Member Info for ddubya

The next financial statement really needs to be better than the last ! A positive trading statement would be very welcome, perhaps detailing an up front development payment, as you suggest NigWit?

Hello NigWit - Good evening and I hope you are well. Without knowing how much R&D is required, could the milestone and success payments not still be some way out from here and probably well after first delivery of the first IR Nanoparticles? I would prefer it not to be jam tomorrow but I suspect it may be - nevertheless most welcome when it does arrive. I would also like to add a thank you for your research, perspective and genuine hard work on this board - I am certain others feel the same.

Very likely to be the case Basscadet, although I would hazard a guess that Nanosys is one of that number. If we think back to CES 2018, Jason Hartlove was unusually downbeat in his interview and NANO representatives very upbeat. It seems possible the initial deal was done around that time?

Investing in NANO for longer term R&D is a real demonstration of confidence. Bigger than simply LIDAR/infra red it would seem. There may be limited benefit in terms of income short term but our future looks more assured despite the display drag. My own holding has surfaced again and well done to all for hanging on in. Better times ahead!

The article below answers my own question in part. More data from Sarepta not due until Jan 2019, well after Ezutromid PIII results should be known. I see also that Pfizer is entering the fray for DMD, having dosed its first patient in a PI trial. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4163332-pfizers-dmd-drug-spell-long-term-trouble-sarepta

I also consider that a possibility Del77, most particularly because a successful Ezutromid has potential to significantly disrupt the income Sarepta currently receives in the USA from Eteplirsen (Exondys 51). There are also other options, potentially more attractive to SUMM, including licensing post FDA approval when Summit�s hand would be strongest. My feeling is that GE�s key objective is sufficient operating profit to fully fund SUMM�s pipeline products and an arrangement along the above lines may have considerable attraction. Incidentally, does anyone have any information on whether Exondys 51 has demonstrated efficacy in boys since being licensed for use by the FDA? According to the following link, to Muscular Dystrophy News Today, E51 is safe in infants. After such an extended period, I would have thought there may be more news on efficacy rather than snippets re tolerance in infants � I have seen nothing at all convincing from Sarepta yet. And, if E51 does not demonstrate efficacy, both Sarepta and FDA are likely to have egg on their faces. https://musculardystrophynews.com/2018/04/18/aan2018-exondys-51-safe-well-tolerated-dmd-infant-study/

Hi Basscadet - There were questions asked (around four) and I tried to link the answers into the relevant parts of my note.

I stole some time from my working day to listen and am back to the grind so apologies for not replying sooner. Whilst the financials in terms of revenue cane as a bit of a disappointment to me, I did gain the sense that ME is genuinely enthusiastic about the immediate and future prospects. I shall be retaining my holding but more patience needed I am afraid. Hopeful that we have turned a corner though (this time!). Back to work again

A dump of comment/thoughts rom this mornings interims. Contracts being won and commercialisation is getting there. ME really excited about momentum the business is gathering and the large number of QD uses, not just in display and lighting and other nano-particle channels and new nano materials area. Worked hard at reducing costs in 2017 R&D costs down £2.6m pa down. 77 people and growing again of which 50 have a PHD. Over 600 patent applications. American partner: Solar is no longer for sale as NANO has discovered their IP and materials in the Infra-red sector are highly relevant, including to the new American partnership, which is in the infra-red space and machine to machine interaction (using sensors). Have beaten a number of companies bidding for the contract. Down to our ability to deliver to specifications within a very aggressive timescale. ME is excited about the explosive growth potential in this area and expect to be selling at end of this year. There will be an exclusive period offered to the partner, which suggests NANO IP is in play. Display: Design and capability to volume produce. Merck has been buying from NANO and selling QD in their filters. AUO is the main display panel maker relationship supplying many other brands. Long lead time to tune the QD to the manufacturer’s display (and a big learning experience), often with changing requirements from them – 12 month lead in time. Currently printing film for TV but emissive filters are 2 to 4 years away with the QD printed on the screen. Several ways to deliver this solution. Electroluminescence is 4 years away. Growing Turf: hope to have some lights in Qatar World Cup. Vertical agriculture to create the ideal growing area. With cress, growth quality is better than Philips 50 % faster, less electricity the and taste can be controlled. Hope to grow food near where it is used – no transport costs to reduce waste. Expects to grow in next year. Care ware: working with the professional trainer market Chicago Cubs to use its product for injuries etc. Life sciences: Continue to work with UCL. At times ME sounded tired and appeared to be yawning, so I suspect he has been working long into the night. Revenue: Revenue in period £300K lower than previous reports Loss of £4.2m £8.7m cash (on back of November fund raise)

That’s good to hear NigWit. And I always suspected you might be a John Lewis shopper! Good taste.

