Member Info for Nanonano

A lack of trust in certain memebrs of the board coupled with scant information on commercialisation, plus fewer shares in issue could make the company more vulnerable to an aggressive takeover bid- all assuming someone wants it badly enough.

I doubt the company would have enough in reserve to fend off such a bid, should it prove attractive enough to shareholders.

Acorn didn't do very well out of ARM as I recall. Wasn't ARM was spun off from Acorn with a large share purchased by Apple who wanted the 'A' ARM changed to 'Advanced'. Initially, ARM wasn't very successful (Apple Newton anyone?), I think ironically it was Nokia that really made them successful by incorporating ARM chips into their handsets, Apple started using it in the ipod.

With regards to information, I think it's only post Samsung settlement that I recall the company informing investors of the chemical make-up in the sensor materials. Knowing earlier that lead sulphide was the material would certainly have modified my opinion on when we could expect to see high volume production.

I'm sure the company realised this would probably influence some investors too, which is very likely the reason they were coy about it. I still find it hard to envisage medium or high volume production until gen 2 materials are ready, but have stated earlier I will be happy to be proved wrong.

The delays in commercial production may be beyond Nanoco control, however it does increase risk when it comes to establishing a decent market share.

Critical patents are getting ever closer to expiry, and I am cautious over the value and validity of other patents that extend further out that AFAIK have been untested in PTAB and were not used in the litigation against Samsung.

Nanoco could easily find itself championed as a pioneer in the field of nanomaterials, but with little business to its name and which subsequently failed to capitalise on its early potential and lost the market to competitors who offered cheaper alternatives. We shall see.

With regards to ARM, I often remind myself had I invested in Nvidia (who use ARM technology) at the same time I invested in Nanoco, I'd have seen a return of over 180 times.

The problem with the company and the technology is that everything is shrouded in secrecy and NDA's and thus it's impossible for an investor to predict future growth.

Can't give any timescale at all, as there is no visibility of future orders. There is the work with Trinamix/STMicroelectronics for under-display face ID sensing, they say they'll be ready for commercial orders within a few months, but who knows, and will they get a deal with an OEM(s)?

Will QD sensor tech proliferate amongst other manufacturers in the AR/VR space, Meta, Samsung etc. We still don't know if the AVP is using the tech, although I still think it's most likely.

This is why io think it so vital that the company gives as much detail as possible about the work with STMicro. At present we know very little indeed.

"Where's the high volume order going to come from? "

It would have to come from either lead sulphide materials, an accelerated development of gen 2 materials, or a decent display contract.

From what I'm observing the Korean OEM's are a bit stuck at present, as China have near enough all LCD production, and for consumers it's good enough and very cheap. Consequently, Korean OEM's have tried to move consumers onto more expensive and exotic tech like OLED and Microled, but they are constrained by volume and still rather expensive compared with LCD. TCL, Hisense and other CHinses OEM's are taking a very large bite out of Samsung and LG, much in the way those Korean companies took a bite out of the Japanese OEM's, after all who would have taken Samsung and LG seriously twenty or so years ago?

Having said all that, I find it hard to envisage any significant revenue for Nanoco going forward in display. Will be happy to be proved wrong on that however.

Think we should all bear in mind that forward projections have often been overly optimistic, both from Nanoco and independent analysts (e.g. Yole).

A lot could happen to upset apple carts. A good recent example is the Metalenz Samsung partnership with the Polareyes sensor, I think that will prove disruptive in the face ID market, and limit the opportunity for the use of QD's in this sector.

Nanoco will need a high volume order to get a share price in the £+ territory.

No idea.

I don't see any significant rise in Nanoco until we either receive some more information on the first commercial order application, or additional contracts for commercial supply.

All other news appears to me to be baked into present value.

"It does feel like a boardroom refresh is overdue"

I believe the Chair is stepping down this year.

I expect one of the new non-executives will likely be taking up the position, with my money on Dr Jalal Bagherli, although it could be Dieter May or someone else.

If you want to lower your risk, you can apply for the full 38% offer. The percentage stake you own in the company will remain the same once implemented, and you'll have some cash back. Alternatively, you can apply for more than 38% and if they accept that, you will dilute your investment slightly. Or you can choose to leave it alone, and your stake in the company will increase, and depending on the value of the company going forward you may win or lose.

This deal is largely beneficial to larger holders with the majority of their holding outside of tax avoidance wrappers.

I think most with a small holding in ISA's would have wished for a cash dividend.

Naturally, they have the opportunity to vote down the proposal at the GM, and then the board will have to reconsider, but I rather suspect that like the EGM last Summer and the AGM late last year, most shareholders won't take the opportunity to vote at all, and thus the II's who do vote control the direction of policy.

"would expect the remaining shares to increase in value by 38.5%"

If you retain your original holding, the percentage of the company you own would increase, but because the company would have used the cash from Samsung to purchase those shares back, then the overall value of company has been reduced, and any further rises will depend on what business they attract going forwards. With less shares in issue, any value will increase for shareholders, but you take on the risk that things may or may not pan out as hoped.

A higher tender offer may have been better received, but I'm sure would also have faced criticism that they were once again rewarding II's. I think they should have simply offered the tender offer or cash, which they may end up doing if the tender offer is heavily undersubscribed.

Ultimately it's going to be down to growth in QD IR sensor technology, and whether display scales beyond Samsung and how much of the market share Nanoco can win and/or hold onto.

Display has not grown in the way originally expected by independent analysts, where they were once predicting about 50% market share, it's currently less than 10%. I believe a factor has been the difficulties in using colour filter technology on LCD screens, OLED is constrained by volume production and microled is still going through growing pains. For most consumers non-QD LCD looks very good indeed, and it's cheap- so it's a nice-to-have rather than a must-have.

Sensors are a slightly different kettle of fish. If you want a sensor to operate in the SWIR spectrum, there aren't a lot of choices, and it appears none at all if you want something cheap enough for consumer items.

Where there's risk is in competition from other companies, plus whether SWIR will become mainstream and justify high volume production or whether non-QD NIR is good enough e.g. the recent partnership with Metalenz and Samsung for polareyes sensor.

It's difficult to envisage what scenario of cash return would have satisfied everyone.

I don't think the method they've given has honoured their original stated intention of providing investors with a choice between cash or equity, unless they meant 'Hobson's choice'.

I wasn't suggesting news will drop during the tender offer, but could sometime after if investors are looking to sell and then buyback cheaper post-tender.

I wouldn't assume anything. News could drop at any time- good or bad.

What the company needs to demonstrate is a healthy market for their product. First commercial order last November, but little detail beyond it's low volume and for two materials. Sadly no additional information to be gleaned from the wider market about what this is going into, although I still think it's the VP. The license to Samsung which was disappointing, but cannot be viewed as an earner going forward as it was a one-shot deal.

Reading through the TP note, the company seem to have found another set with CFQD inside, and they say another major QD player is pending.

The solar market was raised in one of the Q&A’s last year. The response was that China had saturated the market with cheaper panels and pole axed the European companies, and I would guess that currently China has little appetite for QD enhanced panels.

He did say that the delay was in return of some things that Nanoco wanted. It wasn't disclosed what they were.