Member Info for ddubya

I certainly hope not but it is possible we might face yet another ‘rinse and repeat’ Christmas, hopeful of orders to fill our stockings but without news. For that reason, I shall delay purchasing a case of Veuve Cliquot 🤥

What I do know is that I shall miss the exciting prospect of winning a transformational settlement from Samsung . Despite best efforts to polish it, the settlement still looks like a *urd.

Thank the Lord - good find. There are multiple uses and a massive market for SWIR technology identified in the presentation, most of which we have heard before.

JS suggests that one sensor has been created specifically for 'mobile' so that has real potential for volume. He also mentions we are at a stage where manufactures are just beginning to realise what SWIR can do and silicon cannot - so 2 to 5 years product development.

I hope NANO's market share will be larger than the share ME wanted from Samsung's QD TV sales? Really depends upon how critical NANO's IP is and product volume.

For the decision to settle with Samsung at such a low value to be the correct one, I consider BT and the Board need to return the 'multiples' of share value in fairly short order. This should start with IR product validation and orders, neither of which we have visibility of presently. It could still happen but we are probably talking about years to pick up real pace rather than months.

@bonzoful. It is absolutely fine to have different views but you are presenting a very different one to that which I have stated.

As I have said before, my vote was against all Hamoodi appointments and to retain the existing Board (I abstained for BT and CR).

As a reminder, I said "...having low confidence in the Board's performance and yet belief in the 'technology' are not mutually exclusive." - not that the NANO Board should be dismissed (at least not yet). I do agree everything is a dynamic and moving feast and the technology must keep developing, so unfortunately you have misread what I stated.

@Intrusivethought. What are your timeline expectations for the development of 2D products or announcement of development contracts?

Oops. I really meant to convey that having low confidence in the Board's performance and yet belief in the 'technology' are not mutually exclusive.

Hello Intrusive and thanks for the reply. For my part, I believe having low confidence in the Board's performance and integrity to date are not mutually exclusive. It is also possible to have belief in the 'technology' it owns and the applications NANO can deliver to.

I expect the Board to deliver on IR and related tech and it may even make inroads to display, although with the CFQD licence we granted Samsung it has sewn up most of that sector at negligible cost.

I have a feeling those who demonstrate the most vocal support for the Board and the settlement value secured are those with a better average than most longer term holders. Any truth in this thought?

When the third party funder made its decision to back NANO, I wonder what settlement range it had in mind?

I can’t know but my guess is it was working on the basis of a settlement several times the value accepted by BT and CR. Otherwise, the downside risk would likely have been far too great to justify its support.

NANO would likewise have been operating to its own expectations. Did it really embark on this journey to secure a mere £4m net for its IP in return for a licence to Samsung. It makes no sense to me that they would.

@qdnano. I am not certain yours of 15.41 is a reply to my post since so much seems to be at a tangent. I have not said that Apple "...don't pay..." or that NANO only "... get the job if ...cheaper".

How it works is that Apple and its suppliers find the best and most reliable product for their needs and then bargain for the best possible price.

Sometimes words make it harder to see the true meaning qd. Pricing will be agreed already and I am not suggesting it has or will be renegotiated. I am saying that when it was agreed ST Micro and Apple knew NANO very much wants and needs this contract and to be part of the supply chain and so had the upper hand.

Without the value a contract brings, our valuation will continue to be set below cash, leaving few options to return capital without wrecking the SP further.

NANO has pushed back the date it expects to be profitable, which could result from lower order expectations (fits with revised Apple Vision Pro production estimates) but it could equally mean the contract was negotiated on less favourable on terms than initial estimates?

@qdnano. I am sorry but you are putting words in my mouth and finding issue where none exists, and you are wrong to do so. Nowhere have I said Apple or STMicro would compromise on quality - they will not but they certainly are adept at driving a hard bargain.

@qdnano. We are not likely to know what the 'actual' margin turns out to be for quite some time if indeed it is ever officially disclosed. However, as you rightly say NANO will want to make the price attractive. However, both the end user (Apple?) ST Micro know this product is crucial to NANO, which does not provide the strongest bargaining position. Costings will have been agreed already, and we have received an update provided on the profitability date, hence my comment but time will tell.

If NANO's product does find its way into Apple's Vision pro, I am certainly hoping there will not be a further 12 month process to follow though, and NANO's product should be out of the factory gate and delivered within 3 months of the order. Jam may start to arrive when the budget headset is launched but no doubt there will be another round of commercial discussion at that point. If NANO's product has performed well, we shall have a much stronger position.

When we look at the Samsung debacle and the low bar it set for the value of CFQD, there is surely risk that NANO may agree a low price for IR sensors too, lower than it would ideally have hoped for?

It is of course essential we secure orders, especially from customers in the top flight, however, I have a niggling doubt NANO is in a sufficiently strong bargaining position to secure the best price and news of the delayed profitability date might reflect this concern?

It may be possible to push margins up later, if we receive the volume orders hoped for but that could take time. We might also secure orders from other customers but these would likely require similar lead times to the ST Micro product launch. To my mind, this increases the emphasis on the outcome of the 'far east' relationship that NANO claims to hold.

@NGR - Proof positive that you can't be NigWit 😄. He would never admit to that.

If the market is always right, what is the explanation for shares being and the less today than before (and after) the AGM result? Where's NigWit when you need him?

Today is the news we really needed, although compared even to the floatation price we are still well behind. Hopefully, this heralds a climb back closer to the 80’s and possibly beyond but we likely first need to see production met and units in service and operating to spec.

Unfortunately, I am still underwater but this now looks like a bargain so perhaps not for too much longer.

Good to hear from you bonzoful.

At least we do still have another play in IR sensors? 😀

I also bought more when the American partner came on scene and remain underwater but it could have been worse, and I still hope to make a return over the next two years. Hope you are doing same or better.

On the funding, I would have preferred to see a rights issue rather than loan notes but I realise some might say that is a riskier and more expensive method. While it can be true, I don't think it was the case here.

Hello T. I am sure there are some that have been here even longer than me but probably not in large numbers? Quite a few from the same era, such as Feeks have become disillusioned and sold up.

My faith is not as strong as it once was. The most immediate and largest prize has been squandered it seems. To gain a net £4m for our Crown Jewels, when Samsung has made $bn’s does not sit well with me. At a lower level but equally irritating was the Chairman and CEO’s decision to agree a ridiculous ‘performance’ bonus for loan notes, which rely on factors completely unconnected to the finance - I can’t see what performance factor was in play? The criteria might as well have been to pay a bonus if Man City won the 2022/23 treble -at least they would have been longer odds.

Having said that, my guess is Apple is the end customer for ST Micro, and that NANO will be a big player, IF and WHEN IR sensors take off.

I am sticking with it for now because it would not take huge orders to multiply the share price if we have Apple custom and a takeover might follow but it will be a much longer play than I hoped for.

The caveat is that I need to see the initial orders, but also note that BT today seemed to distance himself from responsibility for timescales, saying product validation is in the hands of the supply chain and so not NANO’s control.

Holding, but it does not have the excitement of level of potential I once thought it had🤪

@NGR re your earlier comment ‘HH you should sell and stick with the c10% who agree with you of which TH is 5.02%.’

If you are concluding the % of votes against today’s resolutions matches the % of shareholders that don’t have full confidence in the Board then I think it a flawed view.

I voted against most resolutions but also believe expectations were overinflated and communication awful. The whole settlement may even have been mishandled entirely but I am not well positioned to have any hard evidence of that. I expect others that voted ‘against’ might have felt the same but simply did not want to overturn the applecart at this stage.