Member Info for Nanonano

I think it’s more aligned with any visibility of orders, and no clear strategy on how they will.

Even in its darkest moments post-Apple contract failure, the company has never been valued this low.

Investors did know (interims) we were down to two sensor contracts before STMicro pulled the plug, however we were not told that the other six companies were low margin and not considered commercially viable until after the contracts had been ended. There was also no RNS disclosing the end of those contracts, which surprised me. No doubt one wasn’t required under some small print, but I think investors should have been notified, bearing in mind their commitment to better comms.

I wonder if Nanoco have a US based company in mind for a bid, and the US based CEO appointment may help that along, or ma simply be coincidental. We shall see.

Wouldn’t say that TGTD. Any action against infringers has to be balanced against the cost versus reward. They may be in discussions with infringers and pursuing them, but that doesn’t mean any infringers are going to be reasonable or that Nanoco will have the ability to force the to comply through litigation.

The best outcome is for a company to come to an agreement with Nanoco and agree terms for a license if they’re infringing, however I suspect many companies will simply consider Nanoco as a company not in a financial position to defend its IP unless there is significant upside and third party funding can be secured. Bearing in mind the amount of market share Samsung have in display, the latter seems unlikely, and in any case if the amount of damages were just a few million, the legal cost to extract those damages could easily be higher.

Always says we should be guided by what the company tells us.

Based on the companies own information, they had two sensor customers at the interims, since then one has dropped away leaving one, which is still in R&D phase. No further RNS’s have stated any new customers and no news of any further development in display.

Revenue from the Asian customer underpins about 10% of the costs of keeping Nanoco a going concern, so they are largely dependent on cash remaining from the Samsung dispute.

If the company saw a clear line of revenue generation within the next couple of years, then exploring a sale of any kind would be a odd strategy.

Quite easy for Nanoco management to let investors know if they have any customers via an RNS. None have been forthcoming, and we're 22 months post-settlement.

The technology hasn't got a market, except for Samsung who stole the IP then offered some compensation when forced to do so by legal action.

In sensors Gen 1 isn't looking good, and Gen 2 may not ever arrive (bearing in mind it's still in development) or potentially too late for the company.

With sensors it looks to me that alternatives like extended silicone and perhaps improved processes for InGaAs are more attractive to OEM's. Either the lead base has put them off or there are other issues with incorporating QD's or they're simply happy to remain in the NIR space where silicone can give a 'good enough' performance envelope.

With display it seems Chinese OEM's are content to use cadmium QD materials and the powers that be have dragged their collective heels when it comes to legislation.

I expect to see both sides set out their strategies in due course, shareholders will then have an opportunity to go with what they see fit.

As it appears currently, Nanoco appear to be out of carrots to wave under the noses of investors, unlike before. We shall see.

I think we do need to consider if Nanoco is a company that can win any significant business going forward. The science is clever, but the business dealings are shocking.

Every contract to date has failed, and failed at a late stage in development, and it looks like they're really drinking at the last chance saloon now. Gen 2 sensor tech is far from in the bag, and could reach a technological dead end, any interest in Gen 1 tech appears to be niche because of lead content, even then there appears to be no information of contracts pending for lead sulphide materials.

Display has no visibility of any other infringers (they haven't been named) and any revenue unknown but by Nanoco's own admission it would be markedly smaller than Samsung.

Were you present at the official opening?

I think that video was probably made earlier this year.

ME was paid for his input during the Samsung litigation wasn’t he? Necessary I would have thought as he was the CEO at the time of infringement, BT would have had no first hand knowledge of what went on prior to his time as CFO.

I expect much of the handover is complete now the new CEO has been named.

I would be very surprised indeed if BT is being kept on a salary, the company cannot afford the expense of two CEO’s. He maybe paid for his time if and when he is required during the handover.

The new CEO has a big hull to climb if the company is going to restore shareholder confidence. I for one would expect to see more transparency in business dealings- weary of all the NDA’s and dead end contracts. Time to put some numbers on the table and let investors know where the trade is going to come from, if any is to be had.

The camera sensor is a different animal to the sensors used for Face ID.

STMicro produce both dtof and itof sensors.

Who’s looking to buy it?

The first (subsequently sole) order from STMicro was only a few months after the last special meeting, Asian customer is two years or more away from commercial orders.

Last time the company had some credible argument with commercialisation imminent and eight or nine companies engaged in sensor IP. Now down to one company which may go the same way as STMicro.

New CEO but no strategy as of yet. The board can no longer rely on the support of LOAM and Onyx. Remains to be seen if Cable Car are confident with the company, they may be less than impressed with the reduction in their holding after the August RNS dropped

I wonder if the new CEO will be taking questions from shareholders like Tenner, or whether he will revert to only taking questions from analysts like Edelman did?

Not sure where they're going to get revenue from if they fail to find any potential bidders. The company have previously stated any additional licensing/litigation would be much smaller than Samsung, and may take some years to resolve.

With sensors they were not in an exclusive arrangement with STMicro before, yet haven't managed to drum up any other sales of note with any other companies.

That STMicro completely turning their back on QD sensor tech is concerning, and clearly putting all their eggs into the Asian customers basket would be a very risky enterprise.

The new CEO seems much more tech savvy, but is there a market to sell Nanoco's product into?