Member Info for Nanonano

I said sometime back that I thought BT was in over his head as CEO.

The comms leading up to the settlement outcome were unacceptable, but he could have redeemed himself with some decent organic growth. Organic growth is looking increasingly unlikely, the company has moved the goalposts from near to medium term.

I also wonder if the Hamoodi vs LOAM case, has influenced his decision to go.

It’s the RNS stating delays and then saying more information in three months. It’s spooked the market, because the company has a long history of long periods of development followed by commercial cul-de-sacs.

Using lead sulphide.

https://invision-news.de/spectral-imaging/from-x-ray-to-swir/

The FUTURE OF NANOCO.... it’s very blurred!

Think we should focus on the fact that the share price is four fifths of what it was last month, and that is with the buyback in progress. There is little visibility of anything that may help it to recover ground, and it seems we will get no further information from Nanoco team until October.

"Not sure who was using QDs in sensors in 2022"

Emberion and SWIR Vision (recently bought out by Onsemi) are two that come to mind. Volumes were very low indeed, with the majority of the SWIR industry focused on high cost low yield InGaAs sensors. Either way the industry was focused on industrial and military markets as the cameras are still far too costly for consumer products. Consequently, these cameras are sold in the thousands rather than millions.

Doesn't sound correct to me. Market as of now for QD SWIR can't be more than a few million at best, in 2022 almost nonexistent.

The CEO will have access to all kinds of confidential information that remain opaque to investors.

I think that unless the CEO can give some reasonable idea of how and when revenue will scale and what the reasons are for any delay, the market will continue to price the company low.

Should have written-

Not simply a one off…

It’s mainly the II’s that vote so they have dictated the outcome.

“What might we expect a different CEO do right now?”

I would like to see some orders, or simply a one off then a maybe at some undefined time.

This company has had mature technology for over a decade now, and has failed to profit from it. The Samsung settlement has improved finances from absolutely dire benchmarks, but it’s a one hit wonder, and it was signed off eighteen months ago.

I think it’s one thing to have faith in a companies product or technology and another in its executive team and/or strategy. CEO’s regularly make a right pigs ear of things.

Only investors can hold the board to account. Sadly few PI’s in this company bother to cast a vote, probably because most shares form part of a diverse portfolio and their stake is small.

Gen1 does not infringe Nanoco IP, they say they have some trade secrets regarding improvements in batch consistency plus its application on the wafers, how valuable that proves to be remains to be seen.

Certainly don't see anything stopping Samsung from introducing sensors of their own with PbS dots in if they chose to do so, however if they don't see a large market for them, I think it's unlikely.

I don't think their license extends to using Nanoco IP to produce dots in the IR spectrum for sensors, it's solely for display. I wonder if they'd be able to circumvent such a limitation by integrating IR dots within the display itself, which is what the aim is with microled displays is e.g. you have your RGB plus IR pixels.

Is an IP moat an effective defense if someone digs a tunnel underneath it?

Once I was aware of what the Gen 1 materials were (this was not made public for sometime) I thought that volume adoption may be a concern, partly because of the lead sulphide, but also because of the lower temperature tolerance of that material.

Also lead sulphide is not exclusive to Nanoco, which they have been candid about (eventually) and it was interesting to note Onsemi's acquisition of SWIR Vision Systems who use PbS.

A potential competitor to Nanoco/STMicro, or future customer or licensee?

There are many ways to end a project, it can be swift by taking an axe to it, or you can delay its introduction and leave it on a dusty shelf to slowly starve.

I hope it turns out the delay is just a blip, but going by past experience with Nanoco and the wording used in the RNS I'm not optimistic about the October update.

I wouldn't describe any of the materials used in QD's as toxin free, simply that some are lower in toxicity than others.

We don't yet know what market Gen 1 can find for itself, or if it's been killed off in its infancy.

There's very little to comment on at present. The RNS on 2nd July obviously stirred things up a bit, but insufficient information to make an accurate analysis.

Quite understandable many shareholders are aggrieved at the lack of repeat orders- this company has been forecasting the big time is just around the corner for a decade or more.

We do at least have the ability to put questions to the board at the webinars. Nanocos's previous CEO restricted Q&A's to brokers analysts and journalists.

The difference this time, is that Nanoco does not have the time left in its patented IP to permit another market slipping through its fingers. If the QD IR sensor market does scale as expected, but another player reaps the reward either through their own endeavor or by ripping off other IP, Nanoco may not have sufficient funds to take them on directly, and a third-party funder may not be interested unless significant cash has been generated by any infirngers and any case could take several years anyway (e.g. Samsung took around five or six to resolve, with a disappointing settlement).

So a lot at stake here.

I'm sure a lot of that went on with Samsung- they worked with them for years. Could happen again too.

It boils down to how much of the QD coating process is STMicro's and how much Nanoco. I suspect Nanoco have a great deal to do with this, and knowledge tends to transfer via osmosis to the customer over the years long development process.

Metalenz PolarID looks a serious challenger to Apple's FaceID.

It's secure, inexpensive and highly compact.

https://metalenz.com/polareyes-polarization-imaging-system/polar-id/