Member Info for NGR1616

You’re just posting garbage. It’s not going to hit a nerve it just needs calling out.

TwoGood2Die you are the plonker masquerading across multiple platforms and chat rooms of multiple companies under more than one alias spreading disinformation to suit your ends. You accuse others of doing the same but you are just projecting your own behaviours onto others. Your bar is pretty low.

I only look at the information available and try and determine what might happen based on that. What I'm not doing is suggesting how the SP might rise in the ways you invent that it will fall when the company has indicated it's expectations for growth. I'll believe them over some embittered PI any day.

You bear a grudge and it's not doing you any favours.

Troublesome I see you are still carrying on. To what end? Is this what amuses an old timer like you?

This sensor of interest was "released in May 2023"

STM lists their products once released and show their 'status and availability' as the product is developed.

Prior to April 2024 its status and availability was listed as 'PREVIEW'

In April 2024 that changed to 'EVALUATION' where it remains with that status. This means the product is 'under characterization. Limited Engineering samples available.'

Other sensors that go onto production are listed as 'ACTIVE' and this means the product is in volume production.

VD55G1 if indeed it is the sensor we think has Nanoco QD technology in, is not yet ACTIVE and in volume production. Ergo Nanoco will not be getting reciprocal volume production orders. In time the expectation is this will change. Presumably once an OEM accepts the sensor and places a volume order then the status will change to ACTIVE but engineering samples will still be getting issued as the product (sensor) will still need marketed to further new OEM's.

TG2D your attempts to drag the price down are admirable. I really hope you are not on the wrong side of news.

That could be the announcement of a third partner in sensing, more orders or even something on display. The new partner announcement will likely be before the end of CY24 by which time the narrative will have moved on.

The Buy Back has until December to complete. They do not have to do it as quickly as possible. Why are we questioning this and not the development cycle of the sensor(s) now our materials are validated.

I know the answer, some people are simply obstinate.

You base your opinion however you want. CEO's could always be more concise, but experience tells us they are often not and at times it’s down to us to determine what the nuances are. Anyone who’s been invested in small companies like this before need to be aware of that and if they are not by now then I’m not sure remaining invested is a good idea but no point complaining about it.

I’ve determined that 'samples' issued as part of any R&D program differ from those available for evaluation after the R&D program has ended, i.e. all the materials in the final product for evaluation have been tested and validated where those in samples many months or years ago have not.

The timeline is this.

8th August 2023

“Transitioning from and R&D first mover to a commercial producer of scale”

“Two materials now in final validation - awaiting final response from customer”

15th November 2023

“as previously announced, the Board's expectations were for a first commercial production order prior to the end of 2023 and that the first use of the Group's materials would be for low volume applications during FY24 and FY25”

“Demand is expected to grow gradually, enabling Nanoco to deliver the goal of being self-financing during CY25. Earlier adoption in more applications, or by more end users, has the potential to accelerate that expectation. If the infra-red sensing technology is adopted in high volume, mass market products, demand for Nanoco materials has the potential to grow very rapidly beyond CY25.”

The order announced on 15th November is most likely for validated product although no such explicit announcement was made regarding the date of validation the two would seem to be closely linked. STM now in possession of validated Gen1 product can issue samples of the production version of the sensor. That sensor could be VD55G1 which is listed as being at the ‘EVALUATION’ stage which was only updated in April this year if memory serves.

That’s your interpretation. Mine differs Kooba. The words are said and taken as gospel when they could just as easily be said to indicate there will be an end user at some stage and that there will be more over time. So yours is a determination based on a handful of words and mine is another.

What would you say if you had been given a sample with a n as yet validated part in it? Would you press ahead with production in the knowledge if it fails because of the invalidated material you’d have have no comeback and have to recall or withdraw the device? The repetitional damage alone would be hard to bear.

Nanonano it’s my opinion. What’s yours in relation to the status of the relationship with STM and the development cycle of the sensor (s)? Do you have one?

Where did I say otherwise?

If you just had your material validated would it go straight through to production and in a device in weeks? Maybe but personally I doubt it. More likely two sampling stages . The first STM sampling Nanoco’s materials. The second STM’s customers sampling STM’s Nanoco-based components. yes they maybe had pre-production samples to evaluate but according to STM’s own website at least one of their sensors is listed as being under evaluation. Once validated they may find their way into devices such as VR/AR headsets but it clearly hasn’t happened with AVP.

This is my theory. I’m not forcing it on you or anyone else.

It’s in the annual results DD. You might recall- material for use in sensing applications in a number of different applications but as yet unlikely to be in any device on sale.

He already did

It's @:17p because there is no firmer guidance on revenue and profit beyond they expect to achieve BE at some point in FY'25 as demand slowly grows.

They are not saying more than that so the market has very little of anything to go by.

Some would prefer it seems they said something before it happens - but what then if it doesn't - (Samsung/Apple/Display) as has happened under a different watch.

Pack….pack of wolves…..wolves of Wall Street - a fairly appropriate description given we are investing in equities. Hardly the same as how you described the CEO but hey do what makes you happy bud.

Nanonano in my opinion there are at least three reasons for the lack of communication.

1. Is an NDA. Nanoco likely do know exactly what chip they are going into but can’t and won’t say if they do.

2. STM will release info when the chip is in devices and the product has been taken up at which point they will want to do PR along with the OEM.

3. Both of above effect the narrative. At the moment we have some expectation the sensor will become popular but both companies know that the market can get ahead of itself unless you give them nothing to feed off. There’s already a baying pack growing impatient here.

Kooba this is a discussion board and I thought views and opinions were welcomed. I was hardly pontificating when I posted an article that iphone16 pro could have underscreen facial id but conceded with the posted timeline that the article was likely wrong on timings (or it could be a different tech).

I’m open to discussing ideas - so what !? You could enter dialogue in a constructive manner instead of reacting as you do.

Q. Are you unwilling to even contemplate that we are actually at an early stage in the supply chain development of the sensor and that it’s only out for validation and that sales will grow assuming the sensor is adopted into devices or are you remaining steadfast that can’t be the case because BT said samples had been provided before ?

Ill be more clear next time to ensure differentiation. This time I was talking about the sensor.

Ok Troublesome since you picked me up incorrectly I was talking about the sensor as I said to DD.

Just because I called you out for your pathetic characterisation of the CEO you’re now claiming I twisted your words.

There’s an opportunity to be civil. We had a cordial exchange yesterday about golf but you couldn’t keep it up. So what are you going to do next? Keep it up or move on?