Member Info for TerrorWit

Anything that can be construed as material which has been given in past guidance has to be updated if it changes under MAR so if there's no announcement there's no change and only a fool would base a decision on guessing a change in either direction. You really could get caught out by surprise.

In my estimation by far the most likely reason for the delay is that, like most people, STM and their customers in turn all had optimism bias about their individual projects timescales and they have yet to consume the first order from Nanoco. This fits all the information provided in the RNS.

Nanonano

I take your point about the impression lead might convey and maybe you're right in respect of some consumer products but that hasn't stopped even more toxic cadmium yet and it won't apply to industrial applications, such as machine vision systems.

The amounts of lead must be so minute that they would not be measurable by anyone without a mass spectroscope. In any event they would not have passed validation had this been an issue.

Nanonano

Re your long post in defence of my comments about AVP. Please don't misunderstand. I know you meant well and I respect that you tried. However, I question whether anyone on the forums can get a complete enough overview of the market to predict where Nanoco's technology will be implemented. I don't think even Nanoco knows all it would like.

Xenon

I just read the year end trading update again and I really don't see that it's saying anything other than they'll be a delay in the next order for the validated Gen 1 materials.

Whilst the company is not in a position to provide a new timescale yet, meaning that visibility is reduced, it's clear that it expects to do so by October. Also, it's important to consider what the RNS doesn't say. For example it doesn't say that Gen 1 materials are being killed off or that they are substandard. Nor has there ever been any suggestion than Gen 1 materials won't have uses once Gen 2 materials arrive. These are all assumptions wrongly expressed on the forums.

I'm not giving advice. All I'm ever comfortable saying is that everything will be alright when Nanoco execute. However, it's obviously an overstatement to claim that the sky has suddenly fallen in.

There are bitter posters on the forums who misjudged events in the past and prefer to spread dissent in order to get support for the comforting lies they like to tell themselves. The unpleasant truth is that these individuals got it wrong before and can not be trusted to get anything right in the future, especially because they refuse to learn from their errors.

Nothing was exaggerated. It was expressed in the best light consistent with truth and it contained forward looking statement warnings for you to take seriously. If you are going to get carried away with research into products like Apple Vision Pro convincing yourself they could precipitate a sudden share price surge then I am not surprised if you are disappointed. However, that is nothing to do with Nanoco.

_________

"This is the guy that just called me a bully and has said that those on the Advfn board are 'off their rockers' as well as referring to Kooba as a 'google-eyed' loon - beggars belief !!

He’s a nasty piece of work"

..........

I'm not one of those cowards constantly undermining hard working company officers on line whilst hiding behind false names, as you keep reminding everyone.

A CEO’s role is to create shareholder value and give an open a realistic presentation of trading and prospects ..simple.

______

But it's not simple. Especially when your company is in the middle of a massive litigation.

You're exactly the type of individual who I refer to who thinks they know everything in spite of having no hands on experience in industry. A vain, bulletin board keyboard warrior shooting crap from his hip with nothing between the ears.

1. It's part of any CEO's job to present their company in the best light. You shouldn't take any puff literally and you should think for yourselves. If you really can't then you shouldn't invest. You should rely only on official guidance and clear numbers.

2. Nanoco have owned the past by admitting commercialisation has taken longer than they expected.

In my opinion posters are making excuses for their own lack of investment performance whilst most shareholders (who don't post on forums) seem understanding - as we can see from shareholder voting results

I see no evidence that any posters have spent time in industry trying to launch anything new so I think that's where the true issue is.

Troublesome.

You aren't funny or clever. Merely a very small bully. Why don't you take a nice long walk in the summer heat and leave your phone so you won't be tempted to write any more self-incriminating posts today? Try Greece.

This is true. If you were to write a SWOT analysis you would have to place further patent disputes in the threats category. I recall Edison saying so too.

Specifically which part of it is unclear to you?

