Member Info for Nanonano

Material set A is lead sulphide, not confirmed by Nanoco, but by STMicro. That's in use by other companies and has been around for a long time, but it's only been produced in very small quantities until present.

Nanoco stated it's not exclusive to them, but that they have some exclusive trade secrets related to its incorporation in sensors and have expertise in producing it reliably in batches which they claim is exceedingly tricky.

I don't believe display is dead, but it will be considerably smaller than first hoped with Samsung, but then it's never reached original projections where analysts believed half the display market would be using QD enhanced display by now., and it's nowhere close.

How are they going to raise cash in this environment? No sign of breaking even let alone a profit in the foreseeable, and a very expensive company to run with much of the cash going to a bloated out board of directors absolutely creaming it. Another dog like AGM turned out to be.

Https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Electronics/Canon-develops-quantum-dot-OLED-materials-without-rare-metals

This has nothing to do with STMicro, which is still going to plan until we hear otherwise.

Think there’s 44 staff now.

It's quite difficult to project future revenue with any accuracy because of a number of factors.

Beyond Samsung display, the QD display market is quite small but growing. At present they appear to be using cadmium or a cadmium light, not sure what LG are using in their QNED range, but whatever volume is probably small as I don't think they're flying off the shelves. Nanoco have said they believe one possibly two other companies are infringing Nanoco IP. We can only speculate who that is. One major oEM currently trialing the dots, others are reportedly sampling. We don't know who they are.

The next potential source of revenue is sensing, which is still a brand new market yet to be established. It looks promising, but Nanoco have at least one competitor in QS Ltd. and they appear to have lost a few customers in the last few months, but no information on whether they have simply lost interest or gone with a competitor.

Likely to take a year or two from late 2023 to reach any decent volume.

Other potential income sources like Lighting, quantum computing, agriculture and bio seem to either be far off in the future or reached an impasse.

Can't continue as a cash burner. If they don't deliver on this contract and build upon it with further contracts, bearing in mind that one or heaven forbid even two contracts, leaves the company vulnerable to product changes and/or cancellation then either the board needs to move aside or the company should look at putting itself up for sale again while there remains value in the IP.

Unless independent analysts have got things badly wrong, it's unlikely that QD sensors will appear in iphones this early. Would be happy to be proved wrong as the volume of sales would be high for an Apple handset, and the share price would probably go nuts but I think expecting that at this stage is premature.

I still think the first use will be in the Apple AR headsets, because all indications of the (admittedly leaked) specs suggest some kind of SWIR sensor will be required.

The one alternative technology for SWIR sensor is InGaAs, which would be far too expensive and limited in resolution- the latter I understand is more down to governmental restriction rather than technological.

Also any NIR sensors in the device may also require enhanced speed and reduced power consumption when compared with units used in smartphones, as they will need to be switched on a lot more than a smart phone in order to map the surrounding environment and the person using it in realtime, whereas a smartphone only uses such sensors intermittently.

If you look at the materials that have been validated by the 'European customer' one is in SWIR in the 1.3-1.5um band the other in NIR sub 1.0um, and I think it possible that both will go into production for the same product.

Almost certainly likely to play a major part in the near future, maybe late 2024 or 2025. CAn't be certain it'll be Nanoco's tech used, but it's the most likely candidate IMO.

https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-wants-to-transform-the-iphone-with-generative-ai

They may be able to bully smaller companies, but they'll find it harder to push around the kind of companies that Nanoco are working with now, assuming they don't do what Samsung did, which seems less likely so far anyway.

A $90m sale would have been about 25p a share. Plenty of opportunity after that for investors to sell at prices well above that between since. Would it have passed if given to a shareholder vote, I think doubtful, and it would have been a bad deal IMO.

Present share price depressed based on lack of visibility of orders, which have been delayed as a consequence of delays further up the supply chain.

Not sure what you're talking about re "knockdown price". I mentioned that QD vision was sold to Samsung not long after Nanosys instigated legal action for patent infringement. That is not what I'd consider to be a successful company.

