Member Info for Nanonano

I think setback is an understatement TW.

There are not many large players in the infrared sensor market, and STMicro is one of the largest. That they’ve walked away not just from Gen 1 but also Gen 2 is extremely concerning, especially when Nanoco has focused its resources in sensing and display, and is left with no custom in the latter and just one R&D customer in sensing.

The share price always reacts to the company RNS's, message boards make no difference.

Think there was roughly a third more shares in issue when it was down to 6.5p.

Actually the company always stated that a settlement would be a one-off payment for Worldwide use for the life of the patents, only a court win would have potentially involved a royalty. In that instance, there were no issues with the communications.

I'm not holding on for a decent offer, I'll wait to see what is put forward as options (assuming they communicate those) at the next update.

The potential for a competitor has always and always will be there. So far I've not seen any evidence of Smasung pursuing this avenue of technology, although they are certainly very active in NIR sensor tech, as are others.

I take it you're not holding Nanoco stock TG2D. If not, why are you here, if you are what is it you're waiting to see?

Yes, but a larger company with greater reserves could protect its IP considerably better.

One of the things that's really hampered the adoption of CFQD has been the legislators dragging their heels on Rohs, and consequently, the demand for CFQD beyond Samsung has been small, and the Chinese are happy with cadmium or cad lite. However it is the boards job to plan for such things, and the board has IMO looked after their own interests first and foremost in the past couple of years. The £33m hand back of cash smacked of a bribe to the ii's to me from a board whose ring pieces were squeaking following the Hamoodi challenge.

It's left the company with a lot less options going forwards.

I don't know if there'd be any interest in the company at this point in time. If not, and they can't find additional customers before I reckon FY26, then they may have to look at reducing the company to a licensing shell patent troll, or face liquidation by FY28.

What risks?

You're overdoing the melodrama TG2D. I see no immediate reason for Nanoco going into administration in the near or even medium term, but they will need to act swiftly and provide a clear way forward with details of backup plans if the company shows no signs of a turn around before the next FY.

They may need to trim things back in the way they did before, to trim the cost base down, and it would have been helpful if they'd held a bit more cash back in reserve.

I do believe the board were unwise in handing back the amount they did before they had a decent contract in the bag.

I'm not sure they can turn things around at this stage, as so much depends on third parties adopting the tech and to date noone seems to want to get it to market. I think a sale to a company with the reserves to invest in the Nanoco team would probably be a better choice for investors and staff alike, all assuming a decent offer is out there.

The agreement with STMicro was non-exclusive anyway, they've been free to take on additional customers. This is echoing the rhetoric they spouted with regards to display after Samsung done a bunk and LG walked.

I've been invested here for over eight years now, and they've never realised serious orders. I think the best thing they can do now is move BT on swiftly along with his CFO Liam Gray who is far from impressive, just seems to be an echo chamber for Brian.

Get someone in with decent business credentials and see what the IP is worth to companies, assuming anyone wants to buy, noone sensible kicked the tyres five years ago.

If they could get what QD Vision sold for ($70m) plus cash in the bank, that should equate to about 38p a share at the current volume of shares in issue. That's better than nine-tenths of eff all investors are likely to get if they continue as they are.

It's still a travesty when you think of what they could have been, but they've had a lot of chances and they've blown it every time.

Look at a Harvard spinout like Metalenz. They've worked with both Samsung and STMicro, and they name the companies and the products their tech is going into.

Compare that with all the cloak and dagger comms from Nanoco, then ask yourself why?

Where is business going to come from in the next two or three years? Without further cash coming in, in three years the money they have will be exhausted at the present burn rate.

Rather than a supply agreement with Samsung, I think it more likely that after several years of partnership with Nanoco they figured they can do this for themselves and that Nanoco are too insignificant to challenge them legally. So a repeat of Samsung chicanery, but with a different company.

Don’t be surprised if a range of sensors arrive in year or two from now mysteriously operating with great efficiency into the SWIR band.

BT’s strategy has been truly transformational for lth’s, just not in the way we’d hoped for.

It's been inferred that Samsung queered the pitch with other display OEM's, however how does that square with sensors.

The real problem here is that the company cannot win any significant business out in the market, they get to the last hurdle and fall, and usually fall very badly.

The lack of disclosure by STMicro was always a concern, but there was the explanation that perhaps the first gen was earmarked for something very hush-hush, and I thought that the AVP was the most likely product. That proved to be incorrect, although they did subsequently allow themselves to be named for Gen 2 materials development agreement which has now been canned.

