing within the stated boundaries. A material negative deviation from the points you've outlined (timeline, structure, price) would require disclosure. The absence of such a disclosure is, therefore, a passive positive.

The board's challenge was to demonstrate ongoing value creation alongside the FSP. The JDA renewal did exactly that. We now wait, with a clearly defined set of expectations, for the next move.

NanoNano - the psuedo expert who

1. Makes a bold, specific prediction (e.g., "Apple Vision Pro will use Nanoco sensors!").

2. Sounds authoritative about tangential industry facts to build credibility.

3. When the prediction fails, ignores the failure and launches a new bold prediction.

4. The audience, impressed by the style of his posting (industry jargon, apparent confidence), forgets the substance of his failed track record.

-------

It's worth remembering that investment decisions should be based on company announcements and tangible progress, not on forum speculation about specific end-users like Apple.

The value in this JDA is the direct relationship with a significant chemical customer and the validated path to production in SWIR sensing. Chasing rumored end-devices is a distraction from the concrete business being built.

Deconstruction of Kooba's Argument

"What is the revenue stream per annum?" Moving the Goalposts. The news is positive because it provides certainty and duration of revenue. Immediately demanding the exact figure is a tactic to dismiss the good news as "not good enough" without any basis.

"The company was a going concern anyway... this just continues that position." Minimization. He reframes a significant, multi-year contract extension as a mere continuation of the status quo, ignoring that it actively prevents a negative catalyst (JDA collapse) and adds tangible value.

"This does not make the company financially sustainable... yet." Strawman. No one claimed this single JDA makes the company fully sustainable. It's a step that significantly improves the sustainability and financial outlook by providing guaranteed revenue and de-risking the path to a larger commercial outcome.

"We have been here a number of times in the past. So no counting chickens." Appeal to Past Failure (Hindsight Bias). He uses past disappointments (e.g., STM) to instill doubt about a completely separate, new agreement. This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Each project and partnership has its own unique merits and risks.

"In the absence of other... sales the company will still be burning £5m a year." False Dilemma. He presents a future where nothing else happens—no other JDAs, no sale, no success. This is a pessimistic hypothetical, not an analysis of the current news. The JDA makes other positive outcomes more, not less, likely.

"Can only hope it helps lead to a sale... otherwise self-financing is a long way off." - The Poisoned Well. He ends by framing the entire company's future as hopeless without an immediate sale, using the good news merely as a potential trigger for an exit, rather than as validation of the underlying business.

-----------------------

Kooba's post overlooks the material positive shift this RNS represents.

1. Certainty Over Speculation: We now have a three-year revenue stream with an inflation-linked increase. This isn't 'counting chickens'; it's looking at a signed contract. It removes the near-term risk of the JDA collapsing and provides a solid financial baseline.

2. It's Additive, Not Just Protective: This does more than just 'continue the position.' It enhances it. It validates the technology for SWIR sensing, demonstrates scalability to a major partner, and provides a multi-year roadmap that makes Nanoco a more valuable and understandable asset for any potential acquirer.

3. The 'Past Failures' Argument: The STM situation was a different project with a different partner and a different market. Using it to cast doubt on this new agreement is a cognitive bias, not analysis.

4. The Path Forward: You're right that the burn continues, but this news directly addresses that by providing fee income for three years. It also makes securing further JDAs more likely.

Today's RNS is a significant de-risking event that validates the 'middle way' over a simplistic binary outcome.

1. It proves the board's guidance was accurate, with a signature arriving just days after the stated October timeline—a common occurrence in complex deals.

2. It transforms the 'story'. Nanoco is no longer just a litigation play or a cash box. It's an active R&D business with a confirmed, multi-year revenue stream and a credible path to production in a high-growth market (SWIR sensing).

3. It strengthens the strategic rationale for a sale. A potential buyer now acquires a going concern with a visible pipeline, not just a portfolio of patents. This makes the company more valuable and defensible.

This doesn't change the investment case overnight, but it materially strengthens its foundations. The delay wasn't a failure; it was the sound of a real negotiation concluding successfully.

If the sales process had collapsed and there were no interested parties, that would constitute a material change in the company's financial position and prospects. Under MAR, the board would be obligated to announce the termination of the process to avoid misleading the market.

Their continued statement that they 'continue to assess strategic options... with a number of interested parties' is not just corporate fluff—it's a legally significant disclosure.

Silence means the process is ongoing. The absence of a collapse announcement is, in itself, a positive data point.

Nigel's trip was for a public industry forum, not a deal. But it's strategically significant.

Sending your foundational technologist to a key industry stage during a sales process is a clear signal to the market and potential acquirers: the IP is alive, the expertise is deep, and the company is actively engaged in its ecosystem. This is about maintaining and demonstrating value, not just giving a talk.

.... and let's not forget the context. Any serious buyer is now modeling this deal against Trump's ever changing tariff threats, supply chain breakdowns, and global instability.

That doesn't kill a deal—but it absolutely grinds the process to a meticulous, painstaking crawl. The silence isn't just about Nanoco.

The 'binary outcome' is a useful model, but business reality is rarely so neat.

Complex JDA renewals and M&A deals routinely miss internal timelines. It's the rule, not the exception. Silence isn't proof of failure; it's often the sound of complex, ongoing negotiation.

Selling now, at the point of maximum uncertainty just before the FY results force a substantive update, is the definition of capitulation.

This isn't blind hope. It's the understanding that real-world deals are messy, and the board's hand will be forced to speak clearly in a matter of weeks.

The debate on MAR is important, but it's a debate about process, not outcome.

