Member Info for amerloque

Spacex appears to need a substantial amount. Filtronics £47m SpaceX contract for its next-generation GaN E-band product, its largest ever.

Where it stands now: Stock is at ~370p, up ~130% in 2026, giving a P/E of around 109x on FY2027 estimates of 3.69p EPS. The 12-month analyst price target of ~287p is actually below the current price, meaning the market has already priced in a lot of good news.

Bull case: Record order book entering H2, strong defence and space pipeline, SpaceX IPO buzz as a catalyst, and a strategic shift to higher-margin GaN technology.

The E-band GaN Solid State Power Amplifiers (SSPAs) — including the £47m order — are used in Starlink gateway ground stations: the large terrestrial installations that communicate up to the LEO satellites. They boost millimetre-wave signals between the ground and the constellation. The Cerus 32 SSPA is explicitly described as designed for "E-band ground station applications."

So the use case is:

On the ground: Gateway stations linking terrestrial networks to Starlink satellites — this is the current and primary application

In space (potential): Filtronic also supplies RF components for satellite payloads more broadly, and E-band inter-satellite links are a growing area — but the SpaceX-specific orders to date are ground segment

This actually has implications for the investment story: it means Filtronic's revenue scales with Starlink ground infrastructure build-out, which is ongoing globally as SpaceX expands coverage. Every new gateway added worldwide is a potential customer for Filtronic components — giving the order book a long runway tied to Starlink's expansion rather than a one-time satellite manufacturing run.

TW: Anthropic and Colossus2 are far more advanced than ChatGPT. Moreover, It is well documented that Nanoco's most recent hires were advanced solar scientists. Filtronics has recently received huge orders from Spacex.

I suspect that Nanoco attempted to delist in order to avoid having to report positive news. Accordingly, I purchased an additional 320,000 shares at 2.21p last week and now own almost 900,000 shares. The opportunity simply outweighed the risk. It was too late to vote these last shares, but I would not have been unhappy if the board won since I do not need the money now.

Terry: Given that Nanoco has never officially announced the latest Eastern partners, I trust that Anthropic (i.e, Claude), with the help of Colossus2, is very qualified to identify existing relationships. The Filtronics relationship is surprising but very promising.

I aske Claude.ai "What is the outlook for solar PV, combining Nanoco's quantum dot ink with Tokyo Electron's printing technology for low-cost solar cells" and received the following answer:

Searched the web

The outlook is promising but still early-stage for the specific Nanoco/Tokyo Electron collaboration, set against a broader market that's growing quickly.

The Nanoco/Tokyo Electron partnership specifically: The JDA dates to 2019 and focuses on printing CIGS-based quantum dot absorber layers to make lightweight, flexible, low-cost solar cells. Nanoco also secured an Innovate UK grant for quantum dot ink development. However, public updates on this specific collaboration's progress have been sparse — no major commercialization milestones have been announced, suggesting it remains in the R&D phase.

The broader quantum dot solar market: This is where the tailwinds are strong. The market is growing at ~17% CAGR and projected to hit $7bn by 2035. Recent efficiency records are impressive — UNIST hit 18.1% in 2024, and some manufacturing-ready cells are reaching 23–24%. Printed/inkjet deposition is seen as the key to making these cells cost-competitive at scale, which is exactly what the Nanoco/Tokyo Electron approach targets.

The bottlenecks: Stability of quantum dot inks over time, scaling lab efficiencies to large-area production, and cost of materials remain the main hurdles. Tariffs on semiconductor nanomaterials are also adding pressure in the near term.

Bottom line: The technology direction is validated and the market is moving, but the Nanoco/Tokyo Electron partnership hasn't publicly demonstrated commercial-ready output yet. It's a long-horizon bet — meaningful commercialization is more likely a late-2020s story.

Due to Tokyo Electron's development funding of Nanoco Solar Cell technology and Nanoco's indirect relationship to SpaceX via Filtronics

I asked Claude.ai if Nanoco's solar technology is suited for space application and received the following answer:

"Quantum dot solar cells in general are well-suited for space — but there are some important nuances specific to Nanoco's approach.

Why QD solar is attractive for space:

Quantum dots offer radiation tolerance (small size limits defect formation from particle bombardment), tunable bandgaps optimised for the AM0 space solar spectrum (which differs from terrestrial AM1.5), potential for high specific power (watts per kg), and lightweight/flexible form factors ideal for deployable satellite arrays.

"Nanoco's specific approach and its space fit:

Nanoco's solar work focuses on printed CIGS-type thin-film cells using colloidal quantum dot inks — targeting low cost and flexibility above all. This is a good fit for the emerging commercial satellite market (think LEO constellations like Starlink) where cost-per-watt and weight matter more than squeezing out maximum efficiency. Traditional space-grade III-V multi-junction cells are expensive and rigid — Nanoco's printable approach could undercut them significantly.

The TFQD parallel: There's a separate EU-funded consortium (TFQD) explicitly developing thin-film quantum dot solar cells for space targeting >26% efficiency and an 8x power-to-weight improvement over conventional triple-junction cells. Nanoco isn't listed as a direct TFQD partner, but their cadmium-free quantum dot materials are relevant to exactly this kind of programme.

Key caveats:

"Space qualification (radiation testing, thermal cycling, vacuum stability) is a long and expensive process. Nanoco's ink-printed cells haven't been publicly reported as space-qualified yet. The technology still needs to demonstrate both efficiency and durability under space conditions before displacing incumbent III-V cells in high-value missions.

