Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Exactly, Nvidia are primarily a GPU company, so they deal with processing the data, not detecting it. That's why I suggested a LIDAR company, or one of their suppliers, seems more likely.

So, you don't actually think there will be a fund raising, you just think it we are being complacent about the potential danger of hidden costs? The other magician on the board, CFO David Blain, seemed to be at pains to reassure that costs were under control. I suppose increased staff wages is the obvious one, but what other operating expenses can you foresee? I don't take any comfort from Peel Hunt, and don't credit them with much inside knowledge, I think Edison are being more honest in basically saying "we don't know, but the signs are good". My main comfort is the confidence shown by the new partners, who it seems to me are basically bankrolling the next phase of development and whose large investment seems to indicate a long term commitment.

If it is Nvidia, as many now seem to think, then we need to overcome the complete absence of anything to do with proximity sensors in any of their autonomous vehicle literature. Esker's excellent research revealed Nvidia sensors for facial and gesture recognition, and their core areas of hardware and software, but nothing at all connected with Edelman's fairly precise comments about the area the new deal is involved in. I suppose it's just conceivable that facial and gesture recognition could be loosely regarded as "proximity" detection, but it sounds wrong. The case for Nvidia seems to rely on something secret and unpublished, on a guess that they are developing some new kind of proximity sensor as a future complement to their current offering? Edelman did say that what "they" are trying to do is quite difficult, which does suggest it goes beyond currently existing technology.

Hi BC. When you say " If spending and revenue remains constant" do you mean revenue of 0.2 in H2 (i.e. consistent with H1)? If so, that seems overly pessimistic. I'm basically relying on Edison's guess on revenue as being as informed as anyone's, although it's amazing they haven't changed their figure despite the extraordinary new deal, meaning they are not even willing to commit themselves to an updated guess for the period ending in about 3 months time! When professional guessers are this uncertain, we're really operating in the dark, but payments from the new deal alone means revenue will surely increase somewhat, and costs seem to be under control and prioritised. My fear is that the revenues expected from display, which is what Edisons forecast of 4.7m was largely based on, are now being downplayed, with revenues from the new deal being used as a smokescreen to hide the unpleasant reality. Yet again, despite numerous positive developments, expectations of takeoff in display have to be deferred to a later period, it's still taking longer than anyone thinks. Another slightly worrying fact that I think Edison mentioned, was that the long delay is giving an opportunity for other technologies to catch up, which tends to lessen the revenue potential from the first display products.

Its worth noting that the optimists here, and the IC, are relying on this: "broker Peel Hunt expects revenues in the 2018 financial year (which ends in July) to be roughly six times higher than the �1.3m generated in FY2017." That means they are expecting revenues to go from 0.2m in the first half to 7.8m in the full year, almost double Edisons tentative estimate. If achieved that would be an incredibly sudden turnaround. Can't really see how they justify that faintly ridiculous conclusion, given the paucity of information, it seems like the usual wishful thinking we have seen fail time and again from unreliable optimists. A cash call seems unlikely any time soon. We surely have enough cash to reach commercial production on the new deal, which alone should boost next years revenue considerably, and buy enough time to see revenue from the display market gradually creep up.

Good to see LIDAR discussion here at last! Yet to be confirmed, but ME's comments seem like extremely strong hints. Hard to see any large company which fits MEs comments about a long partnership though? Perhaps he just meant the other company was well aware of Nanoco's reputation? The fatal accident that occurred on the day of the deal has thrown up reports that the car involved only had one LIDAR device (reduced from 7 in previous tests) and therefore had blind spots: if so, it should never have been on the road in that condition. Further, the car in the test, a Volvo, probably has it's own LIDAR system as standard for their new autonomous braking system. This was probably disabled to prevent it interfering with Uber's testing rig, which potentially adds another layer of tragedy to this case, because the Volvo system is proven and probably would have prevented the fatality. As I said before, really hope Nanoco can contribute to making these safer, but it seems like the technology was not really to blame, it was highly questionable management of the test, if these reports are to be believed.

