Member Info for Nanonano

Sales were pretty slow to begin with as the TV's occupied the premium price sector, which makes lots of profit per set for the company, but they don't sell in high volume. It's in the last couple of years that sales have really ramped, as prices for entry level QLED has dropped well under £/$1000, which is where the majority of sales are to be found.

The 26m is I believe a cumulative Global figure.

e.g. https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/1031959.html

The US market represents more than third, it's closer to half the amount. I'm not sure if it also includes monitor sales, which I'd expect to be lower than TV's but still significant.

The Runcorn capacity has little bearing on royalties for display . The Runcorn facility is set-up for IR sensing materials, not display QD's.

The volume required for display is considerably higher, and the pricing is totally different.

With QLED sales at around 10m sets per year, and QD-OLED at probably around at somewhere around 400000, but potentially scaling up to 1m+ using 4-5 times the dots, assuming the upper end material royalty of $18 that would give an income of around $200m. So a circa $800m valuation of the company would be based on around four times earnings, discounting any revenue from sensor materials etc.

Most of the quotations I've seen are based on the low end figures published by Edison e.g. the $13-18 per set. So I don't consider them to be fantasy.

I still think that future royalties play the biggest role in share price value, whereas most investors posting seem to be focusing on past payments.

I would expect Samsung to try and wring out legal proceedings, regardless of the amount of any award, but investors will have a clearer idea of risk versus reward once a figure has been established, and will place their cash accordingly.

I believe today's RNS has been misinterpreted by some. However some of the blame should be laid at the company door for mixed communications like H2CY2002 and H1FY2023, which mean pretty much the same thing in terms of timeline, but which can be misconstrued as a potential delay in commercialisation.

Share price has hardly cratered has it?

Down a couple of per cent- well boo hoo.

It seems both on here and on the ADVFN board, posters seem fixated on past damages. I'm personally more interested on future payments, as I believe that will largely dictate the value of the company going forwards.

If we take the figure I believe Edison are quoting of around $13-18 per set, with 10m + QLED sets per annum plus up to 1m QD OLED sets which use around five times the dots, you're talking hundreds of millions in potential royalties every year. Any other non-display products on top, and then there is the issue of what tech other QD companies are using to supply other companies.

Was still an untested market back then though.

Most large companies tend to abuse their power, although some are more abusive than others. Samsung are a very large company, so they get away with more. Even if Nanoco win a very large settlement, it’ll be a blip on the radar for Samsung.

Samsung own a sizeable chunk of TCL, so you can’t easily escape their clutches by buying a competitors products.

Henry, I suggest you read my post again. I said I believe a minimum amount the founder would expect on a win would be around $100-150m . Based on 50% of the lower expectation of $250m quoted by Edison for past royalties, that figure could be wildly out of course. Anything above that would perhaps taper down towards 20% of any award.

I figured the backers are expected to be inline for probably a minimum of $100-150m, i recall someone mentioning the legal action is likely to cost around $10-15m, so around 10:1 ratio if Nanoco win.

Someone sold, someone bought.

Strikes me as a bit pointless arguing over semantics.

Guilty, liable etc.

Samsung have been up to no good, they've deprived a company of income for their endeavours, worked hard to pervert justice and hopefully they will be held accountable for their actions shortly.

BT has stated more than once that any potential settlement would need to include global sales and extend for the life of the patents. No conjecture required on that point.

Lie-ability is something Samsung know plenty about.

Just my own opinion, but Nanosys over the last year or two seem to be pivoting more towards a 'display' tech company that also supplies QD's. Could simply be coincidence.

Indeed, how peculiar!

US sales volume of QLED sets was about 14m in 2021 wasn't it? Probably a bit more by now, but going by the 14m figure, a $40 per unit would yield a $560m figure, and $150 per unit $2.1bn. That doesn't take into account new QD-OLED revenue or any sales outside the US, or any future royalties.

Griffiths still continuing to close out his position no doubt.