Member Info for ddubya

Would depend upon the detail of the contract, which we are unlikely to have knowledge of any time soon. The exclusivity period was mentioned in the webcast conversation at the last Interim update, and no reason to presume the obligation will fall away in absence of a PO, unless we are advised otherwise.

The Runcorn unit will of course not be knocked down, but any product manufactured cannot be sold to anyone other than the American partner for two years (and we know that is not happening) NANO will still incur all overheads in that two year exclusivity window too??

We seem to agree the two RNS are confusing. Too many weasel words and attempts to be clever in RNS these days for my liking. They should be a means to communicate relevant information to the market these seem to have become a channel to obfuscate.

I have a feeling that NANO has been used as a relatively cheap hedge and in the fullness of time we shall learn that either the nano-particle has been usurped by new tech, or as others have suggested, a cheap bid is in the offing, most probably close to the point that cash is very low and NANO is no longer a going concern.

There has been discussion here and elsewhere to effect that only the extended contract has been cancelled, the suggestion being that the nano-particle deal remains on the table. However, my first and subsequent readings of the (unclear) RNS suggest the whole 'project' has been binned, leaving NANO with a new production facility but no market for product. Additionally, if there were extension to the RoHS timetable, or even a 12 month grace period there will be a new round of pain and set back.

If there is a sound rationale for a more positive outlook, I would be grateful to hear it.

You are right BtB - I should not have had a pop at Nig Wit but in the circumstances could not resist.

For your part chin up, you have made some really good callls over NANO and remain in good company with many underwater friends. I shall buy you a beer when this is all history.

Sensible observations on Bondholders Well well - at least in this case PI cannot be diluted out of existence.

So disappointing that yet another relationship is stillborn. We are back at square one, looking for new markets and so we can expect it to take years before we have commercialised.

I suspect this might be the right time for ME to step down. Not that it is all his fault enrirely but he needs to accept responsibility.

Not that it matters but I bet NigWit is feeling more than a little foolish this morning (and not in profit either).

Me neither. Might be nothing - but then again could be.

OK. Does anyone know what, if anything is up, apart from the share price this morning?

Having been at the end of NigWit’s ‘over reaction’ a couple or more times, I know exactly what you mean T. There needs to be room to listen to other points of view. If others were not in alignment with NigWit’s, a round of virtual fisticuffs often followed.

Nanonano. Absolutely agree, more than one Display supplier provides competition and an Insurance policy to boot. Room for more than one but it would be nice if NANO were the primary supplier. Of course, we are led to believe that the American partner’s focus is something other than display (sensors). If Nanosys is fixated on Display that might explain the partners choice? ME did say they were drawn to NANO’s technical expertise at the time, which might suggest NANO’s University research background is paying dividends in that line at least.

I suspect that for NigWit it is more about desire to be acknowledged as a good researcher than it is to ramp. Cannot be certain. I am more confident he spends more time on the internet and posting than he does designing retail outlets.

On RoHS I suspect the EC is not bound to report by a fixed timescale and can flex as it sees fit, although I seem to recollect seeing someone suggest the report is due by end June?

There is no doubt that NigWit brings real entertainment value to any Board, as well as some interesting information.

I think Feeks is spot on with the confirmation bias comment. Ultimately, I also believe NigWit will be right on Display, if not for mostly right reasons. The RoHS exchanges in favour of extension confirms the cost sensitivity argument is the focus of some OEM. If the EC has any gumption it will see the way forward is to enforce the ban and create a market for CF. Reduced costs will follow.

Delay favours NANOSYS because it already supplies OEM and can continue to both supply and develop.

Lol T. NigWit is one of life’s character but so far he has not laid claim to Medium as one of his skill sets.

NigWit was posting on the other side as recently as the 29th.

Thanks for re-posting the IC article Troublesome.

There was discussion around repayment of a loan over on the other board jplay, although to best of my knowledge that is here-say rather than fact. If we do take the reason for sale at face value, it still feels less than convincing to me. The only time ME purchased shares in recent years to my knowledge was at 18p, the all time low. He has also exercised particularly good judgement when timing the sale of shares.

That’s the statement of explanation provided and logic suggests it should be a true statement. I just wonder why, if ME considered the shares hold high latent value in the short term, he did not plump for an alternative such as refinance using historically low interest rates?

I think you are saying the American partnership alone has potential to achieve the Broker’s forecasts BtB.
Quite possibly so and a separate display factor is in play too. The outcome of ongoing lobbying in favour of extension and/or grace period for RoHS would provide significant uplift in value if the EC to declined to extend further (as they should).

The other side of the argument is that ME has weighed up the risks and determined to sell two thirds of his holding. Other directors have either bought in or sold much more modest stakes - so it is about as clear as mud to me at the moment. Let’s hope the EC does us a favour and the Americans place a PO.

By a measure of QY NANO may be behind Hansol in respect of energy efficiency? It would be interesting and helpful to also hear ME or another NANO representative’s interpretation, including how ME reconciles this and other technical measures against the claim of having the “best” dots.

Agree Amerloque. Nanjing would have become aware of RoHS not too many years after start up. I suppose it doesn’t suit firms that have been slow to respond or hoped it would not happen to protest as long as possible. Hopefully the EC will not be swayed but I fear a grace period would provide it to claim a win, without changing anything in the short term.

Assuming that NANO CFQD are up to the job, there does not seem to be any reason for the EC to further extend the exception. Dow DuPont should have capacity to supply. The worry is the absence of evidence in OEM desire to switch, whilst in parallel, ME has taken two steps back.

I would be interested to learn what the additional unit cost (£) might be for a CF panel over the cadmium alternative, which might add some perspective. Anyone got an idea?

If expiry of the RoHS exemption had been viewed as a certainty by the OEMs then you might think there would have been greater take up of CF film by this point in time. They might just be performing some just in time management but the alternative could be that OEM are quietly confident of shifting the EC viewpoint. One view might be that 110kg per annum does not sound like a huge amount of potential contamination waste. Then again this contamination is highly carcinogenic and in tiny particles that can spread across the whole ecosystem.

What might be relevant is OEM access to suitable CFQD. If Hansol will not share, that leaves only NANO as a potential volume supplier does it not? If our CFQD are either not quite to spec or are too costly, the squirming is more understandable but may not be enough to convince the EC?

My money is on a fudge with EC setting a grace period to continue using current QD.