"Bottom line: Nanoco's QD solar approach is conceptually well-suited for space — especially cost-sensitive commercial satellites — but space qualification remains ahead of them. It's a credible long-term market, not an imminent one.

Replacing the current board would increase costs and add further instability. While the board misjudged retail shareholders, delisting was not altogether a bad idea. If we are to succeed, we need to maintain the current course.

You should add my ~657000 shares to the list.

Message to the Board: The justification for this delisting does not make sense unless the board has been lying, in which case continuing on this path will lead to lawsuits that will cause Nanoco's financial collapse. Do not continue on this insane path!!

Recently, I have leaned toward Terrorwit's viewpoint. If he is Nigwit, I finally agree with Kooba and others on the blog. I nevertheless believe that Nanoco is worth significantly more than its current market cap.

I have just voted "NO" with my 657,000+ shares. Unrelated, it does concern me that Nigel Pickett is selling so many of his shares.

I hold 657,000 shares and and intend to vote "NO" at this time. I might change if Nanoco can convince me that bankruptcy is more than a 50% probability. They need to give us a reliable update regarding likely commercial success of ongoing development contracts.

I suspect that the share increase owes itself to "Enhanced spin lifetime in colloidal quantum dots by growth from singly Mn-doped molecular cluster seeds". The quantum computing opportunity is huge. Have you discussed this with Runcorn scientists, Terrorwit?

Have you spent a day at Runcorn, Terrorwit, – talking to the scientists, seeing the labs, understanding the development cycle?

I appreciate your positive input, Terrorwit, and question why so many negative commenters on this site continue to own Nanoco shares. I also respect Liam Gray as being very capable and certainly able to get a better job than that of interim CEO of a failing company. He has always responded quickly to my questions and does not appear to be a fool.

Terry: I agree with your "performative" statement but would go further. I suspect that many of these performers only want to argue instead of investing.

Having lost considerable money on Nanoco, I still believed that many Nanoco investors at least appreciated nanotechnology's future importance and opportunity. Accordingly, I recommended that posters investigate Furukawa Electric's HTS (High Temperature Superconducting) critical importance in Fusion technology.

At the time, my investment had just doubled. I then doubled my investment to $23K.

My recommendation was apparently ignored by everyone on this site, as I received very negative responses. Since the last investment, my Furukawa Electric investment is a six bagger, now worth $145K and still growing. Quantum Dot manufacturers may eventually make money, but the best opportunities seem to be in quantum dot applications.

Despite protests on this site, Fusion is must closer than people think. If you doubt this, look at the following site. https://exoswan.com/nuclear-fusion-energy-stocks/

, which discusses fusion technology and lists related investment opportunities.

I still have hope for Nanoco and have recently purchased 357K shares. Even if I lose that investment completely, the gained knowledge will place me far ahead of the game. Consequently, I have continues to invest in related fusion and data center opportunities

Brilliant, Sammy! I agree that Nanoco offers potential strong upside at this price. I even bought an additional 200,000 shares recently. The potential gain now outweighs the potential loss of my entire investment. I thank you, Lauren and others for your recent helpful comments.

Over the past ten trading days, volume has been significantly higher on uptick days and very low on downtick days. Moreover, the price has recently risen above the 20 day moving average, which has preceded significant increases in the past. A price rise above the 50 day average would lend more confidence. As pointed out, the double bottom could be significant, but not sure it's relevant for a company with such low trading and so dependent on good news.

Nigel resigned from the board, but not from Nanoco. He must believe that Nanoco still needs him. I imagine that he expects to benefit eventually from research he led over the past five years but would never be able reveal details to any purchasers of Nanoco. If so, joining the Nanoco offshoot would provide the needed opportunity--thus the reason for continuing to work for Nanoco through the end of the calendar year, after which time he could assume a major role at the offshoot. The three recent scientist hires appear have moved from promising companies and appear to be very talented. I doubt that they would have joined a company with no future. I still own a lot of shares and have no intention of selling them. Potential gains still far outweigh total potential loss. I am willing to bet on Nigel and the current staff.

UK, directors' conflicts of interest are governed by the Companies Act 2006, which mandates directors to avoid conflicts and promote the company's success. Directors must disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest to the board, which can then decide whether to authorise the conflict or take other steps to manage it. A failure to do so can lead to personal liability for the director and the compa.

Directors have a fundamental legal duty to avoid situations where their personal interests, or their interests in other companies, could conflict with the interests of the company they serve.

Promote the Company's Success: This duty requires directors to always act in a way that is best for the company, which includes properly managing any conflicts of interest.

Identification and Disclosure

Declare Interests: Directors are legally obligated to declare any interest in a proposed or existing transaction or arrangement with the company.

Proactive Measures: Companies should have strict procedures, like regular declarations at board meetings or annual questionnaires, to identify and manage these conflicts.

A conflicted director must typically withdraw from discussions and voting on matters where a conflict exists.

Shareholder Ratification: In certain cases, a conflict that has already occurred can be ratified by the shareholders, but the conflicted director's and connected shareholders' votes are excluded from the decision.

Types of Conflicts:

Transactional Conflicts: Arise from a director's interest in a specific transaction or arrangement with the company.

Situational Conflicts: Involve a broader situation where a director's general duties may conflict, such as competing with the company, taking a corporate opportunity, or having a significant interest in a competitor.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Personal Liability: Directors who fail to manage conflicts of interest can face personal liability.

Breach of Duty: Non-conflicted directors can also be found in breach of their duty if they do not take adequate steps to ensure the company's best interests are protected when authorising a conflict.