Member Info for Maxi19

My point was that big companies are no less likely to want a return on R&D spend than smaller companies.

Obviously they have plenty of failed products (and I bet those are just ones of hundreds) but the idea that they won't be bothered about writing off a project isn't correct.

I've done work for Apple before, and trust me they set strict budgets like it's going out of fashion.

Just because ST spend loads of money on R&D doesn't mean they're more likely to write some of it off.

Ok fine.

Separately, does anyone know what the NIR material could be used for in a mobile phone? The SWIR can obviously be used for under display biometrics, but not clear what the NIR would be.

I'm being a bit pedantic but you seemed to suggest that gens 1 and 2 we're almost separate which they aren't.

I don't know whether gen 2 will be more expensive but Nanoco should have more pricing power if they're IP protected.

NGR, I think it's more than gen 2 has more end uses than gen 1 due to being more thermally stable, rather than them having different end uses.

Agreed here too, the likelihood that ST have spent so many years and money on gen 1, only to cancel it after the first production order, is low.

Doubt we'll get the full story on BT's departure. It's possible it's all above board and he just wants a different job, but if he's been pushed the agreement is probably that they'll make it look like his decision.

NGR, you're conflating the merits of the settlement with the subsequent comms.

I fully accept the settlement amount was probably best to accept.

I don't accept the attempts to claim the company had somehow guided it could be that low. It was also, frankly, a stupid strategy when the SP had cratered 50% and seriously dented everyone's pockets.

BT's failure was being so defensive about the settlement and claiming there had been guidance by the company and that the damages models had effectively been disclosed by being discussed on chat boards. If he'd admitted that it had been lower than expected but that recent case law had created more risk than anticipated then he would have received a lot more sympathy than he did.

Nanonano, please let's not jump to conclusions about organic growth. You may be right but we really don't know at this stage.

BT's undoing was simply not acknowledging, let alone apologizing for, the massive share price drop following the Samsung settlement. His attempt to spin (and imo gaslight) his way out of it lost him goodwill among most shareholders.

It's a shame because in the run up to the trial he was very impressive, bullish but not stupidly so. Everything he did afterwards seemed like a desperate attempt to recover momentum, but no-one was buying it. The coup failed only because it was so poorly managed.

Personally I would get rid of Liam Gray too so that we have a completely fresh CEO, CFO and Chairman.

"Good leaver" seems to be pretty narrow on pages 75/76 of the annual report. Death, injury, redundancy, ill health. It says options normally lapse.on cessation of employment. We'll find out I guess.

Also, another positive is that all BT's options will lapse which means about 3% less dilution.

Likely that Tenner was pushed. I don't think he'll be walking into a better job given the share price performance and the attempted boardroom coup. Possible reasons:

1. Bad commercial news (not likely imo as it would have had to be disclosed. Gen 1 probably isn't cancelled, doesn't make sense that it would but could be wrong).

2. New NEDs pushed for change (quite possible given they've recently come on board)

3. Hamoodi law case effects (also quite possible if they're now at the disclosure stage and Nanoco is being forced to reveal that actually yes it did give an indication to LOAM of the settlement range).

4. General poor performance (we don't know what goes on in the company on a day to day basis and perhaps BT was being a bit crap).

Ultimately, it's for the best that he's gone. The SP is way too low and he has to take the responsibility for that. There's little to no trust from shareholders and a new face can correct that.

NGR is a village atheist, explains the anger issues.

ST are right at the beginning of many years if not decades of producing SWIR sensors. It's frustrating that we don't have visibility but a lot of posters are getting carried away.

Why would gen 1 be cancelled after it has got all the way through development and entered volume production? Definitely not the most likely explanation for the delay.

Was it ever revealed what kind of image sensor Apple wanted the dots for? Was it for camera or face ID?

Dialogue could be as much as "Can we expect an order in 30 days?" "No".

Don't see why ST would feel the need to inform Nanoco of everything going on, they're just one of many suppliers.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a good RNS, I just wanted to highlight the connection with the 30 days warning requirement and the timing of the RNS.

I think the company has stated before that customers have to give Nanoco a heads up on when they might place an order. For small volume orders that is 30 days, for medium volume 3 months and for high volume 6 months.

So when ST hadn't given a heads up by 1 July it was concluded they wouldn't place an order by 31 July, hence the disclosure on 2 July. It was therefore probably by ST's omission to give a heads up, rather than them actually saying don't expect an order, that gave reason for Nanoco not to expect an order.

I suspect therefore that Nanoco genuinely had no idea what that lack of an order meant going forward and hadn't been able to discuss it properly by ST.

We'll hopefully get more info by October, but people catastrophising saying gen 1 is dead (including Peel Hunt bizarrely) have nothing to base that on. Perhaps gen 1 is in fact dead (although I consider that v.unlikely) but the only people to know that would be ST.

Yeah seen his profile before. The interesting bit is about him managing several external vendor projects. Highly likely to include Apple given he's in California.

Yes they're single photon SWIR sensors, but they're not image sensors which are entirely different.