Member Info for Nanonano

Plenty of scope to drop further.

If you’re up for buying seven thousand vials or more, that should move the needle.

Not with those wavelengths.

Https://shop.nanocotechnologies.com/

No idea on what price they got for the sale, but doubtful they got back the $267m raised in the 18 funding rounds from 2001-22.

Nanosys were still relying on large cash injection right up until they were purchased by Shoei, so that begs the question how well they were really doing commercially.

Or might simply be marketing spin- Nanosys are good at that.

Having a saleable product that others wish to buy is a strong indicator of success for most companies. Something conspicuous in its absence with Nanoco.

If we look at the organic business, none of the CEO's have succeeded to date because none have established any serious income from material sales.

At this point probably the best outcome for Nanoco if they can secure a win against Shoei is to agree a sale of the IP, if they lose, not sure that bears thinking about if you're invested.

I believe the ship sailed a long time ago when it comes to becoming a serious supplier of materials.

If a company is on the tipping point of success, CEO's do not jump ship and co-founders do not take early retirement.

CDX was a long shot, the last time they tried it was unsuccessful- they blamed the pandemic, but lets face it if a company wanted Nanoco all they have to do is offer say 25-30p a share and most holders would have their hand off to take it. Who was it claiming £200m would be small potatoes to many companies- some hopes.

It's now over three years since the Samsung settlement, 18 months since STMicro cancelled, and we've seen precious little commercial activity when they had the facilities to provide and cash to invest in expansion, yet no customers beyond JDA's and both production facilities for display and sensors at Runcorn are mothballed, and the clock is ticking.

Dmitry came in with a lot of optimism about the company being a 'diamond in the rough', but perhaps now it's just 'in the rough'.

The CEO was hired to direct the CDX process? Where does it say that?

The original RNS said - "develop the commercial opportunities and to pursue potential strategic options for our trading business"

Also anyone who reads the RNS's can confirm the CTO's departure was announced last year. At the time some suggested it was tied in with the CDX process, which turned out to be cobblers. A strange time to leave if the company is about to take off, but a good time to retire if it's in trouble.

CEO and CTO leaving this month, does that paint a picture of a company about to transition into commercial success?

Nanoco have had technology to enable SWIR sensors for at least six, probably seven years. How could that be predicted, because they originally claimed they were looking at production volumes in FY20.

How much commercialisation have we seen since then?

Looks non existent beyond display.

"not to host a daily podcast for shareholder anxiety."

Nobody called for daily updates. The usual conference calls are adequate for updating investors, the problem is the lack of information and the complete absence of any commercial demand for their product.

The company has two senior executives departing this month, with two more non-executives leaving in a couple of months time. They have failed to secure a sensible offer, or any offer for the company. IMO STMicro's departure severely damaged Nanoco, and the previous board released a bit too much cash before the chicks had hatched with sensor materials.

The litigation against Shoei might benefit Nanoco, but plenty of risk and if it does go against them, then the company is really in a lot of trouble.

I've heard all that from the company, but it makes the company less attractive as an investment, especially when the agreements result in cancellation.

That should have been 'Don’t suppose there can be many shareholders that aren't deeply underwater at present.'

Not doing bad job of destroying shareholder value presently. Don’t suppose gene can be many shareholders deeply underwater at present.

The level of secrecy and non disclosure is a problem, we are rarely informed about who they’re working with until a contract is cancelled, and sometimes not even then. Past form in development partnerships has not resulted in a single supply contract of any significance. They either wind up in a technological cul-de-sac like with Apple and STMicro, or infringed by the likes of Samsung, LG, and yet to be proven Shoei.

Considerably lower than cash position.

The important factor is assuming they win or get a settlement, what form will it take a one off payment, or ongoing royalty, and for how much. Past deals have taught investors QD IP licensing is less lucrative than first thought- recalling the $6.60 per TV figure.