Member Info for Nanonano

I'm just hypothesizing.

If any manufacturing is later than say the first month or two of 2023, I would have to seriously question its use in an Apple unit if the reported timelines prove to be accurate for their AR device prove accurate.

Perhaps nothing to do with the legal action? Perhaps organic revenue is more likely to be the first driver for a meaningful and underpinned rise. We are getting very close to the end of the year, and visibility of production orders was expected within calendar H22022.

Rumours are strong that Apple's AR/VR headset is likely to be announced this January, so I would expect production to be starting pretty soon if they want them to ship in or before the spring . All this is assuming the unit uses ST Micro's sensors.

If you want to know who is who, they're listed on the website-

https://www.appliedgraphenematerials.com/meet-the-team/

Are any of the publicly traded UK Graphene companies doing well. Will Haydale, VRS etc. go the same way?

I've said before that these companies would perhaps do well to consolidate their technology and operations. Perhaps eventually they'll be forced to do so by market conditions.

Plus at this time especially, we never know when news will drop, so very easy to get caught with your pants down if you’re trading this stock.

RNS up now for the AGM

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/NANOCO-GROUP-PLC-5273194/news/Nanoco-Notice-of-AGM-42285764/

Agreed that Q1 23 is in the slides, and was also mentioned as a possibility, as was Q4 22, but he did not give a final month for sure of when court action would take place. So it's still all a bit uncertain.

I thought he said it could extend into the first half of 2023.

If we factor out Samsung and just focus on potential revenue from sensors, then present share price seems fair, bearing in mind initial business may only be enough to cover costs, but has the potential to quickly scale.

Question remains how much longer a court hearing can be strung out. The fact that Nanoco's placing seems to hop about in the schedule order is a bit confusing for investors. Would have been easier to gauge if the company could say we will be in court by the latest at such and such a date, but could be in before.

Sales of QLED sets are currently selling at about 10m per year. The QD-OLED are about 1m a year with increasing production capacity that is soon to go to 1.5m.

They use around five times the dots. Now I've no idea how any licensing would factor in the QD-OLED sets, e.g. would they five times that of QLED sets, or would it be something a bit higher? Even if we said it was the same, and assumed say $10 per set license, that would push revenue to over $100m per annum for display alone. This doesn't take into any account others who may be infringing Nanoco IP, which it seems Nanosys amongst others could allegedly be doing.

70p would look rather low, no?

Very odd to see the share price sliding back when the company is so close to obtaining a legal validation of its technology via the court case, not to mention any forthcoming organic growth via sensor revenue and possible display engagement.

The wait is frustrating for sure.

Can't find anything to disagree with that analysis.

To me it looks like management pursued a sh*t or bust strategy with hopes of winning a major contract before the cash ran out, either that or they're totally incompetent at running a business.

Sure but there comes a time when you have to transition from R&D to profitable sales. AGM have had a marketable product with their Genable brand for some time now, but sales have been modest to put it mildly. It appears the executive team have pinned all their hopes on a major contract landing in their laps, or that the institutions would maintain faith in the company, and neither seems to be the case.

The senior executives have some explaining to do.

£4m a year in costs and about £100k in sales, total reliance on fund raising which it quickly burns through.

AGM have a very large management team. it appears to me that many roles could be consolidated in sales and marketing under one manager/director, and the same could be said for technical management. Much streamlining required.

AGM always looked to me to have the best product in the Graphene sector, so it's really a shame to see it on the ropes.

Wouldn't be in any rush, a big risk with plenty of room to fall further.

Difficult to see a way out for AGM, and sadly it looks like a complete write off.

From whom are they likely to secure funds in the next ten weeks or so? Clearly ii's were unimpressed with any potential future revenue. Coatings and additives always looked to have so much potential, but it appears by sales figures that wider industry is not convinced.

Not the RNS we've been looking to see.

My suspicions are something has leaked, either a court date or some positive news on the organic side of the business.

QS Ltd. seem to have two different material types- one uses lead sulphide, the other doesn't. Lead sulphide is the material that is ubiquitous and has been in use for years, and seems to have greater quantum efficiency than their lead free alternatives. Three of their senior executives/technical staff are ex-Nanoco, so potential risk for undisclosed IP transfer. No doubt Nanoco are keeping an eye on things. If QS Ltd need to use Nanoco patents to manufacture their IR spectrum materials at scale, they may either quietly take out a license in the future if required, or may well be subject to legal action should they grow big enough to warrant the expense.