Member Info for Nanonano

I recall in the past you have stated that boards like this have no influence, now suddenly they do?

Don't think QD OLED sets were even on sale in 2021. Sales volume low compared with QLED, constrained by production, but still around 400-500k sets for 2022 I believe. They are reported to have five times the amount of dots in them, although noone knows how that would work out in royalty, e.g. five times that of QLED or something less.

I believe that LOAM are looking to sell their position out completely. They back off when the share price displays signs of serious weakness, then continue on some positive news.

Was always a risk with such a major holder that if they decide to sell down, it will take the steam out of the share price without buyers willing to mop them up at a premium.

"What are the collective thoughts on the part of the rns that mentions confidentiality
I take it as we will not find out the settlement amount."

Good grief, this was covered by BT in only the last update. No they cannot keep the amount confidential it has to be made public.

Some of the speculation on here is getting ridiculous, posters behaving like they know exactly what's coming, when we have very little to go on.

"A lot of people are guessing and hoping for the £1 to £2.50 a share"

A couple of quid a share should not be an outrageous expectation for a company that should have been taking in £60m a year or more in royalties for their licensed technology. Basing that on £6 per set and 10m sales.

If you look at a company like Qualcomm for instance, they make a royalty on mobile phones that use their modem designs, several dollars per item.

All out the window for now though with no ongoing royalty.

Some of us have been in the share long enough to remember this somewhat controversial RNS, which poured cold water on a rise in the share price at the time. Subsequently we learnt of the Merck and Wah Hong agreements, which sadly didn't bear fruit as expected.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/share-price-movement-opgk3oewlg00kxz.html

There are a probably a few on here who paid the best part of two quid a share for this company back in the day when DOW was due to go online, and really it was only in the days after the Apple contract went south, plus a brief time at the start of the pandemic when the share price tanked enough for holders to average down, those that had the cash to do so.

Previous cash raises were either high or only available to ii's.

I think it's exceedingly unlikely Hansol are going to be in Nanoco's crosshairs for any action.

It's been suggested that the funders have put pressure on Nanoco for a settlement. That seems to contradict statements made by BT that the company controlled all decisions with regard to the legal proceedings.

I would have considered a loss of earnings to be equivalent to the negotiated royalties Nanoco would have got from Dow, as that facility was built to supply Samsung.

Also bear in mind that the royalty was higher when they had an exclusive agreement, but that only would've applied for the first few months that Samsung's screens were on sale, e.g. up to mid 2016 and the volume of sales was very small.

The elephant in room, is how the industry would have sought to grind out cost as volume increased, so it's anyone's guess what sort of figure they will apply presently and for future sales.

Regarding exaggerated valuations of Nanoco's expected royalties, I believe most if not all were simply being based on sales figures and royalty amounts given by the likes of Nanoco, Edison, Turner Pope etc. then factoring in a multiplier for wilfulness of 1.5 to 3x, I think 2x would have been achievable if it had gone through the process, extracting it from Samsung would have been another matter mind. Blood, stone etc.

When looking at industry expert witnesses their valuations were considerably higher. I for one didn't expect a higher figure for a settlement, but then I didn't expect Samsung to settle at this stage going by past form.

The lack of future royalty has been a surprise, and I think that is the number one factor that I keep returning to, as it makes the company difficult to value as a future revenue generator.

A healthy contract (or two) for sensors would certainly help address that, but we're not quite there yet, although hopefully not very far.

"Assume 10m units annually for dismal 5 years @ $8 = $80m"

$400m surely?

Plus $320m for past years, $720m less funders and legal costs tax etc.

I think the most fundamental detail is how the parties will arrive at a figure for projected sales volume within the future lifespan of the patents, and also for how many years they apply.

Also would like to know how much royalty is applied to 2nd gen technology like QD OLED or other displays which may use QD colour filters in the future years e.g. nanorod or microled display etc.

We have been given a glance at what Edison and Turner Pope think for QLED (enhanced LCD) display, but they use a lot less dots.

That would give investors a clearer picture of how things break down. Might not be possible to give such detail yet, as it's probably still being thrashed out, but would hope to see something like that before the deal is done.

"Eventually you get dividends or you can use them as security."

Not all companies pay out dividends, although I do appreciate there are alternatives to offering such.

I do wonder for the future of Nanoco as a growing company, and I have had those concerns for a while now. I don't think they ever really wanted to be anything beyond an R&D outfit, but they've had to reduce R&D or abandon it altogether (life sciences?) and in the process lost a lot of very good staff over the past couple of years, many of whom have gone on to work for competitors like Q.S Ltd. Although a smaller company than Nanoco, they're expanding rapidly and have a headcount that almost matches Nanoco.

Does anyone here believe that Samsung haven't used their influence to frustrate third party efforts by Nanoco to commercialise their tech with other companies, and will simply roll over now they have done a deal?

I appreciate there is talk of renewed interest in display, but how many times have we heard that before, and it comes to nowt. Samsung have the QD market close to sewn up.

You want to sell them eventually, otherwise what's the point?

For me the devil in the detail is the future of sales may be grossly underestimated, or possibly over estimated- I'd like to wager which way that would play with a bunch of twisters like Samsung.

How will they calculate the future sales volume?

For me the most concerning part of the RNS is ambiguity about the future royalty payments, or lack thereof. The QD display market has only really began to scale in the last year or two and will grow exponentially in the coming years IMO, especially with the QD OLED screens.

I personally wasn't expecting billions on a settlement, but would have hoped for a recurring royalty within the life of the patents, which is more valuable IMO.

However perhaps that will form part of a separate negotiation?

Decent revenue from Sensor IR materials is probably at least three years away, and that is assuming rivals like Quantum Science Ltd, who are looking like strong competitors in this sector don't come along and eat Nano's lunch.

I could be wrong about this, but I seem to recall that sets using QD colour filters- so that applies to QD OLED- would have to be cadmium free to comply with present legislation as a consequence of the volume of dots required, at least for European markets.

If that's the case then it will be interesting to see what TCL will do with their forthcoming QD OLED sets, unless of course they are sourcing screens from Samsung like Sony, Dell etc.

I prefer to wait and see what the official line is. I don't think we'll have too long to wait until we find out.

It may exceed or disappoint expectations.