Member Info for ddubya

Regrettably so T. The SP price is unlikely to move unless:
The bidder(s) identity is revealed;
negotiations are concluded and detail of an offer disclosed to the market;
there is a ‘leak’ of inside information (how could that happen)

Really a Micro led backlight emitting blue light rather than QD but still in NANOs sphere of research.

An excellent view Ecclescake that everybody should take a look at. Blue QD backlights and a front layer of colour emissive QD. Samsung will be calling this QNED.

The forthcoming Korea v China battle is set out clearly by the presenter, as is the fact that TCL has a lead over Samsung. I suspect that Apple and Sony will not want to be left out either?

Samsung seems to be using Nanosys, so everyone else is going to need an alternative QD supplier -and they are not likely to want to share). So entirely possible this battle could play out in NANO’s favour.

Thanks Eskers. You would have to think that if Plessey and NANO are on the cusp of delivering a VR revolution, the big players would want all of both firms.

I also wonder if there is any possibility that NANO may try to sell off CFQD IP and create a new business/focus on research projects such as this one with Plessey?

As usual nothing is simple or clear with NANO.

Could not agree more JBongo, although in fairness ME and the Board did seem to recognise that for themselves (perhaps with a nudge from LO).

Unfortunately, sale was almost inevitable when Apple pulled the rug, and if they are one of the bidders now (?) I would personally be looking for a premium in order to justify their preferred bidder status.

No idea what NANO’s value is now but it would be nice if it’s final surprise is really positive instead of the same old.

Yes surprised. The sale process takes as long as it needs to. And in such a niche sector the language of the tech geeks who really understand what it can or cannot do, needs converting to something that bean counters and legal bods are able to comprehend. That takes time in itself.

Unless someone wants to secure NANO without contest and at great cost, this could become a reasonably lengthy process.

Lol T... I should, of course, have said ME had difficulty in converting to income for shareholders, whose hard earned has contributed significantly toward the development of the technology and filing of successful patents (and ME’s LTIP).

Certainly ME should be credited with getting NANO across the line with many firms including Dow and Apple. Just converting to income that seems to be the difficult part for him.

Here’s hoping we can recover at least part of that potential in the next few months BtB. Fingers crossed for EU RoHS too which would change the outlook.

Apple paid for development of nano particles and a factory but NANO has not sold much in the way of Product to anyone other than Careware, so not sure what you mean BtB, unless you can add to that list?

Other than the shorters and ME, I am not aware anyone has made money from NANO.

None of the above means I consider there is not potential to do very well here (also perhaps not) but under ME’s leadership NANO simply has not commercialised any volume product, which is a great shame since had they done so, the starting bid would have been at multiples of today’s share price.

That is of course the standard disclosure for such interest Troublesome but as you suggest, the proof of the pudding is going to be the bidders views post receipt of the NANO ‘secrets’ and whether there is anything worth bidding for. It is of course possible that ME has simply been lining his own nest whilst fluffing feathers to give appearance of being bigger than we are.

I am giving ME the benefit of doubt for now, and not much point offloading at these levels anyway - at least not for me and I suspect many others.

Up just over 10% does not feel like the market has placed much value on the fact we have two or more anonymous parties interested in acquiring NANO.

If there was knowledge of Apple, Google and Samsung competing, I imagine the current price might be a little higher but most likely the real bidders are not all as large or well known?

Perhaps news will leak in the coming weeks (although it never really did with Apple) and/or NASDAQ open will add some impetus?

Thanks for the link Morbox. This RNS is about as positive as we could expect. Negotiations could take quite a while though with none of the bidders will be subject to the 28 day rule, which had effect of drawing details of the bid or forcing exit from the process. NANO and Evercore should be able to control the process better.

Certainly agree with ADVFN there should be some form of update in early course, in fact I had thought that we might have received it by now - that’s NANO. I suppose it is entirely possible there are entirely legitimate reasons (Takeover code) why it is not possible to update us at this point.

Good morning TLW. We have reached the indicative bid deadline (assuming any were received) but I believe this to be just the beginning of what could be a lengthy due diligence process with interested parties.

It is possible an unconditional offer that the Board supports could be made but I think that rather less than likely. It might happen if someone wants NANO enough to make it unavailable to competitors.

Quite so jplay. NANO is not quite the Information Superhighway, and we have not been able to rely upon much of the information it does release.

Not sure what to make of the absence of any shape of RNS or update?

Snowed under with numerous large offers (hope so but not getting carried away), or
Worried sick about how to inform shareholders (inc LO) and the market that no one is sufficiently interested to offer much over market cap (unlikely I hope).

As far as I am aware no formal disclosure has been made as to which product the cancelled order relates to. There was certainly Bulletin Board speculation on wearables (glasses) but all press commentary I saw suggested the cancelled order was for an IR camera sensor with Apple. I might just have missed the glasses press coverage?

The acid test is indeed whether having had access to information, interest in acquiring NANO is intimated and if so by how many.

I am sure the market is expecting an RNS on the subject early this week and without one will draw its own conclusions. Conversely, if there were a good news RNS, demonstrating interest from two or more, it could become the competition we hope for.

Obviously, hoping for the latter outcome but even if NANO is seen as an opportunity not to be missed, big players may remain on the sidelines and keep their powder dry, for now.

‘Buy’ technology that should be.

Thank you greeens. For non FT subscribers, you can go to News18.com for detail but in short, Apple has bought UK start up Spectraledge, potentially to improve the quality of images taken on iPhones.
You would expect Apple to be committed to improving camera performance, so not sure it signifies anything for Nanoco, other than Apple’s willingness to but technology.