Member Info for Nanonano

It’s good for the roses.

Yes, or even 1% of the Samsung's profit would have netted hundreds instead of tens of millions.

It is what it is though. Now we have to see if they follow through on their projections of significant organic growth.

QLED was basically a colour corrected backlight LCD using blue LED instead of white led's with Yag phosphor, which produces a less pure light.

The heavy lifting had been done by Nanoco, the profit margin from Samsung would have been very high. Nanoco weren't entitled to massive amounts of that profit, but a few dollars per unit didn't appear outrageous.

Second generation QD-OLED is a very different beast and only came out last year, with a very limited volume.

35p. Woo hoo!

I think it would be helpful for us as investors to be a little more grounded about the commercial value of this technology.

The analysts have been complicit in bandying about exaggerated figures, which Nanoco seem content to see published as it lifts the share price, whilst keeping their cards close to their chest on what they really are willing accept.

We don't know what the price of IR materials, or how much they use per sensor, so it's really impossible to gauge how much the company will make.

I remember mentioning how Nanosys had developed their xqdef diffuser plate which integrates cadmium quantum dots and costs just a few dollars to implement. I believe this is currently being used by Chinese OEM's like Hisense and TCL. As it does away with the need for a separate sheet, it reduces cost at the expensive of a bit of performance.

Someone on here said at the time that a few dollars for that wasn't credible, but look at the price paid and accepted by Nanoco for millions of tellies- comes to less than a dollar per set, and if you factor in gen 2 QD-OLED Tv's it's probably just a few cents per telly.

I think it's going to be a very long road before £70m profit is likely to be realised. I think near term, £3-5m, with perhaps £15-20m by 2025 a possibility.

If they could have inked a decent contract with Samsung for future sales, that would have been a reality now and some, but they didn't, so now future profit rely very heavily on the IR materials, and that will take a few years to build.

By the time the market has grown, some key patents will have expired, and Nanoco's value will depend on its other patents and trade secrets. Question is can you gauge that accurately.

With regards to a dividend, unlikely to see anything this year, and I think it would be unwise for the company to issue one at this time. They may decide to do something different than issue a dividend anyway e.g. a share buyback, or an acquisition. That keeps much of the value in house, whilst enhancing shareholder value .

Maybe, although Apple aren't exactly known for being charitable to third party companies.

Seems to be reports in the media that launch of Apple AR may be delayed until the Summer, although production schedules should be unaffected. All assuming it's using a QD sensor.

Another story suggesting more Apple AR set's pencilled in for next year. Still some way off though.

https://www.techradar.com/news/we-could-get-two-more-apple-arvr-headsets-in-2025

I think these OEM's are ones they've approached and worked with in the past, who subsequently went with competitors with cadmium QD's, and are now returning to enquire about cad free and this came post IPR result I believe.

What is most important is the companies have come to Nanoco, Nanoco have not gone touting for business. usually a good sign they're not just tyre kicking.

On the flip side, Samsung came to Nanoco originally didn't they?

The company have begun to re-commission the CFQD facility. Does that mean it was shut down?

Yes. However the company has not confirmed any orders for CFQD so far. It says manufacturers are sampling again.

And does NANO have any other production lines running? Does it actually make anything which it can sell at the moment?

Yes for infrared QD's. however production quantities are small at present for prototyping /sampling. The company is anticipating production orders this year for these materials.

Obviously any information would have to be public domain but so far I haven't found it so maybe nothing can be said.

This information has been given in company updates. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdE4xAf6xY

Well one satisfied customer anyway.

Brian says the cheque's in the post!

"I had seen the figure (thanks, Morbox) so it was certainly not impossible to find."

Are you able to reveal where this figure was published?

Difficult to find. Don't you mean impossible until the RNS?

I'm hoping we're going to get some kind of explanation of why the company settled for the amount it did, and not just leave investors to wonder. After all there was plenty of information in past investor meetings in the run-up to the case in order to keep the pot boiling. I expect any Q&A session will be asking similar things.

His exact words were-

"In deciding the allocation of the net proceeds, the Board will balance any investment needs of Nanoco's growing organic business with a firm intention to deliver a material return of capital to shareholders."

'Material' reads different from 'substantial' by my reckoning. We'll see, but it's nothing compared with the material and substantial affect on my shareholding value since those RNS's in January.

Agreed, but the share is only rising from a very low benchmark. I remember when this share was over £2.

Difficult to imagine a year this company will break even, rather than relying on cash from the markets, let alone become profitable.

Potential and eventually. Not the same as definitely and at this date.

If (big if) the first application off the blocks turns out to be Apple's fabled AR set, that is expected to sell no more than around 1.5m units per year. That's a guess by industry pundits, but even if it's double that number it's still a lower volume device, so I would expect revenue to Runcorn to reflect that.

I think a crucial difference with sensor materials, is that they're manufacturing in their own facility rather than licensing to a third party like Dow. Hopefully that will enable Nanoco to keep a tighter grip of its IP, but we'll have to see.

I'm not going to put too much hope for a special dividend. Surely the company would want to keep a fair bit of cash for any potential legal action against others infringing their IP, assuming a simple letter is inadequate to persuade them to take out a license.

Sometimes I wonder if PI's are being softened up for a bid.