Confused. BTB was talking about Edisons projections, not nanocos. But Edison's revenue prediction is 4.7 for the year ending July 2018, and no prediction at all for the following year. What makes it disappointing is this statement: "H2 should improve significantly as the first payments from the company�s large, US-listed corporate partner boost revenues and cash flows. " So despite the unexpected bonus of these payments, the estimate has not been raised, meaning the other parts of the business, notably display, have presumably not done as well as expected. In other words, despite this apparently "game changing" deal we are no further forward in the short term - it's still jam tomorrow rather than now.

Good idea Eskers. So much activity in this area. My objection would be that Edelman at one point specifically mentioned proximity sensors for autonomous vehicles, which seems like a clear indication of LIDAR devices, or their constituent technologies? Although there is mention of sensors in the Nvidia Drive documents: "electronic sensor devices, cameras, projectors, and microphones for gesture, facial, and voice detection, capture and recognition", they don't quite seem to fit the bill?

Market satnav is broken, we're going the wrong way. Might have to start selling onions too: we keep getting the stuffing knocked out of us.

Yes. Demonstrably. The historical average p/e ratio for a major UK company is 15, yet unlike virtually any other company, the PRUs is persistently well below that - it's currently 13.84, for example (Aviva's is 33.31!). One argument is that it's supposedly a "cyclical" share at a low point in it's cycle, but if that were the case, you'd expect it to occasionally swing above the average during the opposite part of the cycle. It never does. Why? The markets may be slightly confused how to categorise the PRU: it's focus shifted long ago from the UK to Asia but it also has significant US interests, and seemingly aspires to a global presence with small initiatives elsewhere. Perhaps this all generates a certain degree of uncertainty in valuation. Another factor may be the perception of relatively higher political and legal risks of business in the East, particularly China. Perhaps the market slightly overrates this risk, in that China has had surprising stability (given the inherent dangers in it's bizarre structure) for a very long time, and the Pru has shown remarkable skill operating in this environment. In any case, China is a relatively small, albeit important, part of the Pru's operations in the east. My guess is that all of this, or something similar, is behind the successful agitation by major shareholders to split the company in two - the hope is that the market will value the new entities at the appropriate market level for their clearer new positions: one a steady, de-risked operation, a stock for dividend seekers, perhaps, with a p/e in line with it's peers, the other a vibrant growth stock with a potentially higher p/e excited by expected future revenue. If this hope is realised, the resulting "normalised" value should be considerably higher than current levels.

I agree the reaction was a deranged market spasm, the likely minor impact on the final results simply doesn't justify the drama, but I think the background to this may be some genuine concern about the quality of their products at the lower end, and their ability to compete against rivals at this level. This is probably what the analysts are getting at when they argue that more needs to be spent on R&D. Overall though, the company are well positioned compared to a couple of years ago and have a chance to motor on from here if they play their cards right.

I don't think there any danger of further fundraising for the time being, but only because of the new deal. Feels like another rescue. I think most here, even the pragmatists, were thinking the display business would be showing much clearer signs of tangible visibility by now, nearly half way through the second half of the financial year. If it was, the company would surely be putting out bold figures and confident estimates, rather than vaguely optimistic noises which sound distinctly like repetitions from previous results statements. To see display models only just trickling into consumer availability now means the process has dragged out another few months and continues to progress at very slow speed. History shows that estimates, from the company themselves or their analysts, are way too unreliable and optimistic - any timescales they come up with should probably be at least trebled.

Another clue hidden by a typo in the transcript of the Interims: " A lot of the materials that we developed for our solar program are very, very relevant here, those nano-particles and if you remember in the past we've talked about six based systems and we're focusing on a range of electronics mainly in sensor type applications where you look at machine-machine interaction " Did you spot it? Not six, CIGS! That's Copper Indium Galium Selenide, which only makes four. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide_solar_cells I think someone hailed this as the resurrection of the zombified Solar division, but it sounds more like a Frankenstinian cannibalisation of that barely dead research to create some kind of monstrous hybrid.