Thanks for sharing Eskers - economical yet insightful with you posts as ever. QD for screens delivered in May 2018 would have been shipped at the tail of last year or early in 2018, so assuming these are NANO QD, I imagine too late for visibility in the interims - very welcome nevertheless.

Basscadet - I would like to think we would receive some positive financial news and possibly a partner update at (or just before) the interims. On the latter point I suspect shall need to continue holding our breath but I am slightly more hopeful of the former. As you suggest the conjecture will run until concrete news of Who/What emerges. Whatever, there is tension and expectation building ahead of the Interims!

Good evening Basscadet. It is entirely possible the American partner has sought and been offered exclusivity over the novel nano-particle and NANO IP. It is also possible that NANO is simply the manufacturer of choice for a partners IP but either possibility could be very good news. If the novel particle is not a standard QD, as most here suggest, NANO is most unlikely to restrict options over existing or future QD products. The QD and variations thereof have many uses and NANO will have access to most with protection via existing and any new patents.

We could all use some fun whilst we wait on the price action BBD. Regrettably, I am unable to enlighten the board on the properties of a novel nano-particle but I do tend to take MEs word they will appear in advanced sensors. I also suspect this is only part of the story to keep all guessing. I agree there are dangers of over dependence on a single partner but ME no doubt has the Dow experience in mind. If we can reach break in the next 12 months (?) I shall have no concern over which order QD and particles appear in products � I have been averaging down for 5 years in the stubborn belief we have a quality and scalable solution that will one day be very profitable over multiple uses. Hopefully, the real fun starts soon?

If you are responding to my comment BBD - I have no idea what point(s) you are trying to make?

Use in automotive sensors such as LIDAR is the stated lea application for NANOs novel nanoparticles. However, continued silence over the American partner would suggest there is considerable commercial sensitivity here and there could be further reveals ahead in terms of product. ME said materials could be deployed in a range of technologies, including (but not only) advanced sensors. It would be no surprise if we later learned this is a little smoke and mirrors and the main event is something other than sensors, and potentially even more lucrative too?

Under the licensee model Runcorn was simply the lab from which to prove concept. Of course, as you indicate, the model changed and as manufacturer and supplier of QD, profit on sales would be significantly enhanced over the licensee channel, possibly by a factor of between 3 to 5. Has current production at 3000kg pa been confirmed, or is this a best guess number? If anywhere near that level, operational surplus would be very close. So hoping we shall gain further insight in next weeks interim report.

Capital at 5% plus costs seems very reasonable, although I am a little surprised the stated lead purpose is to (part) fund a placebo trial for Ezutromid, when most are agreed it would be unfair to the boys involved, and there remain prospects for accelerated approval. Difficult to argue it is not necessary to hold capital in case a traditional P3 is required and other purposes are stated, but I wonder whether it is more likely funds it will ultimately fill a different gap, perhaps to develop product from the Discuva acquisition or simply to replace consideration for that deal - content whichever way. Unfortunately, down by an amount commensurate to dilution on NASDAQ at time of writing, so would not be surprised if the UK follows tomorrow.

Thank you NigWit - as you say, plenty of space for several players in the display segment and NANO would do very nicely with a modest share. I remember the Korean Times article well, when my holding was worth well over a pound per share but never mind, normal service may be resumed shortly!

I am rather hoping the view that Nanosys owns no CFQD patents is true, as otherwise, I find Jason Hartlove convincing and Nanosys a very credible force. On Samsung, they suggested it was Dow�s pursuit of unrealistic prices that ruled NANO QD out and others that Hansol was always their choice of QD, since it is family controlled. We may never know the truth but my sense is that Dow has not been fully behind NANO either, until recently. My guess is it has upped its game in response to the reality that NANO established a foothold in display via Wah Hong film. I agree with your sentiment on Samsung NigWit but do suspect it applies elsewhere too. Had NANO failed, I feel certain Dow and Samsung would have been first in line to purchase discounted IP. Moving to non-exclusive arrangements was key to our current position - moving closer to an operational profit and realising QD potential in multiple applications - what a journey and it has only just begun!