Member Info for Nanonano

Emberion and any defence contractor are small beer. Nanoco, if they're looking for a serious contender will be looking for someone in the consumer space, anything else is for the birds

TG2D are you joking?

The whole department for SWIR sensors was closed down and the staff have moved on.

If Nancoco was seen by investors as a success, the share price wouldn’t be where it is. Even with the recent rise it’s at historically low levels. If the company fails to negotiate a sale then I expect the company value will drop like a rock.

The main issue is the lack of any significant business. I believe sensors will take longer to scale than the company is forecasting, and despite the positive spin, it’s probably what the company suspects too, and that they’ll run out of cash before any large orders drop, assuming they come at all. Hence the sale.

The company were never keen on becoming manufacturers or suppliers of materials at scale. They wanted to be an IP company licensing to bigger companies for production, and only seemed to shift towards a supply strategy out of desperation to maintain investor confidence. UK companies are well known for being excellent at R&D, but poor at growing that into a viable industry.

Under umbrella of a larger outfit the scientists can get on with playing with their chemistry sets, and leave the task of finding business to others better suited to the role, and with the capital to weather any delays.

"At the interim presentation Dimitri said apple dropped STm's swir work on mobile phones. "

Which suggested Nanoco knew who STM's customer was all along, although they claimed not to when asked. A single customer placed a much higher risk of failure compared with a generic product aimed at lots of OEM's.

Deal or no deal?

Well it wouldn't be the first time information has clearly been held back and leaked. First one I encountered was in 2016 when the company posted this

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/share-price-movement-opgk3oewlg00kxz.html

Followed by this about three weeks or so later-

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/commercialisation-agreement-in-display-qntj7zbxnoz1hjx.html

Well IIRC the monitors (Innolux and AUO?) did use QD's, just not Nanoco's QD's.

Seems to be a common theme with Nanoco sadly- Samsung, LG, TCL, Hisense, AUO, Innolux, all have had some kind of development partnership and it gets to a prototype stage then either nothing, or they infringe or they use cadmium QD's.

Two things caused the share price to rise heartily in 2022. First Nanoco won the PTAB, and subsequent RNS gave very bullish signals to the market, this was heavily sold into by the II's taking all the steam out of the rise. Then the first RNS on the settlement, which seriously spiked the share price and once again heavily sold into by the II's, primarily LOAM.

Perhaps someone has offered to pay in jelly babies?

It's always a bit different as the company is some years on from where it was then, however in terms of similarities, cash is running down, no contracts for supply, and still trying to find a market for its materials. On the plus side we seem to have a more capable c-suite and validated IP.

At present we don't know if a sale will take place or the value. Clearly the market is less than optimistic and values the company at a few million or so above cash.

Fundraise was at 37p, not 40p.

Because posters on this board ask for context as to why the company is where it is, and your posts present a very distorted version.

We've been here before with all this claptrap. The consensus was at the time that the company had done a poor job in its communications up to the settlement, something acknowledged by the board themselves. Some of us (myself included) gave them some allowance to see the STMicro contract through to completion, but they blew it. Bad senior management. Some context for those with short or selective memory.

Edison note 2022

Applying the low-end valuation model, we assume the QD enhanced TVs had an average sales price of US$2,200–2,500 compared with the average price of

a top of the range TV without QDs of c US$1,000. Had the alleged patent infringement not taken place, we believe that the volumes of QDs Samsung required would have been higher than Nanoco could have produced in Runcorn, so it would have licensed its technology to partners, primarily Dow Chemical, and would have received significant royalties.

If we assume that the cost of the QDs in each TV is equivalent to 10% of the uplift in price between QD and non-QD TV displays, and that

Nanoco would have received a 12% royalty (as per our May 2017 initiation note) on these QDs, this represents US$14.4–18.0 in lost revenue per TV display or US$200–250m between April 2015 and the present in the United States alone.

Times article form same year

The outcome could be transformational for Nanoco. If successful, the company, which is listed in London and valued at just over £100 million, thinks it could be awarded damages worth “multiples of [its] market capitalisation”.

The original FSP was instigated before news of litigation against Samsung. At that time the share price was very depressed following Apple cancelling their partnership with Nanoco earlier in the year, but the company value did pick up somewhat on news of a potential sale, but the share price was still very choppy. At that time if a company had come along with a firm offer of 30-40p a share, I don't think that would have been turned away, but covid kicked in and there were no takers.

Nanoco share price didn't reach higher levels until the litigation process was more mature, and then it was highly volatile as the large II's were selling into the rise as fast as they could. Investors were speculating based on the values given by Edison and Peel and Hunt amongst others. That management were content to permit such figures to be bandied about by company sanctioned material was one of the major areas of criticism of the former CEO and Chairman. When they sought to wash their hands of such hyperbole following the settlement amount falling far short of expectations, investor confidence was badly affected.

That makes sense. After all Samsung were willing to cough up circa £120m ($150m) for a license and a few patents of apparently low importance to Nanoco, when they perhaps could have made an offer of the same amount for the whole company that would have equated to around 36-37p per share at the old share volume, and at around 61-62p per share now.

"we should get our money back with patience"

Bold words, at what level?

Very little value in speculating. Much will depend on who wants it and how badly.

Best case scenario would be two or more that want it, and bid the price up.

Balanced against the following

A sale may not be achieved, or fall far short of valuation. We’ve been here before.

Cash is being used at around £5m per annum.

Commercial orders remain elusive.

No idea on value of any litigation win against LG.

I think the poster was basing the figure on a twentieth of the speculative amount of $10-15m, which would give you $500-750k then half retained of $250-375k.

I'm not a lawyer, but that would hardly seem to be worth the time and expense of legal action. Seeing as we have no idea of the sales volume for LG's infringement any estimates is finger in the air stuff anyway.