The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
One would expect Nanoco to be able to benefit from significant insight into the entire a quantum dot industry with "Infinite Possibilities". Why don[t they use the excess money to invest in these possibilities and potential partners? Failure to do so demonstrates lack of foresight. This reminds me of Sears Roebuck in the USA following mass sales of brick and morter stores earlier this centrury (reduced stores from 3500 to 500). Many on Wall Street amazingly then declared that this huge increase in available cash would make them a great investment candidate. Sears share price was $195 in 2007, but went bakrupt in 2017. Many blame Amazon for their demize, but bad management was the real culprit. Their CEO at the time is one of the most hated ever. Having been a customer of a few Sears divisions had long before convinced me that they were doomed.
Following the firing of Nanoco's prior CEO, I reinvested and now hold almost 200K shares. I am optimistic but, as implied above, do not understand their failure to profit from opportunities afforded by their great insight.
STMicro VD55G1 ,,, is advancing smart computer vision technology with its latest global-shutter image sensor. … high resolution … suitable for integration into devices such as smart glasses, AR/VR headsets, personal and industrial robotics, and smart-home equipment. … superior performance, small size, ultra-low power consumption, and optimized cost….
… the sensor supports event-like image streaming, making it well-suited for applications such as eye-tracking and motion estimation.
… innovative embedded features, including native background removal to reduce the processing workload for the host. It also features an 'always-on' 1mW autonomous mode, enabling continuous awareness even when the host device is powered off, thus conserving energy. The system activates when movement or scene changes are detected.
… volume production scheduled for March 2024.
Https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/02/2240486/0/en/STMicroelectronics-and-Metalenz-Partner-to-Transform-Optical-Sensing-for-Consumer-Automotive-and-Industrial-Applications.html
The above link describes a 2021 STM and Metalenz agreement that almost certainly guarantees that STM are joint suppliers to Vision Pro, IPhones and future Apple products. If so, it is likely that Nanoco will benefit.
STM also dominates other markets in which this technology can be used--the electric vehicle market and the avionics market (via joint agreements with Airbus). I look forward to achieving super eyesight with STM glasses. Given Nanoco's insistent on "infinite posibilities", using current cash to buy back shares or issue dividends seems awfully short sighted. We have seen recent references to "device" products. I wish that Nanoco would use its cash and this device capability to fasttrack device development in which they could share profits.
I disagree with analysts who insist that $3500 is too costly for end users. There are many people in this world to whom this is not a barrier. Moreover, there will be enormous demand from manufacturers using robotics, from the agricultural world, and from company needing to verify quality of delivered goods (e.g super markets).
I am convinced that we are underestimating the evolution of this technology. In theface of greater demand, competition will force Apple to quickly increase production. Apple in turn will demand more production from its suppliers. I have not followed the developments competitive technology, but believe such technology will take many years to achieve commercial success. QDd's have been in development for more than 20 years.
I disagree with analysts who insist that $3500 is too costly for end users. There are many people in this world to whom this is not a barrier. Moreover, there will be enormous demand from manufacturers using robotics, from the agricultural world, and from company needing to verify quality of delivered goods (e.g super markets).
I am convinced that we are underestimating the evolution of this technology. In theface of greater demand, competition will force Apple to quickly increase production. Apple in turn will demand more production from its suppliers. I have not followed the developments competitive technology, but believe such technology will take many years to achieve commercial success. QDd's have been in development for more than 20 years.
Kooba : lots of mumble jumble that has nothing to do with my comment (cash? assets? facts?) Please look at investopedia dot com, which is much more authoritive that you or I. While one time special dividends have their place, they risk greater downsides compared to buybacks. Once again, buybacks do not reduce market cap, since they tend to increase the market price at least proportionately. Personally, I would prefer that Nanoco save its money for future expansion and opportunity.
@Kooba: As I implied, price will be dependent on revenue and profit expectations. As I understand, you incorrectly treat dividends and buybacks equally. Yet, one-time dividends would produce a temporary result with longer-term downsides, while buybacks could have longer term price benefits. In general, I object to your tactic of calling other opinions nonsense. It is a self-defeating argument.