The legal reality is Maxi19 is correct: the company has wide latitude to delay disclosure during M&A. The frustrating silence is, in itself, permissible.

This doesn't make the wait any easier, but it means the current share price is a reflection of market fear and impatience, not a verdict on the sales process.

The investment case remains binary. We are waiting to see if the board can secure a price that reflects the value they've always claimed exists. The process hasn't failed until it's officially terminated. Until then, the current price is just the cost of a option on that outcome

If no acceptable offer had been put on the table to date they would have informed the market

A fair point, rgm45. The silence is indeed reminiscent of the last FSP. The critical difference this time is the starting point: a £150m+ settlement that validated the core IP, a clean balance sheet with cash, and a management team that has explicitly tied its strategy to this outcome. The last process was aborted during a global pandemic that froze M&A markets. This one is playing out in a different world. The silence is equally frustrating, but the underlying facts are not.

A gentle reminder: the £70k grant is an operational R&D matter. The strategic sale of the company, managed by the board and CDX, is a separate, high-level process. One has no logical bearing on the other. The silence on the sale is frustrating, but it isn't evidence of anything other than the confidentiality required in serious M&A.

Kooba

It’s telling that the only response to a point about the difference between critical thinking and criticism is personal mockery. Changing my username to Terry doesn’t change the argument; it just avoids it. When you can’t engage with the idea, you attack the person—and in doing so, you perfectly demonstrate the very lack of critical thought you’re trying to conceal.

It’s interesting to observe how often the term “critical thinking” is used here as a synonym for “being critical.”

They are not the same thing.

· Critical Thinking is a process of objective analysis. It involves evaluating evidence fairly, identifying logical fallacies, and being willing to follow facts to a conclusion—even if it challenges your initial assumptions.

· Being a Critic is often a performance of subjective judgment. It starts with a conclusion (usually a negative one) and selectively uses facts to support it, while dismissing anything that doesn’t fit the narrative.

One is a tool for finding truth. The other is a tool for defending an ego.

The difference is why some can look at the same set of facts—a long sales process, cash in the bank, ongoing litigation—and see a complex, uncertain situation, while others can only see confirmation of a pre-written story of failure.

It’s a distinction worth remembering because the key dates haven't changed: we await news on the Asian JDA renewal and, more importantly, the outcome of the strategic review. The current share price reflects fear and impatience, not necessarily the intrinsic value of the IP to a strategic buyer. That process hasn't failed until the company announces it has.

Kooba,

Your reply is a perfect case study in how emotion can override logic in investing discussions. Let’s deconstruct it, because the patterns are instructive.

1. On the “Market is Rarely Wrong”

You state: “the market… is very rarely this wrong.”

· The Flaw: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of market efficiency, especially for illiquid micro-caps. The market isn’t a divine oracle; it’s a mechanism of current liquidity and sentiment. It’s frequently “wrong” about assets whose value is contingent on future, binary events like an M&A deal. To cite the current price as proof of value is circular logic. The entire premise of a strategic review is that the board believes the market is wrong.

2. On the “Naivety” of a Premium

You state: expecting a large premium after a year is “really very naive.”

· The Flaw: This ignores how M&A actually works. Deals are often struck at significant premiums to the market price precisely because the market has undervalued the asset or because its value is strategic to a buyer, not purely financial. The duration of the process suggests complexity, not necessarily failure.

3. On the “£200m vs £5m” Comparison

You state: “you bandied about figures up to £200m … the market now values those assets at £5m.”

· The Flaw: This is a classic strawman fallacy. You’re contrasting a historical, speculative upside scenario with a current, pessimistic market price. The relevant question is not whether the value is £200m or £5m, but whether the eventual sale price will be a significant premium to the current £5m enterprise value. Those are two completely different debates.

4. On “Perpetuating the Events”

You state: “You think my negative interpretation… is perpetuating the events themselves.”

· The Flaw: You say this as if it’s an absurd accusation, but it’s a well-documented market phenomenon. In a low-liquidity environment, persistent negative sentiment can create selling pressure and scare off buyers, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in the short term. You are not just observing the price drop; you are an active participant in the sentiment that contributes to it.

Your Underlying Psychology

Your need to immediately dismiss any positive interpretation, to cite the falling price as proof of failure, and to resort to personal insults (“comedy act”) reveals a deeper motivation: the need to be validated.

You have built an identity around being the “realist” who saw the downfall coming. If the company succeeds, that identity crumbles. Therefore, every data point must be interpreted negatively, and anyone who disagrees must be attacked.

This isn’t analysis; it’s a performance of certainty to quiet your own cognitive dissonance.

The investment case remains simple: we are waiting for a material announcement. The current share price in a thin market is noise. Your interpretation of that noise says more about yo

Kooba, you're correctly noting the arithmetic, but drawing the wrong conclusion.

The Enterprise Value (EV) is simply the market's current, often inefficient, pricing of the non-cash assets. In a low-liquidity stock during a sensitive M&A process, the share price—and thus the EV—is a notoriously poor indicator of intrinsic value.

The sales process exists precisely because the board believes the real value of the IP and operations is significantly higher than the market has ever recognized. The current £5m EV doesn't mean the IP is worthless; it means the market is skeptical, impatient, and influenced by the very negativity you perpetuate.

The investment case hasn't changed: we are waiting to see if the sales process confirms the board's belief. Judging the outcome based on the share price before the process concludes is putting the cart before the horse.

They're tiny and have been around for years. Ex Nanoco director was a founder.

https://www.ubiqd.com/posts/los-alamos-startup-hires-trio-of-science-business-experts-continues-to-grow-staff