Member Info for Kooba

…..yet refuses to spend 10 minutes on publicly available Japanese corporate filings…

Terry’s BS again…when will it ever end??

The Rabbit hole!

Shoei Chemicals Inc

Established April 1956

Capital 480 million yen

Business Performance Fiscal Year Sales

Fiscal Year 2024 (Ended March 2025) 71,010million yen

https://www.shoeichem.co.jp/global/profile/index.html

“Public Disclosure Requirement: Companies with capital of 500 million yen or more or liabilities of 20 billion yen or more must disclose their financial statements.”

So non disclosable will just have to wait 10 minutes for terry to access them,

You should ask Terry he can get it in 10 minutes apparently.

Yes it’s private but is far larger business than some thought

It has turnover of almost $500m a huge patent portfolio with some interesting recent applications.

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/416665-09

Didn’t miss anything on Asian 2 JDA but said it was early days…it is.

Asian customer number one is much further down the road and has already moved to next phase.

Be delighted if they both scaled up production in 2027 but I think it’s best not to count chickens when it’s less than a year in and the financial commitment is so small ..I guess we find out in a few months if they want to progress at the end of the initial one year agreement.

Still waiting for you to prove it would take ten minutes and not be extremely difficult if not impossible task for someone unfamiliar with Japanese or Japanese accounting practise to extrapolate what Shoei paid for Nanosys assets from their filed accounts.

If you cant do it then you have proved me right…again….and once again made comments that are both ignorant and pathetic…again.

Tick tock

Kooba, the relentless critic who demands "transparency" and "commercial proof" from Nanoco, who mocks every JDA as "just R&D" and every settlement as a "pittance"...

Tou have use quotation marks attributed to me…please provide evidence i have said any of that …you are a liar.

you are complete buffoon terry you evidence this every time you post your nonsense .

if you believe folk who have been sceptical and called it right against you all along are permabears…they are not they are just right not wrong.

you evidence nothing and yes your blind faith has been misplaced as is every single take you have. wrong wrong wrong.

the fact i cant be arsed to look up japanese accounts and decipher what they paid for nanosys is really not a thing at all.

if you believe it would take you and your ai crap 10 minutes to prove what was paid by shoei for nanosys assets then go do it and prove how easy it is.

i know it is not that easy because i dont spout total *******s all the time terry ..but go on then i will set the clock…prove it.

you need to wake up ,grow up and admit you have called this totally wrong all along.

Very doubtful they got everything back agree but the last fundraise was not long before the asset sale so that money probably was still in the holding company maybe they got the same again for the assets staff and IP ?

One can probably work it out from Shoei’s japanese accounts but im not going down that rabbit hole.

Agree that is true but we have no idea what the assets and IP sold for , so have no idea what the shareholders got in a return.

But they at least found someone who wanted to buy it!

They certainly had some commercial customers but would appear were still burning cash at point of sale.

Save for litigation proceeds ( which were considerable) Nanoco has only ever received one order deemed commercial and that was likely les than $200k.

Which didnt cover a few weeks burn at the time.

Hopefully things improve but it will take much of the new Executive Chairs time to make this work….does he have the bandwidth?

And clearly with the benefit of hindsight they relied too heavily on a single lead three times which admittedly would have been big if it came off but it didnt ( except in the Samsung case where they got a large one off after years of almost being out of the market focusing on the case) leaving them with no sales and no back up…it was high risk ( risk they didnt see) and left them without any commercial sales.

We now have

Asian customer one where it appears they may be ramping up to product launch 2027/8

Asian customer two …very early days

Multitude of other JDAs being discussed…nothing to report.

So again we are very much reliant on Asian Customer one not doing the same as the previous focus JDAs otherwise we have no leads to revenue growth during current cash runway.

No one seems to want to buy the company or its assets…telling?

We could get something from Shoei but it is unclear what kind of sum could be achieved if they had infringed in the past 2023-2025 and then the prospect of a licence again we may be giving licences for a very short amount of time considering the patent lifetimes?

Much has not gone well and the company hardly moved on from being an academic venture, it has failed over and over to find a market for its products and one has to think Asian Customer One is really their last chance.

