Member Info for Nanonano

The company have really only given a hoped for break even by next FY, and an eventual larger take-up for SWIR beyond 2016, citing figures from independent analysts like Yole.

This is very little to make any sensible investment decision. We don’t yet know how ubiquitous SWIR will be, or which technology will be dominant.

The lack of information regarding the STMicro order is extremely concerning and is serving to undermine confidence, which was already badly affected by a disappointing Samsung settlement.

QD’s in display has been far lower than analysts originally projected, around a tenth of original estimates in fact and beyond Samsung the use of cadmium free is almost non existent , and looks set to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Does it matter?

Surely what's more important is the size of the market the company is operating in and where the tech is being used. Currently, we don't know either.

First paragraph should have said-

Until Nanoco can offer more information on the products its materials are being used in, or secure orders that can bring the company to a point of break-even (at minimum), I don't see this share breaking out beyond its present position.

Until Nanoco can offer more information on the products its materials are being used in, or secure orders that can bring the company to a point of break-even (at minimum).

They've been in a similar position ten years ago, with plenty of cash and lucrative contracts just on the horizon. The difference is that now they're pitching for the sensor market and they have sold some materials, but not a great amount. The company is smaller, along with its costs but the contracts it's pitching for are also smaller- remember back then they were talking volumes in the hundreds of millions of pounds.

The five year development cycle strikes me as arbitrary, dreamt up to manage expectations. The original Apple contract went through its development cycle in under two years, so if it's now extended it's probably a consequence of either greater challenges with Gen 2 materials or simply the companies involved aren't too pressed to throw more money at it.

With £3m of shares to buyback, investors looking to purchase shares in the teens may have to be patient. A shift in sentiment could happen once the buyback 9s complete, but it does assume a period of either no news or bad news, and a smaller shareholder base willing to part with their shares.

Trading on this share depends on the liquidity post-tender. Those tendering 38.5% of their shares should see their remaining stake in company unchanged, selling more with the hope of buying back at a discount later, assumes sufficient sellers are willing to take a haircut alongside fewer shares in issue.

Not sure those figures are quite right. Breakeven is not going to be based solely on profit margin from materials sold, as a certain amount of that revenue will offset costs of running the company, plus there's ongoing revenue from the development contracts. However they will have to scale significantly beyond 3-4m sensors to balance the books.

Well I take the figures with a large pinch of salt.

I don't know the reasons for the accounts appearing the way they do, perhaps your enquiry will yield some clarity.

The company have said they're not interested in contract that are only for a few thousand (or hundred thousand) sensors.

Some information on the chip models using the QD's would be welcome and long overdue IMO.

Just basing it on some of the information that's been put in the public domain.

e.g. 'This is money' article stated the forecast number of sensors the first materials order would satisfy, and the company have said before that circa 100m sensors would yield around £20m revenue. Plus percentage of profit on sales.

A smaller order may attract a higher cost per unit, but it's guesswork as to how much, so I set it to circa 20p per sensor.

I estimate that the earnings from sensor materials, assuming the figures of material sale are good for 3-4m sensors is going to be around £360-480k max, assuming around 20p per sensor and 60% margin.

Definitely an application for infrared spectrum materials. High speed super encrypted fibre optic comms.

That article of course ten years old.

I personally see no point in debating the vote percentage- everyone has an opportunity to place a vote, if they don't bother for whatever reason, then the vote is carried on the majority opinion of those that do.

I do place importance on communication of the commercial sales and their applications. I don't expect the company to tell us what final product sensor chips are used in, would be a 'nice-to-have' but I understand that would more likely be something for STMicro to boats about.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to be informed what chips the QD's are being incorporated in, and it's that lack of information I am disappointed by.

"We don't know if the Nanoco enabled STM sensor has launched yet."

We don't know anything, which is why investors are left to speculate.

"I think that product is a sensor array for sampling and building an inventory rather than for a specific device."

Fine, then I'd expect STMicro to be making some noise about the product, instead I can only find old news articles from two or three years ago referring QD's and STMicro. Also I recall one of the nanoco team mentioning the customers customer as a reason for delays in commercial sale of materials. Trying to remember when that was- it's such a hassle listening through hours of dialogue trying to find something, ends up feeling like I'm playing a game of cluedo- it was Professor Pickett, using the lead sulphide pipe in the science library!

I think one of the things we can takeaway from the interim Q&A is that the materials have not been produced for experimental, proof of concept or R&D work as was recently hypothesized on here.

There's clearly some intent to supply for a product, although what that product is remains unclear. BT comments seem to have poured cold water on it being the Vision Pro, based on production times, however it still seems the most likely candidate IMO.

If iris scanners cost $150-400 each , then Apple clearly have something clever going on to put a pair inside a device which has a reported BOM of around $1500, and where the lions share of that is taken up with the cost of the screens and processors.

So I ask myself why Metalenz able to publish something like this, but Nanoco are expected to keep shtum?

Here's the difference between a company like Metalenz and Nanoco.

https://metalenz.com/metalenz-and-stmicroelectronics-deliver-worlds-first-optical-metasurface-technology-for-consumer-electronics-devices/

Solid details of what their tech is being used in. This is the kind of press release we should see from Nanoco.

If Nanoco know the chips the dots are going into, then it would be helpful if they informed the market. When companies like Metalenz are able to crow about such partnerships, it does beg the question why Nanoco are subject to such restrictions.

I would have thought that Nanoco would be aware of the chip designs that their dots were going into, even if they’re unaware of the products further up the supply chain. Knowing the sensor designs would be good clue to finding which products the chips are used in, although such information could also prove difficult to come by.

There are a few sensor designs on the STMicro website that could potentially use QD’s but as there’s no specific mention of them in the specification or data sheets, we remain in the dark.

For those that missed todays meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oun9bCyzCFA&t=53s

I thought this phrase was most meaningful, bearing in mind they have been cagey about quantities until now.

'We shipped enough material that we estimate there's enough for three, four or five million devices in the next 12 months or so.“