The market cap is determined by multiplying the share price by the number of shares. A buyback reduces the number of shares, typically causing the share price to rise while maintaining the same or higher market cap. This is also influenced by the fact that a successful buyback requires offering substantially more than the market price. Nanoco, however, is not a typical company since it is not yet profitable. The buyback effect depends very much on how near term contracts affect the revenue stream. Companies such as Nanoco would only buyback shares if they inticipated great future success. I, personally, don't expect to sell unless forced, which would make me very unhappy.
The key word is "recognized". Recognition means that the sale cannot be overturned and can thus be included in the audited financial reports. Given the propensity of some shareholders to sue, it makes sense that Nanoco did not immediately announce the order. Nanoco could not document the sale in its annual report until the immediate customer had fully accepted the delivery and implementation. This likely would have necessitated implementation and acceptance by the end customer (Apple?). We can all imagine the onslaught of lawsuits had (Apple?) tested and refused the order. It is very likely that such testing by STMicro and Apple would have taken months. Given the announcement, I would not now be surprised to see more Nanoco employees begin to invest in Nanoco shares.
I have always understood that the deal with STmicro would be exclusive for some period. It has never been clear to me when that period would start--perhaps when the initial contract is signed, which might account for the delay in signing.
IBM is based in New York (White Plains) and known to be developing quantum based super computers. Their Osprey computer must run at very low temperatures of approximately 0.02 degrees Kelvin to perform supercomputing. Quantum Dots might achieve similar potential at near room temperature. IBM could thus possibly profit from a relationship with Nanoco.
Thanks, JBongo. I am tempted to say, "God save us from AI", but we need to save ourselves. While using QD's to analyze the real world can be valuable, AI products such as GPTChat are hogwash, largely based on opinion. How is GPTchat not plagiarism if it fails to reveal source references? Stealing ideas without detailed attribution should be banned one day. This is also true for novels and screenwriting, since AI will need to analyze existing literature to develop logical plot lines.
I remember seeing a recent statement that, despite receiving the cash in February, Nanoco would recognize the earnings over a number of years (I admit that I do not understand how Nanoco gets away with this). If so, I believe the SimplyWallStreet analysis to be incorrect since base earnings would be consistent for many years, gradually increasing consistent revenue growth.
Heartwarming to see Maximllian playing rugby. I started playing at the age of 32 and continued playing for 45 years. My last game, at the age of 77 was at wing with the Denver Highlanders Over-35 team, one of the USA's best old boy teams. Covid then shut me down for 2 years; inactivity and eventual back pain made a comeback impossible--would not give up those 45 years for anything. I was successful in business, but rugby was much more fun and less stressful. Nanoco has been disappointing but not really stressful because I never invested more than I could afford. Like LordWH, I am still very optimistic about Nanoco.
I would even prefer that Nanoco retain its cash and not return it to shareholders. Returning so much cash could result in little gain for investors while risking the Nanoco's future success. Cash is critical in these dangerous times.
I vaguely remember that Nanoco's early funding agreements with STM stated that STM would be restricted from selling the NIR/SWIR QD's other customers for a fixed time following the first STM order. I wonder how this restriction might affect Apple and STM, since they would need to protect their investment and retain exclusivity.
Nanonano, I will be unable to attend and thus need to grant my proxy to someone I an trust. I wholeheartedly disagree with Hamoodi and the disruption he is causing. Yet, I wish to avoid a forced sale of my 191,200 shares currently on the USA over-the-counter market. Can you explain to me the meaning and consequences of the special resolutions:
"1 To approve cancellation of the amount standing to the credit of
the share premium account of the Company
2 To approve cancellation of the amount standing to the credit of
the capital redemption reserve of the Company"
Because you have shown good judgement, Nanonano, I would be willing to sign my proxy over to you, with one condition, if you plan to attend. I am not willing to submit to a forced sale.