Member Info for FlexTrader

Thanks Kooba.

Interesting read.

What stood out to me was the continued move towards cadmium-free quantum dots and the growth expected in sensing, imaging and healthcare.

The opportunity clearly seems to be there. The question for Nanoco has never really been the size of the market.

The question is whether management can finally convert the technology and customer activity into meaningful revenues.

That’s what I will be watching.

TW

Because many shareholders did not see it as a simple £700k cost-saving exercise.

They were being asked to give up a listed market, liquidity, transparency and shareholder protections in return for that saving.

The question wasn't whether reducing costs is sensible. Every shareholder supports sensible cost control.

The question was whether the benefits of delisting outweighed what shareholders were being asked to give up.

Many clearly concluded they did not.

The company still has around £10m of cash, a JDA in scale-up and a second customer relationship that management has spoken positively about.

For many shareholders the priority is now seeing those opportunities converted into meaningful revenues.

That was the debate.

TW

With respect, I think you’re still focusing on the wrong thing.

For the last few weeks we’ve heard about traders, campaigners, bulletin boards, voting groups and now the timing of when shareholders bought their shares.

You seem more interested in speculating about why shareholders voted than accepting the outcome itself.

Whether someone bought shares 10 years ago or 10 days ago is irrelevant. Every share carries the same voting rights.

What I find more interesting is what management itself has been saying.

Over the last week Jalal has posted several times on LinkedIn highlighting:

• The semiconductor market potentially exceeding $1 trillion by 2030

• AI continuing to drive demand for advanced technologies

• Growing investment across the semiconductor sector

• The importance of creating demand and commercial adoption

• Europe strengthening its semiconductor ecosystem through initiatives such as Chips Act 2.0 and Rapidus

Taken together they paint a picture of a sector with significant long-term growth potential which perhaps explains why many shareholders were reluctant to support delisting at this stage for a mere £700k annual saving.

Those are the issues I am interested in.

Not who bought shares last month.

The board asked shareholders a question and did not get the support it needed. That is the only fact we know for certain.

Everything else is speculation.

TW

You continue to frame this as traders versus the board. I see it as shareholders versus the proposal.

The board did not adjourn the meeting because of bulletin board posts, campaigners or traders. The board adjourned the meeting because it concluded the proposal was unlikely to receive the required 75% support.

That means a significant number of shareholders disagreed with the proposal.

What I find curious is the repeated attempt to explain away that disagreement by attributing it to traders, speculation or forum activity. It almost suggests an unwillingness to accept that many genuine shareholders simply reached a different conclusion.

The proposal was not rejected because people disliked the board. It was challenged because shareholders were being asked to give up liquidity, transparency and shareholder protections in return for a £700k annual saving.

You may believe that was the correct trade-off. Many shareholders clearly did not.

That is not a hijack. That is not a campaign. That is not a conspiracy.

It is simply shareholders exercising the rights that come with ownership.

TW

With respect, I think you’re attributing far too much importance to what was written on bulletin boards and not enough importance to what actually happened.

There were undoubtedly rumours, vote estimates and differing opinions over the last few weeks. That is hardly unusual during a contentious corporate event.

However, bulletin board discussions did not determine the outcome. Shareholders did.

The company has now publicly stated that the resolutions were unlikely to achieve the required 75% approval threshold. That conclusion would have been reached through proxy votes received, discussions with major shareholders and direct engagement with the register, not through reading message boards.

Whether some posters correctly predicted institutional support or not is largely irrelevant at this point. The only thing that matters is that sufficient support was not there.

To suggest that the outcome is somehow difficult to interpret because shareholders discussed the proposal across different forums seems odd to me. Shareholders communicating with one another is not evidence of manipulation; it is evidence of engagement.

The reality appears much simpler. A significant number of shareholders were not prepared to support the proposal in its current form, and the board has acknowledged that fact.

That, in my view, is why the meeting has been adjourned.

For those new to the story, I think it’s important not to look at Nanoco in isolation.

