Member Info for Nanonano

From the results presentation. I would hope and expect to be given some choice-

https://youtu.be/-wEXT3I3OaY?t=3692

I don't believe they've backed off microled, just Osram's version of microled. There are many competing technologies, and difficult to predict which one will be the winner, although there may be several depending on the application.

I don't think such an offer as you suggest would be anywhere near enough to tempt investors, unless they're really desperate- they'd have to have very low averages to make that work.

Who would put up the moolah?

Not sure they'd get sufficient backing for such a move. They may have been able to do something like that when the likes of RG and LOAM owned a significant stake in the company, but now their holding is much smaller.

I see in the news that Apple are reported to have dropped Osram as a MicroLED supplier for the Apple watch.

https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/apple-blow-makes-ams-osram-re-assess-microled-strategy/

I have a hunch that the executives hoped the share price would be doing a bit better by the time of the distribution of cash.

Sadly the secrecy surrounding where the dots are being used, coupled with low confidence in the board is hurting the company. Post distribution of £30-40m, I find it difficult to envisage how they can circumvent a sharp drop in company value unless they have something pretty good to share.

Sorry they said allows a return of capital rather than "intend", you can listen to the full comment on the link I provided if you want to debate semantics.

Said on the last investor meet they intend to return capital in Q1 CY2024 before the end of March.

https://youtu.be/-wEXT3I3OaY?t=112

Regarding competing against the might of Samsung, and hypothesising if Nanoco will ever be successful in becoming a profitable company, I would say that remains in a state of flux, and the risks are many. Certainly we know they’re not going to go bust in the foreseeable, but it remains to be seen if their technology becomes the standard in SWIR sensing, and of that market scales in the way expected. Certainly QD display has not reached the scale of market originally anticipated, and of course the adoption of cadmium free display has been almost non existent outside of Samsung.

From what I’ve seen of the isocell sensors, they’re a very well developed version of current technology, and as such are not going to be capable of reaching beyond 1000nm with any efficiency. They may take a large chunk of the sub 1000nm market, especially lower resolution sensors, and being lead free that will be attractive to OEM’s green credentials.

I believe that higher resolution sensors and sensors operating in SWIR will need some form of QD’s unless someone else is working on a technology in secret that no one knows anything about at present.

Regarding heat tolerance, 85°C is normal tolerance for consumer equipment and some industrial uses, but it isn't adequate for many uses in automotive and military. I expect the gen 2 materials to be within the range required for automotive.

I don’t think Samsung are using QD’s in the sensors, hence why the efficiency drops off at 940nm compared with 850nm. The efficiency at 950nm is very good, but it’s no match for QD enhanced sensors. Also not sure what the speed is like and how it well it would work at higher resolution. Metalenz also work with STmicro, all their ToF tech has transferred to metalenz tech I believe.

60% efficiency is being quoted at 850nm, 38% at 940nm which is good, but nowhere near where a QD sensor will get you, and efficiency will fall off a cliff past 1000nm.

Course QD’s come with their own issues, namely heat tolerance, and the efficiency may be good enough from Samsung’s offering, which are also likely to be lead free.

Regardless of who the NDA is between, the end result is a lack of information for Nanoco shareholders.

VD55G1 looks a good fit for the external hand/body tracking sensors.

Lidar and Truedepth cameras may also be STMicro, but not sure on models. Internal sensors are very likely to be a custom sensor developed for Apple by STMicro, or codeveloped between Apple and STMicro. Unable to find any sensors in STMicro catalogue in stock or preview stage listed as operating beyond 940nM in infrared.

However we won't know a thing until we get some news from the board or a third party leak. Personally the secrecy and NDA's are wearing a bit thin now.

I personally see little value in further VP discussion unless we can establish a credible link between STMicro and the sensors at the very least. Whilst no guarantee in the use of Nanoco materials, it would suggest a higher likelihood.

I'm personally more interested in information surrounding organic business. The money from Samsung is a one-shot deal.

The organic business announcements to date have not done much to stimulate the share price, and any kind of cash dividend is likely to result in the company value taking a pasting, which will further erode confidence.

The company needs to put some more flesh on the bones.

Don't think there's much to discuss really, apart from a lack of information.

Whatever you think of opinions, I don't see a valid excuse for the company to ignore legitimate correspondence.

Lack of information on the commercial order, and nothing to be gleaned from third party leaves the market in the dark.

It’s come as no surprise that the share price hasn’t risen in the absence of evidence supplying a product linked with someone like Apple, or a large volume order. The company has had too many false dawns.

I think this could be relevant to the future use of under display Face ID. Not sure how this could impact the future use of Nanoco QD’s.

https://optics.org/news/15/2/37

Sadly I do agree that the company seems to be ignoring emails from investors. The company should respond, even if they cannot provide the information requested as improvement in communicating with shareholders is one of the key areas they’ve highlighted as a priority.