Member Info for Nanonano

Nanoco were originally expecting commercial volumes to commence a year earlier than they did, and I recall at the time that it was owing to issues further up the supply chain with the customers customer that resulted in delay.

I have asked for more details, and they interpreted my question as asking about a final product by a customer of STMicro, when I was referring to the actual item STMicro are (perhaps allegedly) making.

Why would a company order materials for millions of sensors if they haven't yet established a market?

Where has it been stated that STMicro have been distributing evaluation kits of sensors incorporating Quantum dots?

Hundreds, or perhaps a few thousand devices would make some sense for prototyping, but millions of devices just to punt out as sampling. Doesn’t compute in my book.

Nothing from either company to support such a thesis either. That STMicro are offering devices that ‘may’ contain QD’s in for preview simply means they have some devices available for trial, but the bulk of the first order is likely earmarked for something else IMO.

It’s the lack of detail about the devices STMicro is incorporating the QD’s into that is frustrating.

Nanoco can’t be regarded as a successful company until they demonstrate they can attract repeat business of sufficient quantity to at the very least cover their costs and perhaps even make a profit.

The settlement was essentially deferred income from past years, and isn’t recurring.

They’ve certainly been successful in developing a lot of interesting tech, but that would not have been realised without enormous sums of money from investors, it’s taken tens of millions to get to this point.

All the discussion seems to be laser-focused on the settlement once again. However disappointing it was, the outcome will not change with regards to that.

It's the lack of detail surrounding the nature of the organic business that is concerning, and which is affecting company value. It's all gone rather too quiet.

The $500m quote was in The Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/01/manchester-firm-sues-samsung-tv-tech/

Figures were probably based on the information in this report/thesis.

https://www.specialsituationinvestments.com/2022/09/nano-patent-litigation-multibagger-upside/

"Is that the same independent media who reported the settlement could be $500m Nanonano?"

Investors Chronicle was one I well recall. Can you recall any media outlet that thought the settlement was a good deal for shareholders?

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2023/02/03/nanoco-reaches-disappointing-samsung-settlement/

Also language seems to have moved from near term to medium term-

2023-

"We have done this while transforming Nanoco and positioning ourselves for significant organic growth in the near term"

2024-

"Alongside the intended return of capital in 2024, the Board is confident that the Group will deliver increases in shareholder value in the medium term."

The information given isn’t sufficient to stimulate interest in the market, and trust in the outcome matching ambition is low. That’s not simply down to the settlement, which if you’ll recall was pretty roundly criticised in independent media, it’s also a consequence of multiple instances of disappointment to commercialise the technology primarily in display e.g. Samsung, LG, Dow, Wah Hong, Merck, TCL, Hisense, AUO, Innolux, Apple.

Now they did subsequently get something back from Samsung, but they had to fight all the way to get it, and the final prize didn’t impress the market.

I don’t think any of the rest of your post is relevant, and some of it is very inaccurate too, especially when we consider that QD’s have been around a lot longer than a decade.

This is not about questioning Nanoco technology, this is about whether they have the ability to ink a decent contract with ongoing revenue sufficient to support the company.

There’s little information for anything at all, hence why we have all the speculation, discontent and a rotten share price.

“Nanonano who promoted the idea that Nanoco's technology might appear in a high profile Apple device whilst having no visibility of the work of any of STM's two thousand other customers.”

My best estimate which still looks to me the most likely application for the technology. The company themselves listed a VR/AR headset as a likely candidate for low volume order.

In contrast the company has never guided low volume order would be for sampling, which seems to be getting strongly peddled, without any evidence to suggest it is so.

Platform technology which has been in production goods for almost a decade.

Most shareholders don’t vote at all, figures seem to suggest the ii’s who do vote, have been in the control seat for a longtime. Will the lower II holding post buyback influence things come the AGM I wonder?

Certainly the lower II shareholding is unlikely to inspire confidence in the market that Nanoco is a company set for big things any time soon, in spite of some rhetoric.

"Up to 5m rings a bell"

Don't recall any figure being mentioned beyond a few million. Which is unlikely to move the needle much in terms of revenue.

Shipped for material for a few million sensors.

Commercial volumes for millions of sensors does not suggest sampling to me, or at very least not exclusive sampling. In addition, the contract was delayed more than once because of delays further up the supply chain, again this does not come across to me as something that would happen if a company wanted to produce 'x' number of sensors to simply punt out into the market.

Then we have to ask ourselves why two sensor materials were shipped in two specific frequencies, why there is such secrecy surrounding the use of the materials and their intended product.

Although BT poured cold water on the idea of the sensors being available in a current produce (e.g. Apple vision pro) the company have also stated they don't know where the sensors are going.

It looks to me like the QD's are a late stage addition in the production process of the sensors, so who's to know if the STMicro built up some infantry before adding the dots and then shipping earlier than the timeframe iterated by BT?

I agree this is all a stretch, but everything in the spec of the AVP screamed next gen sensor tech to me, how have the Apple managed to put effective iris recognition which typically costs hundreds of dollars alone into a device which is already eye wateringly expensive for the rest of the tech? Then there's the class leading eye tracking and hand and gesture recognition.

Not to mention all the cloak-and-dagger comms, naming then not naming who the customer was which absolutely reeks of Apple.

None of this means squat until we get some proof, sadly teardowns revealed zip about the sensors (something else that smells) in spite of just about every other component being labelled.

All the ad hominem bs is getting old fellas. There really isn't very much to comment on at the present but the constant bickering amongst a handful of posters is really casting shade over any sensible dialogue.

If you look at the materials that were being worked on for STMicro, one was in the NIR band and the other was in the SWIR. The order was for materials in two bands, although the frequencies were not confirmed, however it would seem most likely the materials were in the same band as those that were under development.

Earlier datasheet from 2023 listed efficiency in NIR band. Why are STMicro getting coy about it in later revisions I wonder?

https://postimg.cc/rzf9xWVv

Nanosys dots are a different chemistry to Nanoco, and in the case of infrared spectrum AFAIK, they're not offering any competing product at all.

As you say zero mention of the current crop of sensors evaluation or otherwise containing QD's or nanomaterials on STM's website. If they're out there looking for buyers it's a peculiar way of going about it IMO.