Member Info for Maxi19

Yep in the EGM presentation they said 2025 validation, 2026 orders. Obviously that timeline could get delayed.

Yes, they are described as a chemical company, although if you look back at the RNSs on at least one occasion the customer is referred to as an electronics company or something like that (sorry, don't have the time to dig it out), which makes me wonder (and this is pure speculation) whether the customer is a subsidiary company of Sony which is involved only in chemical operations, and Nanoco have been instructed to refer to them as bring a chemical company to maximize confidentiality.

Nanonano, thanks for that. Regarding Shin-Etsu, I've said before that I reckon the Asian customer is either Sony or a supplier to Sony, only because Sony have produced InGaas SWIR sensors for industrial applications and it would make sense for them to develop SWIR sensors for consumer applications.

Did anyone pick up on Apple being granted this patent back in March?

https://www.patentlyapple.com/2023/03/an-apple-patent-reveals-a-new-approach-to-implementing-face-touch-and-iris-id-sensors-under-future-device-displays-more.html

Thanks Nanonano.

Yes, there will be an analyst webcast but there have been very few decent questions asked in those recently.

Are the directors skipping an Investor Meets presentation for these results? Normally they would have announced one by now, particularly as it would probably be held in a week's time.

If so I find that completely unacceptable. BT got a battering in the questions last time around but the increased transparency was really helpful.

Nanonano, how did you come to that conclusion on the QE of lead sulphide over InAs?

Respectfully Nanonano I don't find that particularly persuasive. Firstly would STMicro really have pursued developing a material that had serious ESG concerns? Secondly the amount of lead sulphide in the sensor is tiny is it not?

Very sceptical of the idea we could supply Samsung with QDs.

More likely our sensor materials could end up in their phones. STMicro and Samsung have worked together in the past.

The board had said they expect to return 10-12p per share assuming a conversation rate of 1.25. Now that we've hedged to 1.22 we're better off than that assumption by about £1.5m so I don't see why they shouldn't return the higher end of the range.

It's true we spaffed loads of money on legal and admin expenses for the EGM, but I'd be surprised if those exceeded £750k.

I share your frustration bro.

I'd say it's more likely Samsung couldn't care less about which patents they got, so long as they got a decent number that they could argue were worth $75m collectively. Nanoco in turn may have got taxed on them under the patent box regime at the 10% rate making it a win win. All.speculation though.

Ddubya, this argument that the CFQD only returned net £4m relies on the assumption that the patents that were sold were genuinely worth $75m. Which they almost certainly weren't. I don't know why we sold patents, probably for tax reasons for both Nanoco and Samsung.

Sorry Carlos what do you mean?

Does anyone think our old friend Tariq Hamoodi might be deliberately depressing the share price by making frequent sells in the hope the shareholders will reconsider voting out the board?

My guess is that he isn't, but given the trading volumes and the amount of his shareholding it wouldn't be difficult to achieve.

Unless you want the whole of the return of capital to be a dividend that you don't reinvest then it surely makes sense to hope that the share price stays depressed so that any tender offer or buyback increases your % holding by a greater amount?

My expectation is that the board will do a tender offer with the remainder distributed as a dividend. There's an incentive for the directors to do a tender/offer buyback as it means the share price won't decrease (as it would with a dividend) and their share options therefore retain their value.

It's a bit above my pay grade, but it's possible that any dividend would be considered a distribution of capital rather than profits, so that it would be subject to CGT rather than dividend tax rates. That's very much a guess though.

It's remarkable how little interest this share has right now. The trading levels are so low. I'm not sure news of the materials being validated or even a low volume order of e.g. £1m would lift the share price much seeing as all our RNSs have said orders are expected by the end of 2023. It will take a big order or rumours of being in an Apple product to create a break out moment.

Any potential new investor today would likely look at the settlement disappointment, the Apple disappointment and the TH debacle and run a mile.

You're right though that if large sensor orders ever do materialise the share price today will look outrageously cheap. All the more so if it remains low by the time capital is returned in February.

I think it's very likely that the Asian customer is Sony, or has Sony as its main customer.

Sony is the only chip maker for the consumer market that has released SWIR sensors, albeit InGaas ones for industrial applications. Would be surprising if they didn't want to start SWIR sensors for consumer applications, particularly with STMicro entering that market.

It's an asset sale. Liabilities don't transfer on asset sales, they remain with the company.

The Nanosys shareholders will likely distribute the cash and wind up the company asap.

That said, maybe Nanosys didn't have enough cash to make it worthwhile suing. Whereas Shoei certainly will and will be liable for all infringement going forward.

There goes our chance of suing Nanosys for past infringement.