"This is also an old release, but demonstrates how Nanoco needs to provide more clarity - or to be very clear when they are unable to be clear! They don't need to hide from their past, but I think they need to own it and seize the narrative.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/nanoco-receives-first-commercial-order/"

_________

That press release could not be more clear. All the press releases are clear. If there's a problem it's the way you try to over-interpret them, always looking for things that aren't there.

"If there is anyone here who was invested back then, do you know why we had to settle with Nanosys for allegedly using their IP? "

----------

It's explained in the link you provided yourself. It wasn't worth the fight.

.... see also constantly over-thinking on bulletin boards

Conspiracy theories are how uneducated people psychologically compensate for being thick

From Edison

"Looking further ahead, Nanoco has signed joint development agreements (JDAs) to develop second-generation sensing materials with both STMicro and an unnamed Asian chemicals supplier. Management has highlighted that this customer has over 50,000 of its own customers and a particularly strong relationship with the world’s largest sensor company. Sony is the world’s largest sensor company (with over 200,000 of its own customers), with STMicro number two. "

This indicates that the Asian customer isn't Sony, as has often been suggested, but one of their tier 2 suppliers.

Not that I condone overthinking but Nanoco has had past JVs with Tokyo Electron who might be one candidate who fits

https://www.tel.com/

You're overthinking again.

All we know is that a small order has been delayed until next FY, which commences on August 1st. Everything else is conjecture and, based on previous experience of these boards, most likely to lead in the wrong direction.

The company would have been explicit if any of their prior guidance has changed, just as they were when the US Partner (Apple) pulled out.

There is nothing unclear about their comms. It's posters projecting their own anxieties and looking for definitive facts where they can only be a range of outcomes.

Please chill or put your money in a high interest account instead.

Infantile comments like that only serve to underline my point that you're in the wrong place.

First you got carried away with the idea that Nanoco would win damages for infringement that would break all records, now you're getting carried away with the idea that a delay in a small order will send them out of business. Any new readers (I doubt there are any) will understand that you're clueless.

You're deliberately trying to wind me up with unjustified conclusions.

I see the melodramatic posts continued yesterday with all their customary toxicity. I really don't understand the attitudes they present.

The company is fully funded to break even, knows where it's going and is waiting on its next order, which has suffered a delay but was always going to be small. That's all there is to discuss.

All of this was stated in prior guidance so if any of it had changed the company would have been legally required to update that guidance. It hasn't

--------

It occurs that what you all want is certainty and fixed dates yet with high returns. This combination isn't available anywhere on the stock market so you are all investing in the wrong place and all you're achieving is winding up people who are.

"Feeks

Posts: 4,972

Price: 44.70

No Opinion

RE: This board's been busy! Is it time?5 Jan 2023 10:59

There was one patent trial case I spotted where the disagreement was settled very soon after the verdict. This was presumably something which suited both parties as it would mean an up-front payment to the wronged party and the avoidance of further lengthy appeals where the final amount of damages and license fee would remain uncertain. 

At the point a verdict is reached the damages award is crystallised. Samsung will be motivated to settle to avoid a big multiplier where the jury has also confirmed wilful infringement. This might suit Nanoco too. Let's say, for example $750m is awarded in damages on the basis of wilful infringement and Samsung appeals in the hope this is reduced to less than $500m on appeal. Nanoco's potential damages therefore range between $750-$2.25bn. 

There will be a delay whilst the judge decides what multiple to impose and whether to set the future license fee.

In the above scenario $1bn with that money paid immediately certainly might be attractive to both sides. Nanoco assures its future and Samsung notionally "saves" $1.25bn. That's what I think is mostly likely to happen - a deal soon after the jury verdict - because Samsung may not realistically hope to stretch this out forever for its own advantage if it loses at this trial. But let's wait and see....."

______

That doesn't look good in retrospect and there were hundreds of similarly naive posts from Feeks and Henry despite attempts by some to keep their feet on the ground.