It would be interesting to know how much of QD visions IP Samsung actually used in their screens. Perhaps the purchase was more likely useful as a smokescreen for their illegal activities in stealing Nanoco's IP, which they used extensively. Ditto their investment in Nanosys.

No comparison between QD vision $70m and Nanoco's $150m. They purchased QD vision outright, and the company ceased to exist. Had Samsung been successful in purchasing Nanoco for a reported $90m, that would have been an end to Nanoco as an entity, and the majority of shareholders would have been left with stock at a loss with no further potential to realise gains from their original investment.

The patents that were sold as part of the deal appear to focus on adding QD's to film and are of little value to Nanoco who are focusing on Qdot supply and licensing of Qdot production. Sure they were part of the original infringement but so too were red dots, and that was dropped.

They've been advertising jobs for QD production personnel for several months, so nothing new there.

A second line of supply is considered to be necessary for large scale manufacturing and Nanoco said this could be another licensed company or done in-house.

Samsung seemed to buck this strategy, or perhaps they had Nanosys lined up or a second facility of their own tucked away somewhere should Hansol's supply fail- nothing would surprise me with that bunch of crooks.

Regarding the Hamoodi team's proposed CEO Greg Moeller, have some forgotten that QD Vision was being sued by Nanosys when they decided to sell up to Samsung?

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160414006498/en/Nanosys-Files-Lawsuit-against-QD-Vision-for-Patent-Infringement

Independent analysts have said wide adoption is 2025 at the earliest.

As has been discussed before, the Apple AR device looks the most likely early adopter. More niche most certainly, no idea how many sensors may incorporate QD ‘s, but I think there could be a few. I would not expect Jonathan Steckel to have discussed this, bearing in mind the secrecy surrounding the device until launch.

"Nanosys who sold 140 tons of QD materials"

Nanosys appear to have needed persistent cash injections to expand. 140 tons of QDs, so lets say 140000kgs, let's say a 1000 dollars per kilo, that would equal $140m, have they made anywhere near that in revenue? Also as QD tv's tend to use about a gram of dots per set, 140000 kgs would be equal to about a 140m TV's.

So seeing as sales of QD based screens are nowhere near that figure, even if we take into account Samsung, what/where are all these QD's being used in?

Outside of Samsung/Hansol the industry is miniscule, so having been ripped off by them and the rest of the display industry content to use camium based QD's, it does somewhat limit the market.

However they've pursued sensors, which looks like it should hopefully bear some fruit and could scale rapidly with a year to eighteen months. This was the major part of the managements projections, the legal action against Samsung was an extra- the cherry/cake analogy.

What's superior with Nanoco? Patented seeding production method is the big one IMO.

I would wish to see what happens with the sensor material business before considering and change of company management. If that slips away, then I think the company as a whole needs to be looked at for its viability going forward as an independent entity as time is running short to establish markets around key molecular seeding patents, and any tech established around newer patents remain a bit of an unknown quantity.

Tariq Hamoodi's action strikes me as highly opportunistic, and I believe his motives are cynically driven for short term profit at the expense of wider shareholders. I say that as someone who was very disappointed with the amount netted from the Samsung deal, and the subsequent explanations of guidance on damages models was unconvincing.

Yep asset strippers.

I do get the impression that with the Hamoodi group it would be a case of out of the frying pan.

It would have been necessary to keep a reasonable value in the share for LOAM and RG to sell into.

Think there's definitely been an element of back-scratching going on, proving it is another thing altogether though.

Samsung walked away from large screen OLED because of issues with the different lifespan/aging of RGB OLED primaries. I believe Sony had similar problems with their early OLED screens. It is less of an issue with mobile devices as they tend to be swapped out after three or four years or sooner.

They couldn't use WOLED, as LG had exclusive rights as they purchased the patented technology from Kodak.

Only with QD-OLED could they get adequate performance and longevity from a large OLED display, as the OLED's are in essence all one colour like the LG WOLED, except they're blue rather than white and use QD's to colour convert for R/G instead of using colour filters, which is why they have a luminance advantage and also more tightly controlled primary colours.

Difficult to envisage any advantage to Nanoco.