Member Info for Maxi19

I think TH reacted to the disappointment of the settlement and probably the embarrassment of his inaccurate advice to his funds/clients that he created this extreme narrative to explain away his error. Some personality types just do that.

That said, the scrutiny it has put on the board has been helpful in eliciting more information so it hasn't been a pointless exercise.

Positives:

1. It was good to hear from Chris Richards and Nigel Pickett. They both came across well. Unfortunately Brian Tenner sounds like a broken man, such a contrast to his performances last year.

2. The additional slides with the infringement heat map and the timeline of materials were great. You can download the presentation from the investor Meet website.

3. The board put to bed various mistruths, e.g. the Epstein fee and the Pickett's resignation.

4. Generally, I am persuaded that the commercial orders are near.

Negatives:

1. I don't accept this narrative that disclosing the damages models would have prejudiced the settlement offers. That's not to say the board had some nefarious reason for not doing so, but by giving shareholders a nasty surprise they've done so much damage.

2. I speculated before that we might het into the iphone 15 so clearly there's no chance of that this year, I was wrong. But I was disappointed by all the focus on the SWIR material. Yes, SWIR technology isn't going to penetrate phones until 2025/26, that's clear, but NIR sensors without QDs are already in phones. Could we get into those?

3. I'd like to get a bit more info about the other customers apart from the European and Asian customers, in terms of what they sell and the markets they're in.

I suspect the board have received more information from STMicro than they've disclosed to date about potential orders which could count as inside information. Which could explain why they haven't bought shares

Sorry one error, release date was 16 May 2023 as per page 3 of the documentation PDF.

This is exciting. I think STMicro may have "released" the first QD sensor on 1 May which contains our NIR material.

I think it is the VD55G1, link: https://www.st.com/en/imaging-and-photonics-solutions/vd55g1.html

Why do I think it has our QDs?

1 Jonathan Steckel in his Epic talk (link below) says at 47:55 that the first commercial use will have a 2.2m pixel pitch. This one has 2.16m so basically the same.

https://www.youtube.com/live/KHkfTTaQF9I?feature=share

2. The sensor has "High optical performance: QE peak >=90% and MTF 940nm at 55%". Now look at the left hand graph at 49:30 of the Steckel talk and look at the blue NIR QD line. It is consistent with those numbers. In fact, the Si GS doesn't come close so it can't be a really good non-QD sensor.

3. The documentation stresses the "very low power consumption" of the sensor. This is one of the well known benefits of QDs.

4. The release date of 1 May is consistent with the final validation in FY23.

Any thoughts? If I'm correct we now just have to wait for the orders to roll in.

Can someone more knowledgeable on the tech answer this question.

The circular talks only about production of the SWIR material and says it's not likely to be in high volume applications like phones for 2-3 years.

But it doesn't talk about the NIR material, which potentially could replace current NIR sensors in Face ID systems. Should we be expecting SWIR orders before NIR orders? Is there no real demand/need for NIR sensors with QDs?

At least the circular confirms orders are still expected by end of 2023, which is encouraging.

Https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/investors/documents/

It looks pretty desperate at first glance.

Everyone is still viewing the EGM in a binary way i.e. keep the board or replace the board.

As I've said several times, if you vote against all the resolutions except for removing BT and CR you will (I) protect the business and (ii) send a message to the directors responsible for the dissatisfaction.

At the very least vote to remove CR who is a non-exec.

NGR, please explain how the board could be replaced and the cash still wouldn't belong to shareholders.

The RNS is completely misleading. It suggests the new board could siphon off the Samsung cash to themselves. Absolute BS.

Brilliant.

The board have decided to try and scare the sh*t out of shareholders rather than and present a positive image of their talents.

"Protect your CASH"! Who wrote this? Pathetic.

Vote to remove BT and CR.

There are two ways the board can respond to calling the EGM. They can either present a positive picture of their own talents and explain how they are best placed to help the company succeed.

Or they can try and scare shareholders into voting against the resolutions by suggesting any new directors would harm our prospects.

I hope they opt for the former option.

Perhaps they think "little old nano" could be much better. As I say I'm not voting for them but they're not nobodies.

As much as I'm not in favour of a wholesale replacement of the board, the proposed new directors have actually got more impressive CVs than our lot.

I'm not going to vote in favour of them, but I wouldn't recommend voting against the resolutions to remove the board if you're dissatisfied with their conduct.

There are 12 resolutions: 1 each to remove a director and 1 each to appoint a director. You can vote against some resolutions and for others.

TwoGood2Die, I respect your opinion and agree with a lot of that.

I won't be voting for all the resolutions but will vote to remove BT and CR, not because I think there will be enough votes but because it will send them a message that their conduct post-settlement has been unacceptable.

Next Monday or Tuesday we'll see an RNS calling the EGM (that is unless the board try a legal manoeuvre, which would be completely dumb).

We should be prepared for more obfuscation from BT and CR. Don't buy it. As I've said before, shareholders should vote to remove them both at the EGM (personally I won't vote for the other resolutions).

Put it another way, the board knew full well having looked at these boards and at analyst predictions that shareholders were expecting far higher, but they did nothing to dampen expectations.

If you're prepared to defend that then fine.

For me, it's not so much the settlement amount but the conduct of BT and CR afterwards which has been defensive and opaque.

NGR you make it sound as if the settlement was a lucky dip and we just happened to get a low amount.

No, people wanted a higher amount because that's what the board had led investors to believe would happen. Everyone was prepared to go to trial and lose.

NGR you say that but it is the role of the board to set realistic expectations. Evidently the settlement amount was way below what the majority of investors were expecting.

The fact that the market cap is below Feb 24 cash when we (apparently) could get commercial production orders and future licensing revenue is largely the fault of the board, for not only raising expectations too high but failing to persuade investors that nothing shady happened around the settlement.

It's why shareholders should vote to remove BT and CR if they aren't prepared to be more transparent.