Member Info for Nanonano

I agree that with the performance of the board to date, giving the board a mandate to present shareholders with a fait accompli is very risky.

I'm not impressed by either side. Milkwood come over as opportunistic, and Nanoco as covert.

Without contracts, the value of the operational aspects of Nanoco is probably more of a liability than an asset. A rented building with secondhand equipment on land looking to be redeveloped burning through millions a year.

The value lies in the IP, so I think any potential bidder- if there are any- will simply be interested in the patents and trade secrets and they will be absorbed into their own brand.

I recall that Nanoco once used a broader brushed of any QD manufacturer cadmium or Cadmium free working beyond lab scale was likely to be using their patented processes for production. That was later scaled back to cadmium free only, why I cannot say. Since then they've not named any infringers beyond Samsung, simply they believe a couple of products are likely to be infringing out of the models they looked at.

Understood, but Nanoco have been speaking this way within the last year or so, so fairly recently- certainly post Samsung settlement.

Nanoco have repeatedly said that going after the QD maker is unlikely to net a good result, they have to pursue the final customer. So that is Apple.

This is now three former customers of Nanoco that have profited from infringing their IP. If Nanoco aren't willing or able to take these companies to task, then what is the value of their IP?

"Ross Young speculates Shoei Chemical (nanosys) is the QD supplier"

Very likely- Nanosys/Shoei supply LG, and LG are reportedly the screen supplier for Apple laptops.

Https://iedm24.mapyourshow.com/8_0/sessions/session-details.cfm?ScheduleID=325&

I think Milkwood have pushed their luck seeking two representatives with less than 10% ownership.

RNS's from the company have not presented anything convincing for an investment case going forward so far.

Good to see one of the non-exec's as Chairman, I thought it would be one of them appointed. Hopefully he will be more effective than Mr Richards.

The new CEO will need to come up with something detailed and realistic if they expect to win support from shareholders, as this company has serially disappointed LTH's looking to a sustainable business.

Https://x.com/DSCCRoss/status/1857208745014776215

Macbook Pro displays have been supplied by LG AFAIK. Samsung supply (non-QD) displays for ipads, not sure about Macbook's.

Was their suggestion though, when they say multiples of market cap at a company valuation of circa £100m.

Add TG2D to the non-holder list Troublesome, as he/she said they sold out some time ago.

Part of the detail given in any presentation on potential sales drive should include development times and risk of customers not following through. With a wafer facility the company should be able to develop much faster than before, that was a major factor in installing it, so they should be able to give a realisitic timeframe for getting a product to market, assuming they have some customers looking to incorporate the technology.

Certainly could have reduced risk by retaining more cash until a larger contract landed, but I think it likely the board would have been under pressure to vacate their positions sooner if they had done so.

Potential is interesting wording. Intention would signal more of a commitment to sellling the company.

Thoughts for the upcoming meeting.

I think the board should present a detailed strategy for driving commercial revenue, and outline alternatives should they fail to materialise. Tired of all this NDA crap.

Clearly large contracts are off the table for sensing until Gen 2, if at all, but the board should be able to demonstrate they can drive up revenue at least a couple of million in the next few months if they wish to retain any credibility.

I would like to see one of the newer exec directors replace a Chris Richard’s as Chairman. I think the CFO should also be replaced as he comes across as a very highly paid book keeper, and I’m not sure what value he’s bringing to the company.

On a tangent I see Edelman is now consulting for a textiles firm- platform material?

“@Nanonano How can we be certain that you're invested ?”

You can’t, you simply take me at my word or you don’t, same as you or anyone else on here.

As most of the persistent posters on here have stated their positions, I accept that as their status.

Naturally gene are plenty of liars out there, so I put little importance on anything that is said here unless it is backed up by an independent source.

I think the majority commenting on here are not invested, including you.

Companies get orders cancelled all the time. AMS/Osram took I believe close to a $1bn haircut when Apple pulled the plug on their microled displays this year, with a subsequent impact on the share price. https://www.ledsmagazine.com/leds-ssl-design/article/14305974/ams-ag-ams-osram-readies-a-massive-write-down-for-micro-leds

What has compounded the issue with STMicro is both the ending of Gen 2 development, indicating I believe a lack of faith in a future growth market for this tech, and secondly Nanoco handing back too much of the cash leaving the company rather exposed before it has secured any firm orders elsewhere.

For a platform technology, any potential revenue streams have been very concentrated in one or two companies.

But the facts are you had a tiny company with no money going up against a multi-billion dollar behemoth.

I have wondered if the customer STMicro was working with was Samsung- they were reportedly working on a VR headset alongside Google, and it's reportedly been cancelled after witnessing muted response to the Vision Pro.

They could have been out of cash, with a cancelled contract and still fighting Samsung, and owing creditors.

It's making a lot of assumptions that the litigation would all go Nanoco's way, if it didn't and they got bogged down in appeals then things would be much blacker than they are.

Samsung had the capacity and will to stretch out legal action for as long as they wished. They’ve demonstrated the will to do so on many occasions too. Nanoco didn’t really have that luxury. Had they an established market elsewhere, things would have been different I’m sure, and Samsung may have been more cooperative, but it wasn’t the case and Nanoco would have been bust or close to it by now if legal action was still ongoing, bearing in mind what has happened with STMicro.

I do think management were premature in distributing as much of the award as they did via tender offer, but then we should balance that with the understanding that if they cannot achieve some trade within the next year or two, then competitions may well chip away at any market as certain patents expire.

BT stayed too long, and really a new ceo should have been in place once the settlement was agreed. He had his opportunity, but it hasn’t worked out. Whether recent events have broken the company remains to be seen, although the share value is not looking good at all, and I’m not sure where they’re going to source new business from sufficient to provide revenue of several million per year.

….on how they will get some.