If you want to understand where the industry is heading, keep an eye on what companies such as Sony and Sumitomo, along with the wider image sensor and photonics ecosystem are doing around:

• SWIR sensing

• Quantum dot image sensors

• Heavy metal-free materials

• Silicon photonics

• Advanced sensor integration

The common theme across the industry is the search for lower-cost, scalable and CMOS-compatible solutions for next-generation sensing and imaging applications.

I’m not suggesting any commercial relationship with Nanoco but these are precisely the areas where the company has spent years developing its technology and IP.

Sometimes the best way to understand the potential value of a technology is to watch where the wider industry is investing its time and money.

@TW

With respect, I think describing this as being “hijacked by traders” completely misses the point.

The board has just stated that the resolutions were unlikely to achieve the required 75% approval threshold. That is not the result of a few traders posting on bulletin boards. It reflects the views of a significant proportion of the shareholder register.

Many of us are long-term shareholders who invested because of the technology, the IP, the customer progress and the commercial opportunity. We are the owners of the business, not an inconvenience to be removed.

What some appear to forget is that only weeks before the delisting proposal, shareholders were being told about scale-up activity with the first Asian chemical customer, positive progress with a second customer, potential further JDAs, expected FY26 revenues of £11.3m and a path towards becoming a financially sustainable business.

The board is entitled to believe delisting is the right answer. Shareholders are equally entitled to disagree.

The fact that the board has chosen to adjourn rather than proceed tells its own story.

Another possible explanation for the disconnect between the valuation and recent trading is that a legacy holder has been exiting. The last TR-1 showed Nigel Pickett falling below the 3% threshold and, once below that level, further disposals would not necessarily be disclosed. We obviously don’t know whether he is still selling, but if a long-standing holder has been reducing, it could help explain some of the persistent supply seen in the market. If that process is nearing completion, investors may start focusing more on the company’s cash position, JDAs, SWIR opportunity and today’s RNS.

Perhaps TW

However, following Latino's post, I went back and re-read both the January Annual Report and the April Interim Results.

The company itself was talking about scale-up activity with its first Asian chemical customer, positive progress with a second customer, potential further JDAs, expected FY26 revenues of £11.3m and market-leading sensing materials. At the same time, management continued to highlight the long-term opportunity in SWIR sensing, quantum dots and next-generation image sensors, markets which many expect to grow significantly over the coming years.

People may disagree on valuation, but I don't think it's unreasonable for investors to place some weight on management's own statements when assessing the potential value of the business.

@guidfarr

My 950K ... voted against .

The audacity of this honestly beggars belief.

This morning shareholders are told:

• delisting is needed

• liquidity will effectively disappear

• shareholder protections will be reduced

• and the public market no longer works for the company.

Then hours later the company is back on LinkedIn enthusiastically marketing:

• scalable supply

• extended SWIR capability

• future InAs launches

• and ongoing product expansion.

So which is it?

Either the technology and commercial pipeline still have real strategic value, in which case why force long-term shareholders into an illiquid private structure at these levels or they don’t.

The timing and optics today are absolutely staggering.

“Pushing deeper into the SWIR – our HEATWAVE® PbS QDs now enable sensor sensitivity up to 2400 nm.

We have just added a new wavelength to our web shop: PbS QDs with an absorption peak at 2200 nm, providing sensitivity in the extended SWIR.

This is just the first in a series of new materials and wavelengths we're launching over the coming months, including our InAs materials.”

@ MT100. They do not get the shares tomorrow .

Per the April 28th Circular (Page 14/15), the Fundraising remains conditional on:

1. NSIA Clearance (UK Cabinet Office)

2. Italian Regulatory Approval (Golden Power)

The company’s official indicative timetable confirms that 'Admission and commencement of dealings' (when the new supply actually hits the LSE) is not expected until Early June 2026 ('Date D').

May 20th is likely just the internal settlement date for the cash, but no new shares can be traded until the regulatory 'Green Light' is received in June. Useful to keep that distinction in mind for the short-term float.

