Member Info for ddubya

@NGR - Like I said, we shall see. I am simply presenting the view that NANO will not make much, if any, money from CFQD but no one would be happier than me if NANO issued multiple licences for CFQD production. However, to date we have not one single licensee, if you exclude Samsung that is, and the settlement value set the precedent for an exceptionally low value of our IP. Samsung found display production too expensive and the majority of displays will likely be made in China by multiple suppliers that don't care much about IP infringement.

As NANO's focus is now firmly on IR and 2D it does not want to be distracted by litigation, and it does not have the management time or funds to pursue multiple parties either.

As I say, time will tell and we can still be civil, whilst holding different opinions.

@NGR “ CFQD is not dead.”

You just love an argument don’t you?

We shall see. I was also listening when BT told us the CFQD market was expanding but I am not convinced.

Something without a backlight remains the future for display, so in the interim, why as a manufacturer would you re tool for £m when you can buy a proven and cheap product from Samsung or one of the Chinese firms that it is alleged to have gifted out IP to?

Time will tell.

Not saying soon TH2D but perhaps in a couple of years when orders have (hopefully) been secured and NANO is profitable excluding the Samsung income.

There is always value in businesses that are leading edge and profitable.

I always knew that timescales were going to be pushed way out when the Samsung settlement was sealed and I was not pleased at all. However, now that CFQD is I suspect dead, we do at least have a new and exciting market to exploit.

I have to agree with NGR's sentiment here. The product development cycle is long but we are two years into it with the Asian customer. If it appears NANO is becoming a truly significant player in this tech (some way off yet) then the market will value is ahead of delivery, so the SP will be ahead of delivery. And just as likely or more so is a takeover in my view.

By provided definitions for the scale of deals in his last presentation. I can't remember what it was now and will need to check later but think it was in the tens of hundreds of million pa . Obviously, no one is making them in numbers now but it could be a very large income stream in a few years and a few hundred £K pa between now and then.

Good to have some news on progress after so long. JDA described as Major and covering several products.

£ ?

Said god to be wrong but meant good of course.

I can't see how it can work like that NGR, although it would be god to be wrong. The worth presently attributed to NANO's operations and patents by the market is currently £Zero, plus £55m to reflect a discounted cash value due in Q1 2024. If our trading position remains the same and cash is 'returned' to shareholders as promised, what reason does the market have to alter that valuation model? None that I can think of, therefore under the status quo, the market cap should reduce by a similar amount to the distribution. That makes sense because NANO will not have sufficient funds to both undertake significant RD and self fund any legal action required to protect its patents.

Orders provide the greatest potential for added value, and various mechanisms that could be used to distribute funds are really just noise. At the moment, we are a prisoner to news of orders, yet enormous secrecy surrounds the end customer and how much value is at stake for our FIRST order of scale. Not much to go on then - it feels like we only have one horse in the races, so these are critical moments for the Board. They need to be sure of bringing home the bacon given the rationale provided to shareholders last February.

With a few orders under its belt and product take up becoming more widespread a US listing could be right for NANO. I don't have a have any strict time frame in mind but two years is not so far away.

No need to be sorry if NANO does not meet the NASDAQ criteria, or if there is no appetite to admit it. It either does or does not, and BT probably has the answer already. I just want orders and a big uplift in the share price really.

@Bluerill. They are not mutually exclusive, so my question is why discount the option of listing when this and the inward investment option are each possible and both may be desirable.

I can see that Bluerill but are institutional investment and a US listing mutually exclusive items?

@TH2D. There are certainly advantages to a US listing and NANO has the funds and story to deliver one.

If they could encourage one or two investors to part with cash and buy on the strength of the powerful positives that Bluerill lists, which provide low risk growth opportunity, it will help to generate more value ahead of the distribution in Feb 24. That would be a very good thing.

As I say, I suspect a potential listing is also being considered and I would be very surprised if it was not at least discussed on their road trip but we of course we are not going to receive advance word on decisions made.

I am feeling happier about the proactively BT is demonstrating though.

You are probably right about the purpose of the visit Bluerill and generating interest from a fresh audience of Institutional Investors should rightly come before aspirations of a US listing, since investment would have a more immediate impact on the share price. It is very positive to see BT taking the initiative though.

However, I would not rule out a NASDAQ listing. As NANO develops the US may be a much more favourable venue for NANO shares to trade and if circumstances change, a better place to raise funds for major expansion projects.

“If BT is in NY discussing listing on the Nasdaq you’d think he’d be at their offices and not in Central Park. Keep your imagination to yourself muppet.”

@NGR it is of course conjecture but if that were the purpose of the trip they might be running Beauty Parades to select advisers, attorneys or accountants? They probably don’t even need to meet NASDQ representatives. If so, it is logical to have a single location rather than run around the Big Apple, and NANO would be the customer after all.

@Nanonano. It would be unwise to turn business away but if we have something Samsung really needs and wants, I can’t see what would be wrong in taking a slightly larger margin from a ‘special’ customer. After all supplying Samsung has been proven to carry additional risks, which are not be present with the majority.

What we take from it depends on any points of reference used. I perceive revenge to mean rectifying an injustice.

Nanonano highlights the obvious and uncontested fact that NANO needs trade. However, I do not mind if Samsung’s methods come back to bite them at some later date 😃

I have revisited my choice of words, and I am comfortable with a little ‘revenge. It can include trading with Samsung at the right price point, or not 🤭

If we were looking for revenge on Samsung, the best method might to be to patent something unique and clever like IR sensors that will disrupt existing technologies and be adopted across many products. Then deny them access to technology at anything other than a ‘special’ premium cost, which recovers the sums illegitimately taken from CFQD and more. Well it’s a nice thought even if it does not happen.