Member Info for ddubya

Lol Nanogeddon - but your first comment may even have been said a little too quickly.

Thought we all deserve a new heading.

There had to be an interest from Apple given the debt forgiveness they made available a few years back. Whether it still exists or not who knows but iPhone and don’t forget iWatch would be fantastic markets in addition to VR headsets.

I would settle for a deal with ST Micro right now but it seems we have longer to wait.

No doubt that Samsung mugged NANO and I will never knowingly buy one of their products but if we can put that treachery behind us (difficult as that is) NANO has much going for it, provided it is able to commercialise. I think it can and will, and with some impressive partners too, which is why I am hanging on for the foreseeable future.

A multi bagger remains entirely possible.

I am not sure I have missed the point NGR. Whilst I agree cheaper panels might be attractive but who is going to invest enough to dominate over Samsung when the future might be electro luminescence or micro LED?

Nanogeddon you are ‘bang on’ with the economic reality of recovery for past transgressions by smaller firms.

Encouraging take up of licences at the best price point possible seems to be the only viable way to manage the small scale transgressions but so far thats not happening either.

The only value I can see in display is if NANO is able to sell or licence CFQD to a major Samsung competitor. However, why compete in a high volume low margin sector, when you can simply buy the best screens from Samsung and use funds to invest in newer technologies?

Could be wrong but the more time goes by the less likely it seems infringers will cough up for a licence, even at the low £value precedent set with Samsung .

Perhaps they think there’s a chance that NANO will engage in several years of costly legal challenge and fold before trial? Perish that thought.

“Mine are aligned to reality…”

We all know how things have worked out so far NGR but it looks like you are using hindsight to support the validity of your opinion and tell everyone else how detached they have been from reality?

I have not checked the history but if you can refer me to your pre settlement posts predicting a gross £140m or less (with or without a patent sale) I shall accept you called it correctly and better than me.

Not sure where I stated a ‘wilful’ judgement was “expected” or otherwise nailed on NGR?

I observe from your message that your thoughts and beliefs have no more relevance than mine though, which seems fair enough. We just hold very different views.

A settlement in that range is more in keeping with my thoughts, although we would have needed a wilfulness award for the top end.

Ultimately, I believe we should have retained belief in winning the case - had it not been valid we would have secured nothing from Samsung.

We had cash until 2024 and expectations of a sensor contract this year. Not without risk of course but the value of NANO could have been far greater longer term (and also higher at this stage).

Ironically, securing contracts to make NANO profitable would be a key factor in any scenario but it has taken on far greater significance in light of this poor settlement.

BT has much to do to redeem himself.

The settlement was very poor NGR, on whatever model or basis you care to select. To turn down a trial and accept such a low settlement as being in our best interest would in my view require other factors to be in play, which will realise value we would not otherwise receive. It is perhaps too early to give up all hope of that but it is certainly not in evidence at present. And it seems clear that some shareholders have profited from selling, possibly using knowledge that PI did not have?

You are of course entitled to your view of how much compensation was due, which you offer with the benefit of hindsight, but I don’t share it and that’s fine too.

If the settlement represents fair value, why is it so much less than the Edison estimate for US sales alone (ignoring the value of many CFQD patents sold)? That argument does not make any sense to me, and I suspect many others too. It is too easy to say that expectations have been conflated with benefit of hindsight, and if and until BT’s cunning plan comes together, I believe both that PI we’re mislead and that very little of the true value has been realised.

Thank you Intrusive - each product a potential ‘cash cow’.

If we receive a ‘leg up’ from success in IR, our cash reserves should allow for further R&D and commercialisation of the most promising products.

I would settle for a fraction of ARM returns at the moment but shall stay long for a few years yet, if there is movement with IR sensors. Whilst we are partnering ST Micro, I believe supply is not made exclusively to them, so we have at least learned from the Dow experience.

Good morning Intrusive. You have always been keen on NANO’s non-CFQD prospects, which is just as well in the circumstances!

Are there any indicators to suggest NANO is anywhere close to incorporating these materials in 2D semi conductors that can realise commercial value? And do you have any idea whether they may be linked to graphene, or something different?

That’s what I want to believe too Peregrine and I do hope it all turns out well for all shareholders. However, at this stage BT’s communication has been appalling and he has not done himself any favours. There might be an explanation in time, I just wonder why if that is so we could not have it, or part of it, earlier?

Our NED Chairman bought some shares in Feb 23, when one was over 27p, which is interesting but so far it has not proved to be a winner for him.

BT I expect is comfortable with receiving free options under the Long Term Incentive Plan, and I would not be surprised if we hear news of new options at a transformed price soon? Whilst that would be attractive to qualifying Directors it would not benefit shareholders, many of whom are deep underwater.

If our sensors find their way into new Apple products it will provide real Keudos but perhaps not too much income in the near term? Should know in the next 6 weeks I expect.

Some divine intervention would be very welcome.

BT provided words to outline the settlement rational for in the investor and analyst presentations but chose not to include any detail within the official Interim RNS, where it would have carried more weight.

I am far from pleased with communication so far but it is possible BT could soon reveal detail of the ‘near’ term events promised to turn events around? If that is so, PI that have already sold are likely to feel mislead (with some justification) as would current holders if no positive announcements are made.

Either way, there is presently insufficient information to fully understand the investment. Combined with poor communication, this increases the risk of holding NANO but sticking with it for now.

NGR Mike Edelman had stated that ‘wilfulness’ was obvious and BT had frequently extolled the strength of NANO’s case. What are we supposed to think?

If there are valid reasons for capitulation, we don’t know what they are because NANO has not disclosed them (at least not to PI).

Meantime, our guess is as good as yours, and I prefer Tuscany myself.

Our Tenner should Go Compare.

I recollect that the end user (Apple we think) funded the majority of the construction costs. However, Nanoco was due to pay around £2.3m toward those CAPEX costs and following exit, Apple forgave NANO this debt. They were not compelled to but I guess they did not need any adverse publicity either. After all NANO had no money and to pay would have meant a cash raise that would likely wipe out existing shareholders.