Member Info for Nanonano

Largesse spending under the ME days. Tightened up with BT, not that he had much choice really. Following the settlement they had over £50m in hand once they had cleared debts etc. That afforded them a ton of headroom, and the board had a lot more information than investors, yet here we are.

It’s the performance of the company rather than the stock market that has resulted in the continued depreciation in value. Any present metrics to base a valuation on are too wishy washy so consequently the market values the company on what assets it has in hand rather than what it may have, which is understandable when you consider the company history.

Following the result of the Shoei litigation it’s clear that Nanoco lacks the financial capacity to defend its IP against infringers, and that has really been their core asset with cash handed back for the Samsung settlement, and a net loss on the LG settlement following Shoei’s counter action.

I was surprised and disappointed the company chose to avoid an interim webcast when so many important things had occurred since the beginning of the year, with the CEO stepping down and the Shoei litigation, instead they just released a statement and rightly or wrongly, that’s given the impression that the board are ducking awkward questions, and have no interest in their shareholder base.

Can’t imagine Jalal got involved with this company and increased his role if he thinks it’s a complete basket case, it’s not like he needs the bread. Having said that perhaps his judgement this time has not been correct.

Someone mentioned ARM, well they were a failure for many years, as Sophie Wilson said they were a forty year overnight success.

‘ Might be wrong and the stuff is flying off the shelves but would really need some evidence this marketing approach is working’

Well clearly not moving the needle much if at all, otherwise income would look more healthy, along with the company valuation.

Doesn’t seem to be much market for lead based materials beyond a few niche companies supplying items at boutique prices.

For lead free materials, there really isn’t very much information out there. We know the potential markets, but little else,

"This is just the first in a series of new materials and wavelengths we're launching over the coming months – including our InAs materials."

Does this count as this year, says coming months- how many months, could be interpreted in many ways. All the same an arcane way to promote the company without any reference on their main website.

Was looking at a webcast today from 2023 where they expected commercial sale of InAs heatwave dots in this calendar year, so timetable has slipped quite a bit hasn’t it. I wonder what has slowed progress, can’t blame Covid or legal distractions.

Looking back through the RNS’s I was reminded that Nancoco have been working with the Asian customer for five years!

Yes I do, but I also remember what was said about the potential early orders were for a low volume device. Perhaps there was change of design at a late stage, certainly there were delays of a year as I recall for that first order. I still think the original application was an iteration of the Vision Pro that didn’t make it to production. The device turned out a white elephant anyway, VR hasn’t caught on as expected for Apple or Meta.

The webcasts are all online for anyone who wants to refresh their memory.

As I iterated in an earlier post, lost amongst all the dross by the rappers, Metalenz have their Polar ID technology. This is tiny, can operate underneath OLED displays and has a 0% spoof acceptance rating matching Apples Face ID for a fraction of the cost. It also deals with other issues where Apples structured light system is a bit weak like operation in bright sunlight.

Consequently unless that information is false, I would be surprised indeed to see QD”s incorporated in Face ID applications with the Metalenz tech coming to market. STMicro have a close working relationship with Metalenz, using their IP in several products, so they’d no doubt have been aware of prototypes being worked on, and perhaps that’s why they ditched QD’s altogether?

The Gen 1 technology had passed all milestones and a Nanoco had supplied the first production order, so incorrect to suggest the materials were not good enough.

I think we can say with confidence that the Gen 1 technology was not intended for smartphones, as the company repeatedly said it was for a low volume product, and smartphones aren’t that. The contract with Apple that ceased in 2019 is probably another kettle of fish.

I don’t think it’ll make for a very agreeable outcome for shareholders though, and of course it’s assuming a great deal as any such deal is speculative anyway.

TW, although £700k saving per year over 3-4 years would amount to roughly a (low end) years expenditure at present , we should account for inflation which is very likely to be a factor with what is going on in the gulf. So I think it would only give a few months.

Sadly I believe this company has been stripped of its most valuable IP. A lot of trade secrets will have leaked via the various partnerships with the likes of Samsung, LG, Dow, Merck, Wah Hong etc. Not to mention all the former Nanoco scientists heading up Quantum Science Ltd who appear to be going from strength to strength- I wonder where their funding is coming from?

The cost savings are I believe a red herring, at best it would give the company five to six months extra cash as things stand at present.

I think the primary reason for this is to attract a buyer without shareholder scrutiny.

Scale up has been mooted but that still leaves two further stages in validation and production which can be subject to delay or cancellation, and that last stage would be then most expensive to implement.

It was the actions after the settlement primarily around the way they handled returning cash to investors, and then subsequently with later cancellation of STMicro contract that diminished my faith. The latter came after repeated reassurance to the market that the contract was not a one trick pony- the CEO scoffed at the suggestion, STMicro supplied to hundreds of customers, which is correct they do, however the QD sensor market was far more restricted it seems and although there was a shroud of secrecy around the contract I do believe the company knew more than they cared to let on.

I've always voted, but many platforms make it trickier than others, and also I expect for many holders Nanoco share are just a tiny percentage of a wide portfolio and they don't worry too much what happens one way or the other. Such is life.

SmithyB, I don't doubt the science, and I would expect any development to continue until the cash runs out or the supporting companies pull the plug, after all the companies are getting some pretty cost effective R&D. Manufacturing seems a tall order to me, bearing in mind the cost of making anything in the UK coupled with the logistics of shipping materials around the globe when you have a materials supplier based in your backyard already (Shoei).

Does any still believe Nanoco are serious about commercial supply? To me it looks pretty clear from the RNS that the company is not expecting to make a go of it by manufacturing QD's at scale independently- I believe that ship sailed when STMicro bailed. Did Tenner strategically blunder with a tender offer before a reliable contract for supply was inked, certainly left the company very exposed although I think there would have been considerable pressure to hand back cash to shareholders more than twelve months post settlement and the Hamoodi challenge certainly added to that pressure.

The only question in my mind is who-if anyone- wants to buy it and if so at what price, and why they don't want to buy the company in its present form? The only reasonable answer I have is the offer is low, and they want a quick deal without fuss and the head of a privately held company can behave more autocratically.

"There is clearly a real risk that liquidity becomes poor and that shareholders become trapped in an illiquid security for some time."

That's largely been the situation for most PI's since STMicro walked.

How would you expect a company to survive independently with barely adequate cash reserves to see them through the development cycle?

How could you also expect a company to negotiate a good offer from any potential buyer when they know the company has little to no room for manoeuvre?

We had a double whammy of the CDX process ending with no offer and the Shoei litigation anti-climax which depressed the share price to the sub-5p doldrums. This in turn likely attracted opportunistic traders looking to make a quick profit by selling into any bounce on some potential good news, a few of whom may now have got their fingers burnt after todays lovely RNS.

We only know of one active JDA at present. The second JDA began in April 2025 for one year, and so far we have not been informed of any extension.

We don't know what Nanosys sold for, might be more or might be a lot less than you think. What we do know is that Nanoco has tried to sell itself twice and not succeeded in getting any offers. I think it's far more to do with companies wilfully and blatantly infringing their IP, who can easily afford to duke it out legally if challenged whilst Nanoco cannot post Samsung settlement.