Member Info for Nanonano

The Apple Vision Pro is subject to intense secrecy. You only have to read the agreement developers are required to sign before obtaining a device in advance of commercial release to observe the level of scrutiny surrounding anyone accessing this gadget.

https://www.ruetir.com/2023/08/apples-paranoia-with-its-vision-pro-extreme-standards-for-developers-who-are-going-to-try-them/

That Nanoco have been working with STMicro since 2020 (and in fact prior that only via Apple)is no secret-

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/quantum-dot-material-supply-agreement-c6yi3jxqcl05hvw.html

The cloak came down in subsequent RNS's, which is without any doubt in my opinion down to Apple wishing to mask the connection, but it's easy to trace it through.

Furthermore analysts like Yole amongst others have confirmed the development of QD sensors by STMicro, and appear to be the sole player in this arena for now, with an almost exclusive market for infrared sensors in the consumer sector.

90% of QD devices in the marketplace use Nanoco technology. The remaining 10% may also have used Nanoco seeding technology, as yet unconfirmed, but very likely, as it's so efficient at producing QD's at scale, which is the reason for its invention.

No visibility of orders, and undoubtedly a distrust in the board to deliver on their forward-looking statements based on past performance.

That they're unable or unwilling to name the companies they're working with and past performance on contract cancellation is a major factor.

What figure would the share price be now if the company said they were supplying materials for components/devices that would be used in the forthcoming Apple Vision Pro?

Https://displaydaily.com/hebrew-university-researchers-achieve-significant-qd-color-switching-breakthrough/

If Tariq has good evidence, something beyond circumstantial or inferences and can present that to a third party to be verified, then certainly anyone responsible should step aside, as clearly they’ve committed a criminal offence. Think they’d have rather more to be worried about than just losing their job.

My thoughts are that someone has their dog whistle out.

Bit of a stretch isn’t it? To make the allegations, but then go quiet on any evidence is non-sensical, unless of course they haven’t got any and are just slinging mud in the hope that some will stick.

I wonder how well Nanosys would do if they went public? Tried once I believe- insufficient interest as I recall.

https://www.eetimes.com/nanosys-raises-40-million-after-pulling-ipo/

Then there was this a couple of years ago-

https://displaydaily.com/will-nanosys-go-public/

In spite of the disappointment with the Samsung settlement, I think income from QD's will far exceed anything Nanosys have netted. We may get to say how much they've earned in due course, if they've been swiping Nanoco tech on quiet. Don't think the Nanosys CEO resigned by coincidence.

I believe the CEO has been getting himself out and about.

Looks at this- https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nanosys/company_financials

Look at the rounds of funding and the amount of cash sunk in. Nanosys claim to have supplied 15 tons of QD materials, so why do they keep needing cash injections every couple of years? How much money are they really making?

"Well I don’t disagree that such opportunities are limited especially now the 85-90% of the market player is paying $65m for all past and future use ( bit of a low bar set) but the Nanoco board made much of validation and pursuing other infringers but now …not so much. "

How likely then that another management team will net any more cash, especially if they divest Runcorn?

Regarding years to develop materials, the original material supply agreement signed with the US customer believed to be Apple, was inked in February 2018, and they were very close to being ready for production by mid-2019 shortly before the contract for supply was cancelled.

I'm aware the CEO stated these material developments can take up to five years or more, which was somewhat puzzling to me when you compare that with the original timeline for the initial contract, but I guess it's rather more challenging to produce the inAs and InSb than the PbS material.

How much are infringers making? Display is the only market sector making any money for QD’s, and Samsung have about 85-90% of the market. So the rest of the market is what say 2m sets a year at best? What sort of royalty would they assign? How much would it cost to pursue any claim? How does this compare with potential revenue from sensors?

I think it likely that revenue is likely to be far more generous from sensing tech than display. The main caveat is patent life and value of other patents and trade secret IP in Nanoco’s portfolio.

I will hold until I see what happens with STMicro. If they fail then, or the share fails to rally on a contract being inked, then I think the company becomes a much riskier investment IMO, and that's in spite of the Samsung settlement.

That payment might secure funding for the company but doesn't guarantee future sales and key patents are due to expire by the time they predict higher volume production in 2026.

"1. Begrudgingly supporting the board as long as commercial orders come in FY23"

Investors expect to see them follow through on their strategy and forward looking statements. No contract no business. The settlement was past business, a one-time deal with no ongoing payment, and the result was disappointing to say the least, however we've been told that organic business is key. Well investors need to see some, and the organic business has seen repeated delays. I believe it's cancellation rather than hold-up that will call for heads to roll, although I don't believe they can keep kicking the can down the road six months at a time.

"2. Ready to lynch the board if this isn’t the case. "

Or look for candidates that can follow through on their forward looking statements and present a strategy that might retain shareholders investment, let alone make a profit (shock, horror). This is not a privately funded R&D project, and investors seek a return for their risk.

Tariq should have kept his powder dry, if the present board fail in their attempt to commercialise the sensor technology, then he would be taken a great deal more seriously.

Preempting it smacks of opportunism, and the alternative board failed to present a credible business strategy IMO.

I agree with ddubya in that we should wait and see what transpires with the sensor deal. It's five months not five years away from when this deal should be inked with STMicro. If that falls at the final hurdle, then shareholders should look towards a change of guard.

"There is an internal team and a retained special advisor as advised in March this maybe overlaps with the increased cost base…what are they doing is the question apart from producing heat maps?? "

That doesn't mean it's a cost. Retains can simply mean they're available if further action is taken, and any internal team may (and probably is) be carrying out dual roles in the company.

Takes cash to go after infringers. Not something Nanoco has had a bunch of, and still doesn't until they get that second payment next February from Samsung.

I think it's fair to say though that any other parties infringing on Nanoco tech are likely to net only a few million at best. Nanosys seem to be great at bragging about the 15t of QD materials they've sold, but how does that translate to cash and volume of screen sales, and how much of it would be applicable to Nanoco patents.

There were five customers for sensing materials last count. I think two or three dropped out, but that’s to be expected when the work is at an early stage. STMicro is believed to be the sole near term customer though, although they supply huge numbers of OEM’s so it somewhat different to say the Apple contract where only one firms products were in the mix.

I don’t expect anything much from display going forward, because although the company has shown graphs expecting growth beyond Samsung, they’re only estimates, and usually prove to be fiction. They may extract a few million out of Nanosys in a year or two from now.

Added to that the key patents that Hansol are licensed via Samsung expire in a few years, by which time they’ll be able to supply all the OEM’s with QD’s and the Chinese will probably source from a local QD supplier like NNcrystal.

There may be a possibility of a contract for next gen display like micro led, but it’s very much a maybe. Or perhaps they suddenly announce QD’s that are leaps ahead of competition. The company don’t sound particularly bullish on display to me, the focus appears firmly on sensors.

LG use quantum dots in their QNED tv’s but not in their OLED panels.

Naturally, I watched the webcast. If the arrangement is similar to Samsung I imagine any payment will be modest even if Nanoco retain 100% of the payment, bearing in mind the volume of sales in comparison to Samsung, and will any license extend beyond 2025 and/or 2028? So perhaps a few million as a one off payment. That is unlikely to move the needle much on the share price.