Member Info for Nanonano

I don't know, but perhaps Emberion may be one.

OnSemi have purchased SWIR Vision, perhaps they may be interested in a material supplier, or taking out a license.

Or perhaps there will little to no interest, and once more the demand for such technology has been grossly miscalculated as it was in QD display.

They still have over two years of cash remaining with a reduced cash burn, and no debt. I realise it's not very long to find alternative markets for their product, but certainly not going to suddenly disappear if they cannot find a buyer, and the Gen 1 sensor and display materials are both well developed.

Perhaps, or at least consider it promising enough to jettison the QD sensor program.

I find it hard to imagine a company like STMicro simply handing a market opportunity over to a competitor. Either the potential SWIR sensor market is far less promising than analysts predict, or they have another technological pathway.

Https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/22/9219

Https://www.emberion.com/emberion-oy-introduces-groundbreaking-ultra-low-cost-swir-sensor/

Much will depend on whether they can secure any orders, a license or find a buyer for the company.

If none of those come to anything, then there's little to underpin the value of the company.

He might be singing soprano.

The Merck partnership is long gone, so who knows.

We’re due a presentation next week aren’t we. Could there be some more details about this then.

Nanoco and Emberion employees seem to be pretty chummy on LinkedIn.

The reason the share price is in a hole is the lack of visible organic growth in the business. The cancellation of STMicro means it lost its only commercial customer, and consequently it has presented no near term source of revenue.

Simply the strategy for organic growth mapped out by the CEO has not resulted in success, and that is undoubtedly why he has been handed his hat.

RG sold down much of his stock well before the settlement. LOAM were also selling down during periods of high liquidity before the settlement.

I think Nanoco would certainly be in a much more difficult position now if it was still fighting a case against Samsung. That’s not to diminish that’s it’s in a difficult enough position now with the cancellation of the STMicro business , simply that things would be worse.

That was less than they paid for QD vision when you adjust for inflation. Currently an offer comparable would be equal to around £70m ($92m) with additional cash hand back that would push the return to around 40p a share, which would still be disappointing when we consider where things could have been, but would at least give PI’s some return on the last cash raise.

All worthless unless offers are forthcoming.

A little over 25p per share. Fine reward for LTH’s.

Samsung paid more than that for QD Vision eight years ago, and how much validated IP did they have?

I guess it all depends on the expected demand for QD CMOS sensors, and how well Nanoco’s patents protect the exclusive ability to mass produce III-V materials.

STMicro either see less of a market or see another technology becoming the standard, having turned their back on Gen 2 tech.

I’d have thought they’d be the most likely candidate for an acquisition.

I don't see they have any legal recourse against Hansol, unless they have been directly supplying companies outside of Samsung.

Nanosys potentially, but for how much? Despite all the noise, it seems Nanosys weren't able to make enough money to remain an independent entity. Then there is the timespan this takes, Nanoco said themselves these cases take several years to work their way through, the Samsung case took around six years if you count initial discussions.

“Nanoco will launch legal action shortly though”

Against whom and with whose cash?

Something doesn’t sit right with events leading up to the cancellation of the STMicro contract.

First we had the NDA’s, then the referral of the company as ten European customer. Both of these suggested STMicro were working closely with a third party who didn’t want others catching on, as opposed to a company searching for customers for a product that they devoted almost zero publicity beyond a few prototype demonstrations.

I believe that a customer was originally lined up, but due to a change of tack turned away from the sensor technology. The VR AR space is in a state of flux, the recent display of Meta’s Orion glasses is said to have thrown a curve to Apple, and Samsung seem to be pursuing a different strategy beyond a VR/AR headset.

When the vote was cast for the return of capital, Nanoco looked in a far more robust position, eight or nine company’s in the sensor space, a major display OEM expected in first half 2024.

Now, one sensor company R&D contract, no commercial sales visibility and no display OEM.

Sadly the company has not succeeded in developing a sustainable business model, which was by its own measure the prime objective.

In addition they have used up the lions share of the cash left over from litigation during a time of great uncertainty. The board would have been far better informed than any private investor with regards to the security of the STMicro contracts, and with past experience of contract failure, handing back £33m before a contract was in play that would at very least bring Nanoco to break even smacks of rash behaviour by a board that were probably putting their own positions ahead of the company future.

Naturally all voted in favour by the majority of shareholders who have since sold up and moved on.

Because it’s growing. Three or four years ago, there was virtually no alternative to Samsung in the QD display market. Since then Hisense, TCL and LG have entered the market amongst a few smaller Chinese OEM’s. Mostly they’ve used cadmium QD’s, although I would think there’d be a question mark over LG at least.

Although the volume is smaller, it’s still meaningful when a company has little other source of revenue, a million or two a year could extend cash out hugely.

Without such a license however, then clearly the income potential is not there.

With regards to self supply, granted companies prefer to source in-house, but that’s not always possible unless you have the expertise. Apple make their own processor chips, but they license the technology from ARM, who don’t make chips but license the designs. They’re trying to divorce themselves from Qualcomm (another fabless company) but found building a modem chip harder than they first thought. Even with all that Apple have to go to TSMC to have their chips made.

Nanoco management seem to have pursued the big companies in the expectation they will land a major contract, and have been screwed over again and again. Perhaps they’d have done better with a lot of smaller customers, it may not bring in huge sums, but may have kept the wolf from the door.