Member Info for Nanonano

I think we've learnt from past experience how accurate Nanoco CEO forward looking statements are.

They said last year they would be looking to supply smaller sensor companies directly, but we haven't heard a word about it since.

"Conjecture I realise but, what if the Asian customer were involved in quantum computing rather than SWIR?"

They've said enough times in the past the contract is for infrared sensing as per RNS

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/joint-development-agreement-with-asian-customer-aaa68oxacn5hyri.html

Downsizing to a patent holder is a one way trip, you can't go back from that as staff move on and it costs much more to rebuild facilities. I think it's really a tool of last resort.

Hamoodi did not come over well IMO.

If he'd laid out a clear structure for growing the company, he may have won more support, but he was always going to be challenged when LOAM held so much of the company stock and clearly backed the existing team.

I do think that Brian Tenner was out of his depth as CEO, and should have stepped aside following the settlement which was a PR disaster for the company. I think that LOAM kept him in position so long as he marched to the beat of their drum.

However I don't think anyone could have foresaw STMicro completely walking away from the QD sensors, although the risk is always there, and of course remains so with the Asian customer.

With regards a sale, I expect most potential buyers would be looking at Nanoco’s patents, plus their cash position and consider that they don’t have to do anything but wait.

The loss of STMicro left them as a cash burner with no visible path to revenue, and with around half the settlement cash spent on the tender offer and buyback, the company is unlikely to be in any position to take on infringers without third party funding.

Simply carry on infringing until Nanoco runs out of cash, then scoop up any IP you want for a snip.

The company directors have been bragging for years about the prospects, but still no deals of substance for their materials.

Alternatives to a sale are the company gaining sufficient contracts for supply to pull in a few million in revenue and stretch out cash until something larger arrives (if ever).

Dumping to whom? A seller but also a buyer. If as you say Hamoodi has reached an agreement with LOAM, perhaps he has been offloading any remaining stock below the 3% reporting threshold.

Simply further progress on research which has been ongoing for sometime, and the company was frank that these kind of efforts are much longer term from any commercial perspective, with the usual caveats of reaching a development cul-de-sac.

Display and sensing look to be the areas for near term commercial opportunity, if any can be found.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrbWdRQmyU

QD’s doesn’t seem to be something that Plessey are talking about in their communications. They certainly weren’t shy about mentioning them in the past, and were also quite public about no longer requiring them.

QD's in microled have been mentioned, but no names put forward. I think many of us believed it may have been Apple related, but that seems on ice after the cancellation of the Osram contract last year. Meta may still be in play however, but until we get some confirmation by the company, we can't place any reliance on a third party source.

Yes I understand, but this was reported this month, so either the author hasn't got a clue and is reporting using out of date information, or something has shifted.

Jason Hartlove is Meta's VP of Displays and Optics, so he'd be well versed in the benefits and drawbacks of using or not using QD's.

I forgot to paste the link-

https://displaydaily.com/critical-manufacturing-supports-plesseys-experimental-microled-production/

Going by this story, it says Plessey are using Quantum dots. If that is the case, then it's a reversal on their previous technology.

David Yao didn't seem to win any business of note during his two years with the company.

BOE are pitching at electroluminescent QD display. Still a way to go I believe, also the quantities of QD’s required are much smaller than for QD filtering which poses another potential issue for suppliers.

With cash and no debt and by their own rhetoric a promising future, what would be the justification for delisting?

With TCL and Hisense in trouble for selling snake oil QD sets, they ought be looking for a cad free alternative, either that or they’re likely going to have to concede the market to Samsung, as they can’t seem to make good QD TV’s within the permitted cadmium allowance.

Then there is LG who I’m very sure have been infringing Nanoco, and potentially the Taiwanese OEM’s AUO and Innolux.

"Do you know of its a major TR1 holder?"

Wouldn't there be an RNS if a major holder was selling down? it could be someone just under the threshold, or could be several holders. Anyone's guess.

"What had happened to explain this continue fall please? "

Someone (or someone's) willing to sell at this price.

Talk is one thing, delivering is quite another and confidence is low.

The real underlying issue is the lack of any other business. It's just years of R&D followed up by a loss of contract.

If the company doesn't come up with something worthwhile soon, I wouldn't be surprised to see another challenge to the board.

"Perhaps Nanoco can make a quid or two acting as expert witnesses!"

Two quid would be about it I think. They need to show an order book.

Up until the loss of the STMicro contract, I considered they had a shout, but since then I can't see how they will ever become viable.

Relying on patent litigation for revenue isn't much an investment proposition. Nanoco seems unable to generate any significant business as a commercial supplier.