I think many companies “big up” their products and are commercially successful ..marketing is important .

Nanosys have been far more commercially successful in finding customers for its wares than Nanoco.

Nanoco tell their shareholders they have superior product and unique IP yet have had virtually no commercial sales in decades of being in business.

I wish Nanoco was better at marketing spin to industry we might have a sustainable business if their marketing and sales approach to customers had been more competent.

Been Reading about the next gen QDs that Nanosys claim to be behind.

- "We're showing BT.2020 quantum dots. There are actually red, green and blue quantum dots. You'll have seen this at TCL's booth. This is what they call SQD, or Super Quantum Dots, this year," Jeff Yurek, Head of Marketing at Nanosys

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1768388916

An interesting piece by AOL of all sources from someone who has clearly been to Shoei/Nanosys new facility.

https://www.aol.com/articles/super-quantum-dots-165600929.html

It sounds like they have refined manufacturing process in production…whether that means a change in seeding that might infringe who knows but they already have a customer in TCL for their wares. Will TCL care if the QDs infringe ..doubtful it will be a change for them to actually have QDs in their range at all…allegedly!

Why are you asking questions you presumably think you have answers for ?

It’s weird, if you think you have evidence that supports your view just post it.

Bit of a crap quiz though tbh.

3. What has the incoming CEO (formerly Chair) achieved in his career?

The former non executive Chair Dr Jalal Bagherli CBE is now the executive Chair and not the CEO.

The new CEO is the previous CFO

No interpretation just facts.

I never saw Dmitry being there for the CDX process , far from it , I saw him there for the operational parallel drive which anyone looking at his CV would realise his experience was in business development , sales and marketing . CDX was already appointed when he joined so that process was in progress. He was there to refocus commercial efforts and came up with a plan made appointments and said there were many leads …only one of which landed ( in a small way) . So I think Dmitry is off not so much because of no bids I think it as much because the commercial business has not progressed either. Him and the CTO leaving will also go some way to cost cutting targeted.

We know Liam is barely able to be CFO so the CEO is really in name only this whole thing now comes down to weather Bagherli can deliver the breakeven point he has referred to in 2027 through the advancement in Asian customer no 1 to a commercial utilisation.

See Terry spouting his usual crap and getting everything wrong as usual ..Nanonano head and shoulders above them in terms of understanding this company and the industry and recent scepticism is being proved right.

Terry and other AI nonsense posters making out this is all some clever plan are simply deluded.

Nanocos action is reactive rather than proactive….they had to get a counter in against Shoei’s action in a very limited timeframe.

Who is calling the shots??

Nanosys have openly said they are producing CFQDs for a decade…why Nanoco have not challenged before may have to do with Nanosys finances in the past but it not that they are pivoting and they were openly applauding the tighter regulations on cadmium , something Nanoco didnt even comment on.

Nanosys has been a pioneer in cadmium-free quantum dot (CFQD) technology, achieving EPA approval for mass production by June 2015. Following this, they launched heavy metal-free solutions, such as their Hyperion Quantum Dots, which have been used in display applications (TVs, tablets) for roughly a decade. ®

Key details:

• Mass Production Start: By mid-2015, Nanosys announced they were producing cadmium-free quantum dots, enabling, for example, TCL to launch UHD TVs using their technology.

If one is ignoring the length of time to get an outcome in the respective jurisdiction EV being far quicker which would be what any manufacturer's with actual customers would want and ignoring the fact that Samsung never made it to court so there was not a judicial outcome it was an agreement out of court. Sure Samsung wouldnt have settled for what they did unless they thought there was far greater risk of a far larger award in court with ongoing royalty payments and they would lose and appeals wouldn't fix it.

Ignoring the potential that Nanosys might just be operating without infringement and are keen to prove it.

That is true but if you are in weak position do you start a fight?

Maybe their customers insisted on clarification and they have been forced into this action..high stakes for them but excellent for Nanoco if they indeed are the only one able to produce CFQD’s in scale except those covered by a licence, even if some key IP doesnt have long to run.