Member Info for Nanonano

"The amounts of lead must be so minute."

A nanoscale amount of lead. However perception is key when it comes to marketing, and I think it's probably more than simply performance behind the Asian customer bypassing Gen 1 and waiting for Gen 2 materials.

Expectations for Gen 1 were already low, hence why the value of the company was low, with RNS on the 2nd July, even those modest expectations have been reduced.

Hopefully by October we may have a better idea of things, but we could still find ourselves with more questions than answers.

It should be obvious to even the most bullish investors that it's the quality of the company communications and actions that influences the company value, when the share price fell like a rock as soon as the market opened on the 2nd July.

I tend to reply if someone is addressing something I have specifically posted. Nothing much to say regarding the Cavendish remark, just pointless rhetoric.

It’s conjecture to state Gen 1 is dead, but based on the RNS it’s also seems overly optimistic to think it has a good future ahead of it when repeat orders are delayed and with no estimate for how long that delay will be.

Delay has resulted in cancellation before, that happened with the large computer monitors, and investors were not updated on this until the company was directly questioned about the matter.

I have always been concerned about the utility of lead based materials for a consumer market. Nanoco kept the material type carefully guarded in the early years of development, perhaps in anticipation that it may raise eyebrows once known.

I read it as the third customer was aimed at sensor materials rather than display? So existing customers are STMicro, and the Asian chemicals customer who I think this is Shin-Etsu (supply Sony, TSMC etc.) , another suggestion has been Tokyo Electron, but they're an electronics fab aren't they?

Bearing in mind Onsemi's recent purcase, could they be another, or AMSOsram?

The display contract was another thing, but it seems to have gone quiet.

Also no sign of that mystery display OEM signing on.

Breakeven rather than breakdown, not a Freudian slip.

I gave many good reasons for my view that the use of Nanoco technology in the AVP could very likely be the first commercial use. There is quite simply no other consumer-facing device out there that I thought might potentially require the Gen 1 materials in a low-volume case.

However I certainly also said that there was room for doubt, and that it was only opinion and not fact. It's still not been demonstrated what sensors the AVP though, and i remain curious as to the tech used for efficient Iris scanning plus the precision and speed of the eye tracking and external IR sensors. Seems BT can tell us what it isn't being used in, but not what it is.

Without evidence of such a high-profile product like AVP being attached to a low volume order, I thought Nanoco would struggle to gain market acceptance of any real commercial traction in the market, and the share price would subsequently suffer. That now seems to be the case,

My posts are all on here for those that care to look through them. However here's one from January this year regarding the AVP speculation.

"Some are presenting it as a dead cert however, no doubt in the hope of puffing the share price, which is rather dangerous IMO."

Regarding exaggerated claims, last year the company were touting eight or nine different OEM's in the sensor space, which has now reduced to two, albeit with multiple materials. This is considerably more risky IMO.

At the time I don't recall them saying anything about them being small and of little value contractually, which may have put a different slant on things, but I guess at the time they were anxious about their future career prospects.

Then we have the claims that even a low volume order would quickly bring the company to breakdown or beyond- which turned out to be nonsense.

If you exaggerate potential deals or are economical with information about forthcoming contracts, effectively 'breadcrumbing' your investor base, you can't complain if those investors then turn ugly.

Accountability for any company lies with the CEO, too often they're quick to take credit for success, yet seek to lay the blame off on others for any failure.

At present there isn't enough information to assess accurately what the future of the Gen 1 sensing materials is, but I think we can say that things aren't going according to original guidance, and the tone of the RNS was sober at best.

Nanoco management have always been keen to puff up positive news, but really have to be drawn out when it comes to owning the failures.

It’s often repeated by the present CEO that the company has been taken to the alter twice, first by a Samsung then Apple ( US customer), however investors of any reasonable length know full well that although those are the largest disappointments, there have been many others e.g. LG, Dow, Wah Hong, Merck etc.

I believe many investors had looked for more straightforward comms after Michael Edelman departed, and for quite a while it looked like that was going to be the case. BT has a more avuncular style ths. His predecessor, but the communications leading up to the settlement result damaged confidence very badly IMO, and the recent RNS has further undermined it.

I only challenge the ones I think are worth responding to.

Also it seems only you and Terrorwit, whom I suspect are one and the same are posting bullish posts which seem to be delving further into the realms of fantasy.

Unless you're working for the company or STMicro and know exactly what's going on, then you're not in a position to make statements like that.

Well not seen them confirmed as out yet, have we?

Does anyone want them either, no doubt there's interest in sensors which can see well into a frequency which remains out of bounds for affordable components, but perhaps there's an issue.

In my view a company doesn't issue an RNS like the trading update Nanoco did when it's very positive about future sales volume, unless as some suggest they're deliberately trying to shake the tree.

Not what was guided NGR, Nanoco have never stated the Gen 1 tech was an early enabler, they guided it as a product to be sold into the market and used in products.

Company guided a low volume order, e.g. sufficient for a few million sensors, and crucially that such low volumes would quickly bring the company to break even and beyond.

Doesn’t look even close to break even.

This is more than slippage. Management have been shifting the timeline for over a year now. One time they were projecting near term profitability (typically 1-2 years) now it’s medium term (2-5 years).

2027 is really the earliest we can expect Gen 2 to be ready unless there’s some acceleration in R&D, and there’s no evidence to support any such progression.

This is assuming no problems occur along the way, and the other sides keep to their agreement. The current (sole) order was a year late in arriving.

If Gen 1 turns out to be a dead duck, the risk to investment has risen exponentially IMO.

With Onsemi getting into the SWIR sensor game STMicro now have a potential competitor, it’ll be interesting to see how quickly they bring a product to market and where they source their materials from.

Apologies, auto correct strikes again.

Remaining revenue is from Samsung settlement and development contracts.

If that report was supposed to inspire confidence, it’s not going to do so IMO. It backs up my belief that Gen 1 PbS materials are not commercially attractive. Look at the drop in estimated EBITDA- 32% reduction. Romani. Even use is from the Samsung settlement and development contracts.

Clearly ambition was low to begin with, but this company is not going to be self funding until 2027 if it gets there at all. Little surprise the II’s have taken their cash elsewhere.

Whilst I don’t have much time for a lot of the flippant comments on here, discussions on company strategy and the competence of the management team is not inappropriate. Plenty of companies go to the wall with investors cash, with the c-suite simply washing their hands and moving on.

I’ve lost faith in this management team to deliver commercial traction. I will not be voting for them at the next AGM.

I see some bright spark on another message board has suggested Nanoco should make their own screens. Great idea, just need a few hundred million quid investment and a ten+ years for the R&D.

And pigs might fly.

Conjecture rather than proof, as based on incomplete information.

Until we get a definite from either Nanoco, STMicro, or a respected third party source we simply cannot know.

All we know is that the Gen 1 materials have been validated, and an order was shipped end of 2023.

We have no confirmation of what they’ve been put in, and there’s been no mention of any use beyond prototype displays at shows, which have been applied in the SWIR spectrum, and the efficiency at 940nM shown on an earlier data sheet for VD55G1 sensor which has since been retracted.

The secrecy always struck me as odd, unless the early units were earmarked for a product that was in stealth mode. With it seems the AVP ruled out as a first case use, it leaves investors searching for something else which is not apparent at this time.

If the sensors are intended for wider use and STMicro are looking to attract custom then the lack of candour about the technology does not make sense, especially when they appear to be happy to talk about other aspects of the technology.