Member Info for ddubya

Crumbs of comfort sums it up well Basscadet. Very welcome and positive that NANO is relieved of the obligation to repay its share of the capex for the new plant. That is an interesting move that hints at a future renewal of the relationship with our American partner. We knew that a Dec 2019 break even would be in view, it is next year that is the concern.

However, all discussions with customers are at very early stages, presumably including Apple, which means that new income streams are not likely to be imminent.

Clarity would be nice T, although I suspect NANO will continue to be economical with the news it provides to its shareholders.

Commercial scale seeding production has been NANO’s main claim for as long as I can remember Troublesome. There is no reason to think it should no longer apply, although other manufacturers will no doubt have closed the Gap in the interim.

Unfortunately what NANO was mass producing had not been quite to the specification and cost that would tempt OEMs from use of cadmium based products.

With barrier technology and other advancements, ME suggests NANO are now the clear leaders for quality, which just leaves the issues of cost (an unknown) and importantly, the market created through RoHS enforcement.

That’s an interesting article Sl. There have been reports of a microLED Applewatch display since late 2017.

When the American partner deal was announced I was hopeful that might be what NANO was helping with. Turns out it was Apple but for camera sensors. NANO certainly has one of the components Apple needs for a microLED or QD display, so fingers crossed there might remain a possibility of link up after all. Not that anyone should count on any of the above. Inside information would be needed to call NANO’s prospects with any degree of certainty.

Absolutely agree on UK government treatment of our tech firms. We allow the innovative to be scooped up by our competitors for short term gain and lose the long term benefits to other countries.

The IP is worth what the markets will pay. I doubt there is appetite for Samsung to hold all IP on CFQD, so competition from others and resistance from the existing NANO licence holders would be the likely outcome, if RoHS is enforced.

Whatever happens, it could either happen at any moment, or take months/years.

We need to await the outcome of RoHS Nige, but if it does not go NANO’s way, I consider sale a very likely outcome, either in part(s) or in total. Because NANO has no meaningful revenue (as ARM had) sale proceeds would of course be of much lower order, even if there were competing bids, and £100m would be an excellent result.

The real prize is commercialisation now (or soon) and a sale in several years time, when the scale of potential is clear to the market. If the RoHS decision supports it, NANO may have a Display lifeline and any funding required likely supplied by LOAM through a further discounted placement.

Hi Nige. The Report and Accounts detail dates back to November 2017 (or earlier) and some statements, such as the divestment of Solar, have not come to pass. There really is no evidence to suggest that contracts with Wah Hong, Dow and Merck are not far away. In the absence of RoHS enforcement at end Oct, the only known income stream post 2019 is limited to Careware, so I would agree this investment most certainly remains a gamble.

Yes Nitro, and the same thing happened earlier this week on thin trading.

I am sure Apple has changed its mind and fully anticipated using NANO for its iPhone camera. However, NANO’s full focus has been on the new factory and the partnership, so locked in they were in belief the order was coming. Leaving intent to one side that is the effect .

And as you suggest, no pipeline product that we know of and no income for NANO, which is well and truly stuffed presently. In my opinion, we should not underestimate Apple ‘s cunning either.

That’s one way to look at it bbd but their investment (loose change I agree) effectively locked NANO management in for 2 years and prevented them from expanding horizons elsewhere. It also made them almost entirely beholden to Apple, so just what any predator would wish for. NANO is now available at a significantly reduced market cap, again suiting the predator, penny pincher or not. Apple certainly has plenty of funds but they use them wisely and seek to reduce costs wherever possible, spending $m to secure long term cost reductions e.g Qualcomm.

Yes I am guessing but it would not surprise me at all if the Apple story is not over, despite believing that we should proceed on the basis it is.

It might be wishful thinking on my part too jplay but I agree, Apple may not be leaving the scene entirely - NANO has so much in common with technology that is central to its future. Just possible it could be playing hardball and veiling a rather keen interest? Then again, you might expect it to have moved already, with both Sterling and the share price depressed.

ME is on record as saying they were attracted by the skills and expertise that NANO possesses, which is good to know but unfortunately has not yet been converted to income stream - still hopeful.

That’s how I see it too Nanonano. It is not too far fetched to think that Apple would want to buy NANO - after all their funds have kept it afloat two years and it will not want its investment hoovered up by a competitor. I just expect It would not want to pay what it is worth, so we would have need of interested competitors.

And whilst it is known that Display remains an outsider, why is it not just possible that either Dow Dupont or Merck could pick up an order?

In the ideal world Nige, both Mr Apple and Mr Samsung (and possibly others) will be competing to buy your shares. I would much prefer that happened post commercialisation of CFQD and after several years strong profitability.

Then again, I might wake up before any of that happens.

Sounds like you have just awakened a realisation that the American Nano-particle deal is dead Itsamaybe? At least that is what a read of you last few posts suggests. I feel for you if that is so, but whilst the RNS wording is dire, the only plausible interpretation is also the worst - £0 nano-particle income beyond expiry of contractual obligations (year-end) as supported by the press speculation on iphone sensors. In the absence of a minor miracle, such as Display uptake, takeover, or new contracts, 2020 and beyond looks bleak. No suggestion any of these is in the offing, which is why a share is now valued at even less than the Director purchases. These and absence of an LO bailout are the only positives at the moment.

Briefly NANO was up over 8% shortly after the open and at close down over 6%. Such swings occur now and again but each time I do wonder what makes it possible and what drives it. Certainly not news and does not look like share sales or purchases either.

The Times article is but not sure the Sunday Times covered it before.

I see the Sunday Times is today adding strength to the view that Apple is /was NANO’s American partner. Link for subscribers:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/analysts-join-dots-to-name-apple-as-costly-nanoco-contract-loss-0cm9d9vt6

Here’s hoping we never have need to feel grateful for 14.5p Nitro. You never know with NANO - so expecting lots more surprises.