Member Info for Nanonano

Dropped down a bit today.

Recent leaks suggest iPhone 18 pro max will feature under display Face ID. Sony is most likely candidate for supply of sensor.

I know we’ve been here before, and perhaps an alternative technology is going to be used, but perhaps 2026 will finally be Nanoco’s time in the sun.

Company presently trading at around cash in the bank!

Well I guess so, but as they also say in that article, MacBook Pro displays are expected to switch to OLED (likely to be tandem OLED) screens in 2026, therefore the QD miniLED screens appear to be an interim enhancement for a couple of years only.

The larger Pro Display XDR screens I would imagine sell in much lower quantities than MacBook Pros. I expect those that buy them use them for longer hours and keep them for longer too, so a QD miniLED screen makes a lot sense over using OLED.

It’s been suggested here that Apple could be a potential bidder for Nanoco. They’ve certainly got deep pockets, but I wonder if it may be a little too far down in the supply chain for Apple to want to acquire outright.

Https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/apple-has-been-quiet-about-displays-and-that-might-be-ending/id1602394741?i=1000741018648

Simply we have to sit and wait for the company to report on the cdx process. If that fails for some reason, then the legal situation will become more meaningful I think, or the two may be interrelated.

As such investors are in the dark with regards to what is going on behind the scenes, which seems par for the course with this company.

Perhaps it'll work out well in the end, or maybe it'll disappoint.

I’ve been disappointed over some of Nanoco’s decisions regarding the business side of things in the past, but when it comes to the science there is no doubt they know their onions. I believe this is a last gasp attempt by Shoei to permit them to continue infringing Nanoco’s IP, I’m reasonably confident that they will not succeed.

“The CDX process looks dead. Nanoco took an impairment assessment on their financials and they are at the moment on the defensive in a lawsuit.“

They only updated the market a couple of weeks ago to say the CDX process is still in play. Are we being strung along, time will tell I guess, but it ain’t over until it’s over.

In what way are they on the defensive with Shoei?

Reading the way they’ve worded that page, they say-

“The good news is that the technology is already ahead of the law. Modern quantum dot solutions can hit the RoHS 0 to 100 ppm window and still deliver top-tier color performance, and heavy metal free materials with 0 ppm cadmium and 0 ppm lead are not only in commercial use but lead the market with over 70 percent share. The long review process gave material suppliers and panel makers plenty of time to qualify and ramp these alternatives.”

So cad free and using (infringing) Nanoco IP?

Aren't the performance of displays that come under the 100ppm cadmium woeful?

As you like AI. From Google AI-

Apple sources its MacBook Pro ProMotion displays from a variety of manufacturers through its supply chain, but the primary supplier is generally considered to be LG Display. Samsung Display is also a major supplier, and is expected to become an exclusive provider for future OLED MacBook Pro models.

Current Models (Mini-LED with ProMotion): The 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with the Liquid Retina XDR display (which uses mini-LED backlighting and ProMotion technology) use panels primarily from LG Display, and potentially others like BOE.

My understanding was that BOE are supplying screens for the normal MacBooks, rather than the pro models, much in the way they supply screens for the lower end iPhones.

They’re a lab experiment, they’re not in any products to the best of my knowledge. I understand the main issue is lifespan, they degrade much quicker than red and green QD’s, so it’s a similar issue to the RGB OLED materials.

Hence why the Samsung QDOLED use a blue OLED emitter for all pixels and red and green QD’s for colour conversion to those primary pixels.

If or when blue QD’s can be produced to an acceptable lifespan for consumer equipment, then we should see products with electro luminescent QD displays.

Also I thought Plessey were using gallium nitride blue led with Nanoco red and green QD conversion, but pivoted away (bit of favourite ME parlance) when they used native colour LED’s for the red and green too.

Didn't think anyone used blue QD's in display (or anywhere else come to that, for now).

I expect that 70% is largely Samdung with Hansol.

From an earlier RNS.

"While we are pleased that the independent valuation exercise has confirmed the Board's view that there is significant value in the Company's intellectual property, it is important to be clear that this is an accounting exercise based on accounting methodologies. Realising this value for shareholders will depend on a number of factors, producing a range of outcomes and valuation scenarios.”

Have you read the annual report? I couldn’t find any reference to Nanoco at risk of not being a going concern.

It’s seems the main bone of contention was factored around the original £46m valuation which was based on forecasts with inherent risk, and have now placed company valuation at a much lower enterprise value of £12.1m, although I’d expect that to rise a bit with the LG settlement.

I got this at the link-

Nanoco Group plc filed its annual report on November 26, 2025, for the period ending July 31, 2025. In this document, its auditor, Forvis Mazars, LLP, issued a qualified opinion, expressing doubts about the company's ability to continue operating as a viable entity.

Perhaps they are referring to this? From page 68 of the report

Impairment assessment of the valuation of investments

Having identified potential impairment indicators per IAS 36, the Committee considered the potential impairment of the investment in the main trading subsidiary, Nanoco Technologies Limited.

Nanoco built forecasts supporting valuations between £nil and £46 million using a WACC of 19.0% (2024: 18.5%).

Management appreciate that there is inherent risk in the execution of these forecasts, and so have impaired the valuation of investments down to £12.1 million, which also reflects the enterprise value at 31 July 2025.

Following discussion with the auditor we understand that management have been unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the underlying assumptions in the valuation model and as such they have qualified the audit report in this one matter.