Tiny starving people being forced to wear silly clothes and then made to bounce on the back of speeding quadrupeds. Not an entirely sensible way of improving Telford's sp, but it seems to work.

All "significant inflection" means is that the next results will be better than these ones. Well whoopy-do. Was anyone seriously expecting them to be worse? It's difficult to see how they could continue as a credible management team if they produced even less revenue. How anyone can seriously pretend that this is the most bullish Edison report they have read is beyond me. Just a year ago they were making confident forecasts, including a prediction of "a share price of 70p plus within 24 months." Now they won't even hazard a guess, and restrict themselves to meaningless figures like maximum possible display capacity at Runcorn, which is only relevant if we are actually operating at or near maximum capacity, which they neglect to comment on, and has not been reported. Why not? Is it sensible to assume the best possible case? Basing optimism on that is building a castle on sand. Edison have clearly rowed back strongly on display sales from earlier forecasts, which surely indicates beyond reasonable doubt that they are less bullish not more. They are now vague about display, pointing to the new material as the driver of this "inflection" instead, without providing any figures. Just being vaguely hopeful hardly seems more bullish than nailing down a prospective breakeven point, which they used to do, and now just seems like too far in the future to even contemplate.

I think this is the strongest hint yet that the new material is something other than a "straightforward" QD: "We've been focused on [nanomaterials] for the lifetime of Nanoco because our quantum dot is a nano-material but we've now carved this out into its own sector. And what we're doing ... in this case here, the infrared material, where we're working well out into the infrared range of the spectrum absorbing, admitting infrared light for advanced devices and electronics, we have this capability to design and develop these complex materials." This next bit seems to carefully but confusingly distinguish between "fluorescent" QDs (but all QDs are fluorescent, aren't they, so why mention that?) and the new material, which is presumably also fluorescent, since it is an infrared emitter/absorber? There may possibly be a hidden clue here from Mystic Mike: "we have manufacturing facility for QDs for the fluorescent QDs, we are now building something of equal size for the nano-materials to support this new contract" Possibly connected, and deeply encouraging, it's exciting to read quite how close Nanoco is to the Grandmaster of Graphene himself: "These 2D materials we�re working in collaboration with Nobel Laureate, Kostya Novoselov who won the Nobel prize for Graphene, he and Nigel Pickett our CTO are buddies working together in this class of materials. New light emitting devices, logic gates, photovoltaics, photodetector, catalysts and what these materials are, if you take a spherical quantum dot and you smash it down, so it�s only one or two atoms stick [thick?], but infinite surface area, you think of what a wonderful platform for running catalysts on."

MEs comments, comparing QD lighting against LED lighting, demonstrates again that when people talk about LED lights for agriculture, it is unwise to assume that must mean LEDs tuned by QDs: they more than likely mean exactly what they say. There was a noticeable lack of any mention of wheat as a candidate crop in these niche potential markets, despite unreliable but repeated claims about miraculous improvements in cropping times: grass and cress seem to be the current focus, and lettuce appeared on a slide. None of these seem like particularly lucrative or imminent prospects. MEs speculative site for vertical farming was unused tube tunnels - i.e. feeding first world cities while reducing transport costs, rather than saving the world with cheap food, as some here seem to yearn for.

To my mind, Edison's comments have grown steadily less confident and more longer term. Didn't they originally set breakeven point sometime around now based on display alone? For a professional forecaster to withdraw from any meaningful forecast blaming "visibility" is extraordinary. Nanoco have been "promising" for 14 years, that's akin to saying nothing at all. And if payments from the new deal are the only real driver of improved revenue in H2, that's yet another failure to deliver within anywhere near the expected timeframe from the display business. Without the new deal, we'd probably already be looking again at fundraising and dilution.

The companies inability to generate revenue is beginning to feel like part of their corporate culture. The dreadful financial results were predicted here, but what is surprisingly disappointing is the future outlook. The new deal is starting to feel rather Dow-like, and display is still moving at the pace of a snail with a wooden leg over cobblestones. Still!

The Germans don't have a word for Quantum Dots? Das ist ja nicht zu fassen! They literally created Quantenmechanik.