Member Info for bonzoful

My guess is the selling of SEE is by institutions offering unit trusts in small companies which unit holders are now selling forcing the institutions to sell investments
so as to pay withdrawals. Our CEO held out the prospect of providing financial forecasts at the end of this year. So a good time to switch funds into SEE.

I tend to agree with Nanonano. But am focused on both. Either a win/settlement with Samsung or the commercial contract expwcted by the end of the year will transform the share price. Both seem more likely than not. So I plan not to sell any Nanoco shares until the outcome of both events is known.
Should Nanoco emerge from 2022 profitable and with a healthy balance sheet it will begin to be of interest to a broader range of institutional investors who will have internal bureaucratic processes to go through before buying. So I see no rush to sell.

I am no expert. But suspect the market makers use de minimis trades to signal to each other. The role of the market makers is often overlooked on these boards: notably by those who like to remind us that for every buyer there is a seller. Its the market makers with their books of shares who ensure that in normal circumstances we can trade whenever we want when the market is open without having to wait.

The disclosure by Lombard is on behalf of accounts managed on a discretionary basis, says the RNS. So it's not Lombards money that is being disinvestment. It is their private clients' wealth. Given the current preference for cash some of those clients may be withdrawing cash from their accounts with Lombard. Lombard may be locking in some profits on behalf of their clients. Perhaps a bit of both.

You at least have the option of cheering on the participants in the leadership campaign or the football season. Mintz and Samsung are not going to be influenced by the thoughts shared on this board..

Maplinman
Be prejudiced against day traders, the thoughtless, the prejudiced. But as you are invested in SEE it is not in your interests to be prejudiced against investors/newbies seeking to understand more about SEE. SEE sells to industrial customers so is never going to have the high profile with consumers many contributors crave. There is virtually no broker coverage of SEE. Many contributors to the board indicate their commitment to SEE is not going to increase further. So who is going to buy your shares when you need to sell? If a new investor or potential investor turns up on the board it makes no sense to encourage them to go away.

Jury selection on 12 Sept just a week after we know who the next PM will be. Trial to last just one week. Good prospects of a commercial contract by the end of the calender year. Success in either, or both, will transform company. Nothing to do save wait and watch Tory party leadership campaign and start of the football season. Though worth considering what to do if and when share price rises. E.g worth waiting for both bits of news to come in and giving new ii time to consider and start buying into transformed nanoco.

Going forward, the recent history of work won, suggests Nanocos USP will be using its patents, trade craft and skilled workforce to develop cadmium free quantum materials for specific customers. As Samsung are significant consumers of this material an amicable settlement allowing scope for future collaboration is conceivable.
Either a successful outcome to this case or the commercial order expected in the second half of this year will transform the share price. There seem good chances of both happening. Yahoo finance has been showing an expected 1 year price of £2.72 for some time. Not sure where that comes from. But best not to sell too cheaply if and when the good news arrives.

Seeing2030. I also agree with your comments. But I expect Chinese electric car companies to start exporting seriously later this year. BYD sell in Norway where the electric car market is developed and are beginning to sell in Australia. Their main problem is meeting demand.

BYD produce more electric vehicles than Volkswagen. Battery technology is improving so quickly the time to refuel new electric cars may be comparable to ICE cars by 2024. Costs of producing electric cars are minimised by new techniques such as casting the body in just two parts. So by 2024 they may cost no more than an ICE car. Running costs and maintenance will be much lower. Once that point is reached why buy an ICE car?
I agree SEE will be in many electric cars and the regulatory changes will drive sales. Our partnership with Qualcomm is crucial. So I remain heavily invested in SEE but expect fundamental changes in the car market not often mentioned on this board.

