Member Info for Nanonano

I’m thinking perhaps material B is InAs , bearing in mind the following job advert at STMicro-

https://stcareers.talent-soft.com/job/job-cifre-modeling-of-the-optoelectronic-properties-of-colloidal-inas-based-core-shell-quantum-dots-m-f_20606.aspx

The most compelling aspect of B and C materials is that they use Nanoco's patented technology, unlike material A.

The one concern I have with the sensor materials is Quantum Science Ltd.They have employed three prominent ex-nanoco scientists and seem to be establishing themselves rapidly in the industry.

It remains to be seen if QS will be able to match the hype, and/or require a license if they wish or are capable of producing QD's at scale, or if they have found a way to make them without infringing Nanoco's patents.

Reading between the lines, I think the industry wants a lead free solution for handsets, and will remain with NIR until the nut is cracked. Hence that may be why the majority of the engagements are for Nanoco's material B, which we don't know the composition of, but I would wager it is free of toxic metals. That is unlikely to come to market before 2024 or probably 2025 which would align with Yole's view that QD Swir sensor technology will remain low volume in the consumer sector until then.

Let's hope this doesn't impact Nanoco's timeline.

https://appuals.com/apple-ar-headset-delayed/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7O6Qt9fz8&t=65s

I'd be taking a bigger haircut than that if I sold, to say it's been a very poor investment would be understatement.

I'm inclined to wait and see what they have to say, however feeble it might be. I always thought that the graphene enhanced paint would be the killer product for the company, but it seems the big paint companies aren't biting, or perhaps they just sit back and watch the company collapse into administration then pick up the IP for a low price?

Perhaps ask the company, assuming you are a shareholder?

It'll be a crying shame if this company folds or is bought out for a song, because I think they were so close to wider scale adoption, with good products with the right accreditations with the Genable range.

No idea, but it's a brave (or foolish?) to trade this share at a time when the company is so close to major inflection points.

Would this not be postponed until the strategic review is concluded?

Seems Nanoco are continuing to recruit for more positions on their website.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/careers/vacancies/

If they're shooting for Monday, they're certainly leaving it to last knocking to notify.
Perhaps January more likely?

This chap seems to have been working with STMicro and SWIR wavelengths mentioned.

https://harvestimaging.com/forum_introduction_2023_new.php

It’s been suggested that LOAM may be using gains in Nanoco to offset losses elsewhere. That would make some sense, bearing in mind the current turmoil in markets and the fact that LOAM have been a fairly steady holder over the past three or four years.

Looks like possibly LOAM are continuing to sell down, taking the steam out of the recent rise.

So long as Nanoco get their rightful slice of the cake….. eventually.

Investing in any company focusing on graphene remains a huge risk at present, as I think there will business will be squeezed for the next couple of years, if it even recovers by then.

Haydale have certainly got more cash than many in the sector, and they have some diversification with their Silicon Carbide business, but their costs are high, and it won't take long to burn through the last fund raise, especially with the cost of keeping things ticking over at present. They could easily end up in the same unenviable position as AGM within a year or two from now.

Even if Samsung drag it out, a court win would put some meat on the bones, and give the market a strong idea of Nanoco’s true worth. That in itself should justify a strong rerate. Coupled with organic growth in sensors I’m positive about a much better 2023 than this year, which has in itself been pivotal for the company with the ptab ruling and further engagement with the IR nano materials, but perhaps not quite as pivotal as investors hoped with the court case postponement.

I recall Alan Bond of Reaction Engines was blocked from seeking external funding/resources beyond the UK for his original HOTOL project, as they slapped the official secrets act on the precooled engine design. Trouble was at the same time the government refused to finance him too, so he ended up in limbo, until they lifted the restrictions.

If AGM is unable to sell its IP to a foreign buyer from a security perspective- assuming that's an option being considered- it will be interesting to see what happens next.

Fortunately some of my other investments are performing somewhat better and may offset against losses here, as sadly I can't see how AGM have any real future.

Many other graphene companies have managed to maintain a more robust pipeline of sales through the pandemic. Covid 19 is undoubtedly a factor, but I think there are broader issues, either with the product itself, or perhaps the way it has been marketed by the team.

Income has always remained miniscule in regards to running costs.