Interesting that we still haven’t seen any new TR-1 following the steady selling and larger block trades over the last week.

If one of the major disclosed holders had materially reduced, we would likely have seen a filing by now. Therefore, seems the stock may instead be coming from holders sitting below the 3% disclosure level.

Looking at some of the names often shown on shareholder registers , although I’m not entirely sure how accurate this is, there appears to be several holders sitting just below that threshold:

• UBS Asset Management: 4.34m shares (2.38%)

• Raymond James Wealth Management: 4.32m shares (2.37%)

• Union Bancaire Privée: 4.09m shares (2.24%)

• Interactive Brokers Group: 3.80m shares (2.08%)

• Bank Julius Bär: 3.26m shares (1.79%)

• Expedient Finance: 2.10m shares (1.16%)

• BNY Mellon Advisors: 1.86m shares (1.02%)

• Fidelity International: 1.82m shares (1.00%)

I’m in total agreement Alessandro . Today’s RNS confirmed it with a 99% landslide, the market has clearly moved past the dilution worry and is now focused on the MACOM partnership.

@Alessandro — I hear you on the dilution history; it’s been a long road for holders. But the reason the 'Golden Power' and NSIA hurdles exist is because of what IQE owns, not what the share price is.

Even if they’ve diluted 100 times, they still own the keys to the InP/GaN supply chain that MACOM wants. The UK and Italian governments aren't reviewing the 'Resolution' (the vote), they are reviewing the 'Change of Control' under the National Security laws.

It’s less about blocking the money and more about ensuring the tech stays in Western hands. Once they sign off in June, that 'dilution floor' of 19.8p becomes the new foundation. We are on the same page regarding the outcome, just looking at the legal steps to get there.

The resolutions quoted are indeed what was passed at the General Meeting this morning (the authority to issue the shares). However, for anyone looking at the May 20th date, it’s important to distinguish between 'Authority' and 'Admission.'

Per the April 28th Circular (Page 14/15), the Fundraising remains conditional on:

1. NSIA Clearance (UK Cabinet Office)

2. Italian Regulatory Approval (Golden Power)

The company’s official indicative timetable confirms that 'Admission and commencement of dealings' (when the new supply actually hits the LSE) is not expected until Early June 2026 ('Date D').

May 20th is likely just the internal settlement date for the cash, but no new shares can be traded until the regulatory 'Green Light' is received in June. Useful to keep that distinction in mind for the short-term float.

Just to clarify the May 20th date for anyone watching IQE: That is the Settlement Date for the institutional placing (when the cash moves), NOT the Admission Date (when the shares trade).

Per the April 28th RNS and today’s successful vote, the new 19.8p shares are still conditional on NSIA Clearance from the UK Government. The official company timetable has 'Admission and commencement of dealings' slated for Early June.

There is no new supply hitting the market next week

The maths on a potential TR-1 is worth watching.

Based on the 195.5m shares in issue, Milkwood’s 8.18% stake only gives them a buffer of roughly 350k–400k shares before crossing below the 8% disclosure threshold.

So if that 1,000,000 share print today at 15:53 was them selling, we should know fairly soon because crossing below that whole percentage point would require disclosure.

If no TR-1 appears, it suggests either:

they were not the seller,

or perhaps more interestingly, someone else was absorbing stock and moving toward a higher threshold themselves.

Either way, with volume at these levels, the “blind spot” for larger holders is becoming quite small. Eventually the tape and the RNS flow will have to reconcile.

That’s a fair comment and I take your point that the underlying sensing/SWIR applications themselves have been discussed by Nanoco for some time.

I was really just looking at whether the market may finally be starting to connect those capabilities to the broader AI and optical hardware themes now developing across the sector, especially given the recent institutional buying activity and renewed interest in the stock after a long period of bearish sentiment on the board.

Yes, but discussing SWIR sensing applications is not the same thing as framing Nanoco within the broader AI optical and photonics infrastructure build-out now happening across the semiconductor sector