Member Info for Nanonano

Originally, Nanoco were to pay off the cost of the facility once production commenced. As the sales did not come, Apple wrote off the cost and let Nanoco keep the facility.

Well I've been invested for several years now, and the company has essentially been fighting a rear guard action since the Samsung and LG deals went south. Things looked up for a while with Wah Hong and Merck, but it went nowhere, I suspect some foul play, as very odd behavior to show off models at a major trade fair (Touch Taiwan) with one company's dots then use dots by a competitor in production versions.

Then Apple came along, and it looked like they'd finally cracked it, but it was all the eggs in one basket, and Apple dropped the basket. I think the cash from them did give them some breathing space though, plus it cemented a relationship with STMicro.

The facility was gifted to Nanoco, and Apple aren't renowned for being benevolent, so clearly they knew they were going to need Nanoco's tech at some stage down the line.

Re the share price movement, I rather suspect My Hamoodi has been selling down his holding, and possibly in the process has triggered a few stops along the way.

Could be LOAM also perhaps, but would seem a strange choice as they had only recently been adding again.

Having your invention copied or improved upon or usurped by a competitor is always a risk with any technology.

That remains a risk for Nanoco, especially with mature patents and it's why it is very important that it has sufficient funds to invest in R&D and maintain a lead over competitors. At present it looks like they have an edge on the competition in sensing, whether they can retain that edge and capitalise on it remains to be seen. I believe things look more positive now than in the past.

Display revenue has been soaked up by Samsung, and sluggish legislation has resulted in business being lost to competitors with cheaper cadmium based QD's, and doubtless dirty tactics by Samsung. I'm not really sure how much business Nnanoc can win in that sector, they seem to have one major OEM very interested and some others sampling. It's wait and see for that area.

I don’t think it makes a heap of difference at this stage of the game anyway.

Blatantly obvious that delays in commercial contracts are owing to delays further up in the supply chain that Nanoco cannot influence. I’m hoping that by this time in 2024, the company will have both revenue from sensing and display. Not enormous to start with, but meaningful.

Hopefully the sensing will start to scale towards the end of 2024, where I think the sensors may be used in a high end iPhone plus potentially iPads too. However may have to wait until 2025 for that, not sure.

I found it interesting in the last update that BT said one of the sensing customers was accelerating the development of materials.

I can think of a couple of reasons why Samsung would wish to delay payments. First up the money gets to stay with them for a bit longer, not really much an excuse bearing in mind their resources. Secondly it impedes Nanoco’s ability to invest in the company for another year- so a further attempt to nobble the competition.

I find it hard to deduce any advantage for Nanoco, so therefore find it hard to envisage they requested it.

I believe so, yes.

Perhaps he's got a big mortgage? :)

Acorn was a computer company that made the BBC Micro computer. Don't think there was a computer company called the BBC, or not that I'm aware of anyway.

Another big trade for 2.3m shares gone through at 18.48p.

“Nanonano did you feel confident about all the other deals Nanoco were going commercial with in the past? “

No. I am more confident about this one though, but it isn’t without risk. Also display revenue projected for late 2023 or more likely early 2024.

Number of things different now, first the company is a much leaner operation and focused on core markets, second the tech is filling a need, rather than a tech trying to find a market.

Risks are competition and time to scale versus patent and IP relevance.

I think the CEO should remain, but would need to consider his position if the company fails to commercialise a product this calendar year.

I think any sensible investor realised that billion dollar awards would have only occurred had large damages been awarded plus multipliers for wilfulness, and they would have been appealed against.

A settlement would have been in order of a few hundred million at best, all the same Nanoco were taken to the cleaners with $150m, all you can say is they got something back, but not much for all those years of effort.

I think many investors need to realise that the company has been fortunate to retain what it has over the past few years. Many other companies would have gone under, or removed themselves from the stock market altogether.

What they now have to do is what has always been required, get some products on the shelves.

Where there's muck there's brass.

"I'm almost certain that's a sell. "

It's a trade.

I think most PI's do little to no research about the industries Nanoco and its contemporaries are operating in, they pegged everything on the potential outcome of the Samsung case. With a disappointing settlement amount, many sold out probably happy to lock in a small profit, or weather a small loss, and will look for another horse to back.

Certainly remains risk in the adoption of QD enhanced sensors, and who will win the greater percentage of the market should that technology become the chosen path, but I feel more confident in seeing a product with Nanoco technology in this year than that any time in the several years I've been invested.

I believe it will take another year or two before the market really scales, and it's not really possible to gauge how much Nanoco are likely to net from sensor sales, as we don't yet know how many sensors will be used in each device, plus volume of device sales or the price per sensor. If they remain confined to niche products for at least the first year or two, then things may be tight, but I would hope to see sufficient revenue to cover costs plus before FY2025.

"LOAM bailing"

To the contrary I would expect, seeing as they've been adding at higher levels than this.

If it’s any help to the share price, I’ve been buying not selling, I think it’s a no brainer at present levels, although I can understand many might be holding out for a further drop.

The settlement figure was a big disappointment and I do share some frustrations expressed here, but it’s also important to look at the future for the company, and the fact they are many years into key patents and must continue to innovate and diversify their technology to remain competitive, or risk being overtaken by rivals.

It remains to be seen how many sensors using QD’s the headset will feature.

For SWIR there doesn’t appear to be much option beyond QD at present, Ingaas too expensive and SiGe perhaps a bit too noisy and can only reach the lower SWIR band anyway. I believe they’ll require SWIR for iris scanning as it’s more eye safe for prolonged use.

NIR sensors are more likely for outward scanning as the illumination is more efficient, they may also incorporate quantum dots to extend range, accuracy and efficiency.

Both SWIR and NIR would explain the two materials with STMicro, although they could be for separate products.

So each set could incorporate several sensors using QD’s which would raise volume considerably. However impossible to forecast potential revenue, as we haven’t any idea on the cost per sensor.

They just need to get a contract inked.

To use QD’s in their own proprietary screens. Samsung can only sell complete displays with QD’s in, their license does not extend to material supply to third parties.

At present beyond Samsung and the companies buying complete displays from them like Sony etc. cadmium tech is being used from Nanosys and Nanging, primarily with Chinese OEM’s, LG are also using Nanosys dots in their QNED sets, although I’m not sure if they’re cadmium based or not, or potentially infringing Nanoco IP by using unlicensed cad free dots.

The market outside of Samsung is quite small for display, reckoned to be 1-2 million units per year. If we assumed Nanoco could obtain that full market share, then the revenue may be reasonable but not earth shattering. I guess it would depend on the profit from material sales, or royalty rate if the IP was simply licensed to a Chinese supplier and/or Nanosys.

Over $2bn in consumer electronics SWIR alone.

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2023/04/swir-imaging-market-worth-29bn-by-2028.html