Member Info for bonzoful

Those interested in technical developments around eye tracking may be interested in work ST Micro are doing on Quantum Dot shortwave infrared products. LordWM posted as below on the Nanoco chat room today. The presentation linked specifically mentions SWIR imaging and eye tracking. Conceivable Magna may be interested in this work but that is speculation on my part.

Presentation from Feb23 by Jonathan from ST Micro, (see 44min45secs). See info re the QD tech developed by STMicro that’s being promoted by them and evaluated by their customers right now.. This is almost certainly where the first commercial order will come from within the next 4 months. IF this happens as projected by Nanoco, it will turbo the SP.

The independent industry reports quoted by Nanoco predict that uptake of QD usage in a broad range of applications is beginning and will ramp up rapidly (included mass market smart phones, I think in 2026).

https://epic-assoc.com/events/epic-online-technology-meeting-on-quantum-metrology-and-quantum-sensors/

Nanocos website now gives equal billing to CFQD and Heatwave QD, which extend the range of sensors to infrared. This will be improve driver monitoring systems which are being rolled out in commercial fleets and required for new vehicles sold in the EC in a year or so.

Roll out of dms has been slower than expected as car companies paused to combine it with systems that monitor all the occupants of the car. The main supplier of autocomponents to the US car industry, Magna Electronics, has an exclusive deal with Seeing Machines to incorporate dms into rear view mirrors. The best industry commentator on dms is Colin Barden. The lse chat page on Seeing Machines is useful. Seems to me a possible field for the commercial contract Nanoco anticipate.

There is no doubt in my mind landing a commercial order in 2023 is crucial. I think the omens are good: because the Board did not take the opportunity to blame the damaging distraction of the last few months as an excuse.

If an order is landed the position could transform very quickly. The balance sheet will be transformed by the second settlement payment from Samsung. And any significant commercial contract will tip Nanoco into profit. Once that is reflected in the published numbers investors who study the published numbers will begin to get interested.

Should no commercial order be landed by February I will wait for the return to shareholders and shift into companies that are delivering positive cash flow.

Ddubya

I disagree with your view you can separate the Board from the technology. The technology is the invention of Nigel Picketts who set up the company with Edelman, has been wise enough to let others with the necessary expertise do the commercial stuff, said farewell to his initial collaborater Edelman and made clear he goes if the Board goes. This is not a static game. Nanoco has to keep developing the technology to survive. Lose the Board, you lose Picketts you diminish the company's ability to keep developing. A point, I suspect, at which most investors would move on.

On the loan notes my recollection there was first confusion, then bafflement on this board when the loan notes were agreed. But that resolved into acceptance it was the only way to keep the company afloat during the Samsung case. Without that finance the company would have folded.

Ddbuya

I have been here longer than I care to remember. Most of what turned out to be major errors I supported at the time. Nanoco clearly shared too much information on how to make CFQD with others. I agreed with contracting out of making CFQD to Dow at the time. But now wonder if the close relationship between Dow and Samsung had anything to do with a company in the Samsung group being able to make CFQD. We will never know. That was the major error and it happened on Edelmans watch. He was rightly replaced.

Nanoco came close to a deal with an American partner who paid for the construction of the Runcorn production line. I find it credible that their decision not to launch their product had nothing to do with Nanoco. Having that capital investment at no cost to Nanoco was a step forward. Getting the cash injection from the settlement is another. Though I, like others, unwisely invested more when it looked like the deal was done and learning the terms of that deal.

All now depends on getting commercial contracts. If we do the hopes we had a decade ago will be realised, a few years later than expected. I take encouragement from the fact today's RNS repeated the company's prospects have never looked better. The distraction of recent months could have been used to moderate that position. But the Board saw no reason to do so. Excellent.

Nonsense to say noone trusts the Directors. I expect them likely to receive the support of the large majority of the shareholders.

It's the CEO who manages the business. And it's confidence in him which every single vote against will undermine.

Any firm considering giving Nanoco a contract will want to see the Board is in firm control of the company. Any vote against reduces the chance of winning a contract. Madness.

Politely expressed. But has Tenner and Richards behaviour been unacceptable? Anything they said about the settlement would have been heard by Samsung. They had to talk it up. More fool me for not taking that into account. I will judge them by whether or not they land a contract. So regard as unhelpful anything that casts doubt on the future management of the company. A vote against is either irrelevant or damaging to the prospects of landing a contract. In my view.

Maxi

My thought is that the greater the sign of instability at Nanoco the less chance of it winning contracts. Once one contract is won the would be asset strippers will sell and move on. The sooner the better.

Ddubya

You ask why I perceive some on here want information that will be commercially confidential. To give one example

"Shareholders still do not have the information they need to assess NANO’s prospects following extreme disappointment earlier in the year and we are not likely to ahead of the vote either." Ddubya 28 June 08.23

With the settlement with Samsung known Nanocos prospects depend on winning commercial contracts and while the Board will have some visibility on this it will be commercially confidential. Until a deal or deals are signed. When an RNS will be issued. No point complaining about lack of information meanwhile.

The information you want regards future contracts will be commercially confident. So no CEO would be free to disclose it. Lots of posters on here post as though they own the company and have entitlements. They own a fraction of the company. And are entitled to sell if they lose faith in the Board. There is no sign anywhere near a majority of shareholders want a change. Hanging on and disrupting the company damages all shareholders.

Any legal fees payable by people carrying out their role as Directors or employees of Nanoco will be covered by the company. Why anyone would want Nanocos money wasted in this way is beyond my comprehension. I infer they do not know what they are doing.

Very damaging to the company. Which would have no future if the takeover succeeded. It has no chance but blights prospects until seen off. Shame on those involved and their cheerleaders.

My view through out. Nanoco needs to be a stable, financially secure company to win orders with risk averse companies. I have been in for 15 years or more. And my belief has not wavered. Change takes time. And for Nanoco it will be delivered by scientists with a life times commitment. Not transient shareholders. I think the first orders will be small. But once the published financial numbers show Nanoco with a secure balance sheet, in profit and with a growing market before it the tide will turn.

My recollection is that the payment from Samsung, most of which is to be taken to revenue over 5 years or so, takes Nanoco to breakeven. Any commercial contracts should feed straight through to profit. Likely to be modest initially. But with a large and growing market to address.

I still too hold. Though I reminded the detractors the shares were available not too long ago at 9p I too fell for the bubble and also bought at 61p. Noones fault but my own. I see three possible turning points, none of them certain. Apple are foreshadowing announcements on Monday: we may learn more about the liklihood of them becoming a significant end customer ( through ST Microelectronics). Second other sensor contracts are possible. Third, once Samsung pay the second settlement payment and Nanoco provide the promised return to shareholders Nanocos balance sheet and income record will appear very different. Which may attract new investors. Of whom there are, understandably, very few at present.

I do think the detractors damage the company's prospects. Why contract with a Company where it appears some shareholders wish to change rge Board. Do that and you are likely to lose the scientific brains within the company who will have no difficulty moving on.

Day traders in on hope of possible court award. Day traders out after pretrial settlement. Once their selling is done price will settle. Then future, as always, depends on getting commercial contract. If we get one by the end of 2023 the future looks good. With cash on the balance sheet plus dividend. If not, not.

Thats a bit like claiming you own the Government because you pay your taxes. You don't. And a millionth share of Nanoco does not make it your money. My views on how Nanoco should spend its money probably differ from yours. And I would be surprised if you own more of it than me.