Member Info for amerloque

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.

Well done, wickymicky, but not so sure that Samsung shines so bright.

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.

Will recent or near-future STM or Apple products include Nanoco technology as believed by investors? If not, is Nanoco obligated to warn its investors? Would continuing to allow investors to be mislead by false rumors expose Nanoco to lawsuits? I would appreciate a legal opinion if anyone on this board is qualified to offer one.

What is so unclear, Intrusive? Please be more specific. Are you one of the people I have criticized in the past (ME?)? I find Hamoodi's board replacement objective to be unproductive and potentially dangerous to the company. FYI, I agree with most of what Nanonano says. He/she is a very smart person. I don't completely disagree with your recent comments. I restate that BT has had to navigate a lot of bad history. ME, in fact, might be an honest person, but he was indisputably a horrible executive. The tipoff for me was his inability to recognize that good sales and business management are prerequisites to a company composed mostly of scientists. How many potentially great Nanoco partnerships failed at the last minute because Nanoco misread the customer? In the end, ME tended to hire sales executives with connections rather than executives with top sales and business skills. Was Nanoco asking too much at a time when securing successful accounts was more important than profit?

BT is a business person. I see no reason not to trust him at this point. There is great potential at Nanoco, but it will not be achieved through drastic course corrections at this time. Let's see what happens in calendar 2023.

I began investing in 2012 when Nanoco’s future looked much brighter. I now own almost 200,000 shares.

I was disappointed in the lawsuit's outcome but recognized that Edelman's self-serving leadership had possibly hamstrung BT and the board. In 2014 and 2015, I became one of ME's most vocal critics. He possessed little executive skills and was dishonest and/or a fool. I now suspect that he had made secret agreements with Samsung, in which case they possessed sufficient knowledge to hold Nanoco hostage during negotiations. If I am right, replacing BT and the board would be a mistake and could cause some of Nanoco’s most valuable scientists to leave the company. Instead, we should ask the board to investigate itself and dismiss any members who might have colluded with Edelman and allowed such free reign.

I recognize that BT has a very difficult job. I trust him to protect shareholders. Hamoodi's efforts continue to be disruptive. If he runs off our top scientists, Nanoco will have no value.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/STMICROELECTRONICS-N-V-4710/news/Xvisio-SeerLens-One-AR-Glasses-Use-Multiple-STMicroelectronics-Sensor-Technologies-42847366/
"unleashes compelling AR user experiences including spatial anchoring, super-imposition, map creating and sharing, 25-joint gesture control, and multi-user collaboration. It supports various enterprise AR applications such as field services, medical surgery, manufacturing SOP assist, remote assistance, logistics and transportation, and virtual collaborations or meetings....The Xvisio Seer product family includes the SeerLens One HMD, SeerController self-tracking 6DOF controller, SeerSense 6DOF sensing unit for map creation and object tracking, and SeerPad AR computing unit. They are all in mass production now. SeerSense is available from Mouser and Digikey already.
XVisio is headquartered in Shanghai. Could this be "the Asian company"? If mass production has begun, how is there no STMicro contract"?

SL, I did not mean to imply any illegal trading. He is a professional trader and certainly has more contacts than I. On further investigation, it appears that he he may be near even on a July 11, 2022 trade and thus not receiving illegal insider info. It seems that he did not sell when the price was much higher. Yet, he remains positive.

SL: CFD's are very risky. Hamoodi is a professional trader with a history in Nanoco trading. Am I correct in assuming that this CFD trade was a bullish one? I understand that 70-80% of such trades lose money.

I also believe that BT cares about the company, BC.
Relatedly, the RSN referencing the Hamoodi CFD trade seems positive, but European posters are better positioned to comment since CFD trades are not allowed in the US.
If I understand correctly, he would only executed such a contract id he expected positive news in the near future. Mr Hamoodi may have inside info.

Investopedia says:
"KEY TAKEAWAYS
A contract for differences (CFD) is a financial contract that pays the differences in the settlement price between the open and closing trades.
CFDs essentially allow investors to trade the direction of securities over the very short-term and are especially popular in FX and commodities products.
CFDs are cash-settled but usually allow ample margin trading so that investors need only put up a small amount of the contract's notional payoff."

I do not blame BT. He was unable to overcome the damage created by former CEO Edelman, who repeatedly made timely sales of granted shares shortly after he was entitled to do so. I voiced concern in 2015, but accepted that he was not capable of managing his own money--not exactly the kind of person who should be a CEO. Why would he sell valuable shares in a promising company? We know that Samsung has a history of offering bribes. A thorough investigation of Edelman's bank and broker accounts might reveal criminality.

Anticipating infrared success at STMicro and other companies following the lawsuit settlement, I have held on to my shares. It does concern me that this alleged settlement smells more like a sale of IP rather than a settlement. BT can redeem this action by following up this sale with announcements of new QDs and infrared sales.

I agree, Troublesome. Many posters are not only jumping to negative conclusions without any proof; they border on stating their opinions as fact. Past failures were largely the fault of Edelman, whom I believed was at best a fool, at worst self serving and dishonorable. I never understood why he would often sell shares as soon as they were granted. I gained the disdain of others on this site by openly questioning his executive skills. I specifically attacked his failure to appreciate the need for proper sales and business leadership, capable of reading prospective customers—a skill clearly lacking at Nanoco.
While we need to analyze all possibilities, we have no reason to doubt BT. He is playing the cards he was dealt, including whatever Edelman has done in the past. Let’s recognize that Nanoco is partially at fault. Because individual investors might have become overly exuberant, he might see a need to protect future investors by tamping down unrealistic expectations. Nevertheless, his comments leave plenty of room for positivity. He has said nothing that precludes future display sales to Samsung or other companies. Certainly, STMicro, an important cog in Nanoco’s future, would demand that Nanoco take a conservative approach that protects the viability of both companies. I strongly believe that that the contract hinges on final settlement of this lawsuit and that Nanoco will benefit substantially from related STMicro contracts.

The simplest path to a settlement might be for Samsung to invest in Nanoco and manage cfqd sales and development, thus enabling a one time payment. Nanoco could then focus on STMicro and other similar accounts while Samsung handles CFQDs. There would be no need for future royalties since nanoco would receive a portion of the profits. This would probably require splitting Nanoco into two companies.

I understand that the adjucation will be conducted by the the current court.

It is conceivable that STMicro are concerned about Nanoco's viability as a partner if they lose the trial. Losing would drastically impact Nanoco patents and financial resouces. Thus, STMicro might have encouraged Nanoco to seek adjucation. Given that Heatwave related products constitute Nanoco's future, it makes sense to secure present CFQD patents, shore up the financial sheets and then focus on Infrared applications. Nanoco hinted at this in its RNS.

"I am more confident than ever about Nanoco's future prospects. A settlement provides a firm financial underpinning to focus on our organic business, which has made significant progress over the last three years. "