Matml74
My thinking is that the cars that are going to be sold from 2024 onwards may well be largely electric, not ICE, cars. Traditional car makers will sell some electric cars. But they may be undercut by new electric car makers, many of them from China. Techniques being used in car body building by new electric car companies are not being adopted by traditional xar makers. SEE, through Qualcom, appears to be in with BYD. But what about the rest. GM, Ford, Volkswagen may not be the market leaders in three years time. I have questions, not answers. And would like more questions. Fewer dogmatic assertions. The future is known to none of us

Helpful.

Terry
I value your contributions greatly. Despite being here for 12 months or so I had not twigged you represented SEE. No matter. When I joined the board I felt any news that was not positive was unwelcome and that led to unrealistic expectations for the share price on this board. My end year forecast of 15p for the share price attracted comments bordering on abuse: not from you. I wonder if those expecting higher end year prices made better decisions as a result.
The main threat to reaching 15p I see is developments in batteries being reported by CATL. Who supply Tesla among others. I follow the Electric Viking on YouTube to keep abreast of developments in electric cars. The switch from ICE to electric cars is happening much quicker than ICE car producers have allowed for and SEEs prospects, in my view, depend on being in electric cars. So your reporting of the Qualcomm link with BYD was much valued by me. Thank you.

Settlement with Samsung would cover future licence fees so probably take Nanoco into profit greater than any new use of CFQD.
If the case goes to trial and Nanoco win, while the judge can adjust for wilfulness, it would be up to the East Texan jury to settle the damages. I have difficulty believing 12 people from Texas would be as generous to a UK company as some contributors anticipate. With luck they are right.

LordWM
My envelope says much the same as yours with figures plucked from the air. £1 on the share price for a settlement for past licence fees worth £320m to Nanoco after legal costs. Another £1 on the share price for future annual licence fees from Samsung around an eighth of that, £40m pa, less £8m a year in costs and a forward P/E of 10.
Each of us can insert their own figures plucked from the air. For me the guestimation exercise suggests any settlement figure/award from Samsung would be likely to have a much bigger impact on revenue in the next few years than the commercial contract Nanoco are expecting from their unnamed European party. Nanoco would be better placed to develop nanomaterials to take advantage of the opportunities open to them with a settlement satisfactory to both Samsung and themselves rather than enjoying the argument.

If SEE remains independent, as Colin wishes ARM did, they would be able to licence their IP to a variety of firms like Qualcomm, each of which could supply different OEMs, and so evade Nicks concern the OEMs will use their purchasing power to ensure competition.
I recall SEE anticipating producing revenue projections at the end of this calendar year. That will give investors a much better insight to the true value of the company.

I have no experience of the automotive industry. But if Nick is right and the OEMs ensure there is competition among their suppliers then we may be blessed by the complacency of SEYE and Redeye: there is no need for an initiative to create a more dynamic competitor to SEE. Redeye cheerlead for SEYE and do not challenge them. SEYEs differentiation from SEE is that they are staying hardware agnostic while SEE is developing its own hardware in partnership with Qualcomm. If any OEM decides to develop its own infotainment system it may find SEYE easier to integrate. But I share the view that will be a blind alley and infotainment systems, including DMS and OMS will be bought in from the likes of Qualcomm who can develop reliable systems and handle the continuous updates that will be required as technology improves. I suspect the bidding for SEE will start once the main development work is done and cash flow turns positive in a couple of years. The losing bidders may then buy SEYE to remain in the competition for lower margin work. Unless a third company emerges as second best on DMS.

Seeing_2020
I thought Nick suggested the OEMs were careful to ensure there was competition among their suppliers. So even though SEE has the best technology he, I thought, suggested we could not expect more than half the market by revenue. He may of course be managing his bosses expectations. But a cautionary note from an experienced supplier to OEMs.

Work developing cameras for DMS and OMS described in the article below

https://eetasia.us19.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e8bd1f225d63728a1b5d11ba6&id=6c4598c587&e=61300614b9

A detailed description of the development work being done by ST Micro in ab area CFQDs can help

https://eetasia.us19.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e8bd1f225d63728a1b5d11ba6&id=6c4598c587&e=61300614b9