The fact that the Asian company doesn't wish to be named suggests that they also remain uncertain about pursuing this tech.

Well they've yet to name any other infringer.

The management have failed to build any organic business. That's why they deserve criticism and it's why the share price is in the dumpster.

The settlement was pitched as a nice bonus- the cherry on the cake analogy. All the team have had years to execute their strategy and it's come to this- no cake and most of the cherry has been scoffed.

They have cash, but it'll soon go unless they get some business or trim the company back significantly, and the cash handed back from the tender offer has left them with little option to defend against infringers.

Note how the narrative changed some while back from all quantum dot producers above lab scale were likely to be infringing, to only cad free QD producers, and only when they've made sufficient money to make them worth suing- sometime never in my opinion.

"It seems clear that STM could not have had many customers in mind after all"

Would fly in the face of what was claimed by Tenner e.g. these companies are not interested in making a few hundred or a few thousand sensors, they're interested in making millions of devices.

He stated in the last conference call that they'd dropped some of the companies they were working with because the volumes were so small as to not be worthwhile to Nanoco. He'd conveniently left out that information back in July 2023 when he was worried about his position. This left them with STMicro and the Asian customer.

Perhaps they could have done with those contracts now that STMicro have left them high and dry.

Mainly posts about mountain walks and charity fundraisers. One post in recent days about what they did with an innovate grant. They only started posting seriously to the Twitter site from October 2023, prior to that the last communications were in 2019.

Their Facebook page was last updated in 2018!

Don't believe you can compare this with 2019. That was five years ago, and it was only the RNS on the potential sale of the company and then subsequently the start of legal action against Samsung that gave some relief to the share value which was still very volatile until the PTAB verdict was announced in 2022, with further swings a consequence of heavy selling by RG and LOAM. The potential for a big award from Samsung also made it easier for the company to raise cash, but unlikely they'll be able to do this now, and only a fool would doubt that may be required if they decide to try and stay the course with the Asian customer.

I don't go much on broker opinions, look at how they've estimated things before.

I recall you being downright insulting when I was bearish over the 2nd July RNS, but todays RNS vindicates that, and things are far worse than I anticipated even then.

What new revenue beyond the Asian customer has Nanoco got incoming now, I don't think there's anything more is there?

Surely the company will have to be pared back once again to extend the cash runway, because I can't see the Asian customer being ready for commercial volumes until 2027 at the earliest, all assuming they go with the tech which is looking decidedly shaky now.

Does anyone here seriously believe they can conjure up repeat business of several million per annum in the next couple of years going by performance to date?

"If he'd been sacked he'd be out of the door with a box containing the contents of his desk. He was offered another job and the timing was right for everyone except the chair who's had to defer his retirement"

Nothing to do with what you first said. If he'd been in the CEO position for the litigation he should have moved on directly or soon after that was concluded. He could have easily advised in his original position as CFO anyway. I've said before I think he lacked the right qualities for the role.

"I don't buy any of the cynicism"

As CEO he hasn't met his own benchmarks, they have cash which won't last forever, with much more mature IP and no foreseeable contracts.

In spite of the rhetoric, there seem few companies genuinely interested in QD-enhanced sensors, and none who are interested in cad free display beyond Samsung. Nanoco have proven themselves excellent at allowing themselves to be used for cheap R&D for large corporations, but poor at securing supply contracts where the real money is to be made. It's happened time and again.

I guess there remains a question mark over the value of the sensing IP. Is there a large addressable consumer market for it. If so then why have STMicro walked away?

Onsemi appear to be going down a QD enhanced cmos sensing route, minus Nanoco. Could that be a factor in STMicro backing out?

The RNS says it’s a strategic decision by STMicro, which means little without some detail on what that strategy is.

For Nanoco themselves, having validated IP is only of significance if you have the capability to defend it in court. As things stand they couldn’t really do that, and the market outside of display is so small that I think it doubtful they’d attract third party funding like they did with the case against Samsung.

As things stand the it looks like best case scenario for Nanoco as a self financing entity seems to be getting enough small level contracts to get to break even within the next two or three years.

Against that we have to look at how well they’ve done in the years up to this point at securing business of any kind.

No takers five years ago.

This is an important question. Are they abandoning QD sensors or going with a competitor , or have they done a Samsung? Are they looking at alternatives to work in SWIR, beyond inGaAs not sure there were alternatives or are they simply no longer bothered about sensors operating beyond NIR where silicon can operate reasonably well.

Will the Asian customer be similarly influenced.