Member Info for ddubya

And another thing! When will we hear about the detail of the distribution :)

Quite so. I know some disagree but to my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that BT statements led market expectations higher any higher, only to disappoint it. Either something went very wrong in the legal proceedings at the last moment, or we were knowingly fed BS.

Good morning T. I am sure the Board would say the share price had reached unrealistic heights that were not of their making and also that it's decline was nothing to do with them either. However, unless they were completely inept they would have known a settlement of around half the market expectation plus giving Samsung use of many patents and paying by instalments (because they were hard up) would not be viewed as a big win. It was hardly going to move the share price upward.

If there is something our Directors do know it is the specification of its product and its potential uses. Even if they had not been told who the end user is, NANO will know if it can perform the task required of it in Vision Pro and would have formed their own judgement.

If NANO had not understood what the prospects for product sales were, I do wonder how they could possibly be so certain their strategy to accept Samsung's settlement was the right one, especially in knowledge the share price would be trashed. Surely they have a reasonably detailed handle on the potential scale of our marketplace and the players in it? They have been able to inform us of the delays and reductions in orders, which strangely mirror the Vision Pro story too.

Maybe they are delaying to release some good news that is in the offing, and to limit the downside ex dividend (wishful thinking I know!).

We have not seen a day like this before, at least not that I can remember in more than four years. Not complaining but still some way to break even for me.

@Nanonano. There’s no doubt you are right about the level of risk the business is currently subject to having accepted an early settlement. There would have been more need for cash too, although I suspect that had we won in E Texas, the share price would have been higher than today and a raise might have been easier. Again, there was no certainty of that either.

As difficult as the settlement (and particularly NANO’s handling of it) is to swallow, it is over and done with and we at least have the chance to ride the next wave, IR sensors, in a way that might not have been possible had we still been locked in litigation. And, there are likely further surprises to follow on from other secretive TP relationships.

In any case, hopefully, onwards and upwards from here. Next stop, the ‘slightly delayed’ announcement on cash distribution, which will be of interest to all.

Hi Kooba. Is it not the UK Corporate Governance Code that has greater relevance to director remuneration in the UK?

My knowledge is not up to date but I don't think icgn guidance is binding on NANO. The UK Code binds only FTSE companies, and it is OK to offer NEDs share options, although where the Code applies more stringent governance is needed if options are to be issued and there is less flexibility over how and how many options can be granted.

Our new NEDs probably are not offer free knowledge, so I suspect we are either we are paying a handsome fee, or other benefits will be in place. I probably need to take a closer look at today's Codes/Guidance.

@Daz. “SH value will be in the both short to medium term.”

I imagine that BT in part refers to the Feb 24 distribution for short term value? Medium term value might relate to appreciation in share price through achieving profitability.

I am excited by the NEDs arrival too, although this breed (and calibre) of NED always have an ‘exit’ plan before joining. Typically, it is share options and later sale to one of a selected number of firms with which they develop good relationships. They will no doubt also be able to direct NANO’s strategy to make it more attractive and valuable.

The next few years will no doubt be formative for NANO, and not before time if I am honest.

Our new position in the supply chain is unfortunately further from the product manufacturer that it was with CFQD. That can mean less influence and bargaining power, so I expect we shall be much more reliant on volumes to generate decent income. I suspect the BT is happy to deliver at low cost on the basis that it helps develop the marketplace more quickly and secure our position as a premier supplier within it. Partly for those reasons, I consider this a longer term investment and ultimately a buy out but we could break even and start to make decent money much sooner, which should return decent value from today’s prices.

@ Kooba. I had planned to make a decision whether to exit around the time of distribution but have made my mind earlier than I expected. I am going to remain invested for longer and see exactly the risk you point out, which is true of both tender and dividend. If good news drops before receiving and reinvesting proceeds, we could lose out, unable to reinvest at the best price.

I might consider mitigating some of that using either CFD, or perhaps some new money, ex dividend? Obviously, we need to wait for BT to provide the options but this time, we are at least managing a positive problem.

NANO did not tell us the relationship had hit a dead end for years too!

Welcome back Hawi. Today’s price action indicates the market already places a value on NANO that included the second instalment. The small uplift represents a token in light of de risking.

Having said that everything could move very quickly from here. It is a very different business from the one I first invested in 15 years ago. Many obstacles are out of the way and more orders and profitability should generate a generous upside.

All aboard. If it’s happening at all, it will be going on in the next two or three years. Likely ending in a takeover I suspect.

How many of us would have participated in a rights issue? I certainly would have preferred that to what looks like a gifting of our shares to those who clearly want in. Why because it's a better option than their own firm and they can exit at zero cost with every prospect of a huge gain. I suspect they have secured their retirement on this single deal and leveraged the deal using delay and brinksmanship until BELL management became desperate. A very poor business deal that has diluted our upside I am afraid. The positive is that BELL has a great products and a bright future.

There were barely enough made to satisfy the competitors needs T. Meta and Samsung between them will have bought a few to dissect! They are going to be huge in Pro form and much bigger again in the cheaper version. If we are we will do well, and I feel sure we are.

The purchases by our Chairman and CFO are not huge but they are significant. A common view is that they are made to participate in the advance of an expected distribution in March. That could well be the case, but there could be additional reasons, including that they are expectant of announcements that force entry into a closed period when they can buy no more. Potentially that could last for months or years, especially if a bid were in the offing, and with our new NEDs I don't think there'll be many years in coming about.

I expect a significant drop ex dividend but a steady and perhaps speedy climb in share value thereafter.

Good point Kooba.

Thanks Nanonano, I had no idea that the performance of Blue QD was so short lived.

Barring discovery that alters that position, it looks like the backlights have it for now.

@Nanonano. A question for you as a technically minded chap.

Apple and Sony chose OLED for displays used in Vision Pro. They likely discounted CFQD on considerations including that it does not require a backlight is more compact,and also provides better resolution.

How far away you think we are from commercialising electroluminescence for CFQD display, including use in smaller screens such as those in VR headsets. The late Nanosys was talking about prototypes early last year but otherwise, there seems to have been little discussion on this technology in recent years.

Presumably this ST Micro announcement does not qualify as the one ‘new’ customer targeted for 2024 because we have been in a relationship with them for years. Presumably another customer must also be in the offing?

News before March might realise a dividend that is not smartly discounted but I am not counting on that.

Even more likely this signals we are the OEM for Apple, so all good but samples don’t make big money. That’s at least 2 or 3 years out from this arrangement.