Member Info for Nanonano

At present, it appears Samsung remain the only manufacturer producing cadmium free QD displays in any respectable volume.

Nanoco patents do apply to every Quantum dot display Samsung produce and sell under their own brand name and to other OEM's for inclusion in their TV and computer monitors.

How important the other patents are after the original molecular seeding patent expires next year remains to be seen. The CEO has spouted off about all the other patents they have that protect their IP, but we have all seen how his expectations have matched reality.

Having handed back so much of the settlement cash, the company has insufficient cash to pursue infringers out of its own funds, all assuming it would be worth the trouble- I find it hard to imagine a third party funder would be interested in chasing a few million in damages at best.

A new display customer appears to be non-forthcoming.

"Samsung are only licensed to use the IP for their own products and cannot sell QD screens to other companies. "

How do you explain them supplying the likes of Sony then, amongst others?

Higher tax?

Maybe they can appoint Shaw Taylor as new Chairman.

To be of the value it has to be in demand. If the company receives the same amount of offers as the last time it placed itself on the market, then there will be no sale at all.

How many of votes for the boards recommendations are holding Nanoco stock now e.g. Oryx, LOAM. etc.

I think we’re being nicely stitched-up.

LOAM clearly don't have any faith in the company going forward, else they would have kept their stake in place.

The new kids on the block are Milkwood and Cable Car, what their objectives are remain to be seen.

The settlement provided a comparatively large amount of cash, but much of it is now gone, and they'll have burnt through the best part of a couple of million more since the July RNS.

The main issue is that Nanoco management have not created an organically stable business post-settlement, and that was their main objective.

He didn’t lie about the companies they were involved with, but certainly was exceedingly sparing with information about how meaningful the contracts were with the majority of them e.g. insignificant volume leading to little or no profit.

As such the board communicate in a way so as not to spook the horses, but you can only get away with that for so long .

It's beyond 20 months now since the settlement, but we have not seen any further business in display.

The company has found two potentially infringing devices as of the last interim update that they consider are using cadmium free QD technology, the manufacturer(s) have not been disclosed. One significant display OEM was reportedly showing interest in Nanoco technology, but we've heard nothing more since.

Sensor materials are well advanced, as they got to production stage, but how much of the tech is proprietary to STMicro and Nanoco. If Nanoco are going to supply direct, who will supply the CMOS sensors and what will the volumes be? Then is there a market to sell into, clearly not enough to keep STMicro in the game.

"There's nothing wrong with the existing management or their strategy. All they have to do is persevere long enough to execute"

There's a long history of this company spending years going back to around 2006 working with OEM's, Samsung, Dow, Apple, STMicro etc. Then they get dropped at the eleventh hour, having delivered all their milestones and burned through a lot of investors cash in the process.

How do you figure they're going to get a business of financial substance going in the next year or so?

Nanoco's patents remain with the company though. Valuing a company on one or two individuals is very risky.

Be that as it may, Nanoco have yet to demonstrate they can create a sustainable business. Platform technology is only of benefit to a company if they can generate revenue from it, anything else is intellectual curiosity or invention that others will profit handsomely from long after the patent holders have run out of cash.

Https://www.techmonitor.ai/hardware/silicon/dsit-announces-funding-boost-for-semiconductor-scale-ups-to-drive-domestic-chip-industry

Niche perhaps, but it seems competitors are able to bring a product market.

https://dronelife.com/2024/09/19/new-swir-camera-for-drones-q-fly-delivers-affordable-precision-imaging/

With the amount of cash left for the buyback it would only keep the lights on for a another month or two at best. Plus they’ve committed those funds as a return to shareholders.

They need to name who the customers are and the scale of contracts however small, if they want to be taken seriously on that. Too much NDA crap that amounts to nine tenths of sweet Fanny Adam’s.

I'm not invested in those companies.

Nanoco have been claiming they're on the cusp of commercial traction in the eight years I've been invested.

How do you rate their chances of securing contracts of several million in the next year or two, and what do you factor are the alternatives to that?

I don’t agree. Plenty of companies out there that have a good sound underlying business, and exploring other areasof business which may or may not work out, and could affect the share price. but they still have that good core business.

Nanoco has no underlying business, it has some cash left from a one off settlement deal with no visibility of any future business beyond a very modest revenue from a development contract which may well go the same way as STMicro.

What we need to see is some orders or another license. Potential doesn't mean squat.