Member Info for NGR1616

The key word "some"! It's not like he said the majority as you seem to imply.....

People want him to communicate more transparently but then jump down his throat when he does.

Haha very good NN. That made me chuckle.

No one likes being left in the dark. In time we’ll know if we are in devices such as phones or wearables or headsets or all of the above but for now it’s obvious to me that we can’t expect any more clarity for the foreseeable. But like Cluedo, it’s fun looking for clues. STM might announce something in due course but in the meantime your analogy holds water. (Why others have issues with analogies is a mystery to me

If it aids understanding. Maybe it’s just too difficult for some to grasp. I work in the upstream oil industry so I like it)

Troublesome your comments are as usual banal and never add any substance to any debate. You don't need to comment for comments sake.

Nanonano, I suggested that the material was being provided for R&D but then accepted it was more likely they were accepted and now going into manufacture into a product....but I think that product is a sensor array for sampling and building an inventory rather than for a specific device. I.e. not sold on as yet. BT indicated that they do not believe, due to the scale up/production time scale from the point of order, that their material is in a device on sale today. So I don't agree re AVP but I do anticipate high volume adoption in phones with production ramping in back end of 2025. Iphones launch September based on the more recent models. Mass adoption will take months so 2026 is possible.

TG2D –“ just don't understand Brian or what goes through his head from the weird and quite frankly awkward comments that some shareholders wanted Nanoco to hold onto the Samsung settlement cash and not pay share holders to the plain bizarre analogies used during the Interim Results update stating that we shouldn't care what customer end product our dots go into and that all that matters is the number and size of wafers the truelly [sic] bizarre anology [sic] comparing Nanoco to an oil company producing a product to go into soap...

I've just got to question his leadership, poor judgement, and what on earth goes through his head and the rational [sic] behind it before he creates yet another gaff!”

-You seem to suggest BT is making it up that some shareholders wanted to hold onto the cash? Perhaps they are as vexed about the mechanism as some PI's - why can they express they retain cash rather than erode the Mcap and larger holders cant? I think this view is entirely plausible.

-Re supply - the company’s primary goal is to sell nano materials to make profit. That's their focus. It's up to the downstream supply chain to sell the product they end up in. Nanoco cannot influence it other than make sure they provide a high-quality product at a competitive price point.

-The soap analogy is (as I said yesterday) to help those less familiar with the supply chain understand it. He’s tried to explain that it is a platform technology. The dots (the oil) get put into another state by STM / semiconductor company (the refiner) to create the wafer. What happens to that wafer depends on the end use. The end user will specify the die size that aligns with their requirements on performance and size. In the case of STM I believe they are likely putting it into either a ToF sensor or a CMOS sensor (or both) and selling the sensor itself rather than a die but that will likely be an option also. In this model we don’t know if it will be in a headset, a phone or a food factory quality sensor or an intruder detector*. In time if we are in phones and it’s proven I expect Nanoco will be able to capitalise on that PR.

(*we are being guided STM are not investing significant CAPEX to sell sensors to an alarm company.....)

I’m not wanting to drive another wedge in here again but I’ve got to question why you take umbrage to everything BT says. I think he’s explained it well and he’s listening. If they miss targets by a mile in FY24 and 25 I think you will be justified calling out his leadership but for now, for the benefit of us all can you stop being so….annoyed? Thanks

Nanonano - that article/advert from Matalenz is for a product that has launched. We don't know if the Nanoco enabled STM sensor has launched yet. Perhaps we need to make more enquiries in this respect.

We have however announced we are working with STM so in time I expect Nanoco to make a similar announcement if a similar sensor is confirmed as launched.

You two are being deliberately negative. The analogy is valid to an extent and aids people’s understanding of their part in the supply chain….and you clearly don’t.

Apologies FY24 I see what you are referring to

You mean FY25?

I think the point he was making is they are (as Kooba put it) the oil. To continue the analogy, BP is an upstream and downstream company but they don’t speak to Johnson and Johnson about their new baby soap bar. J&J speak to the supply chain downstream of the refinery.

STM is akin to the refinery. If we are to assume there are multiple (200,000) customers of that ‘refinery’ then the financial health of a single end user isn’t that important. But as BT also alluded to, the end user is more likely to be the equivalent of a large petrol forecourt owner with a large (potential) customer base….e.g. Apple and/or Samsung. At least that’s my hope.

Lots of metrics because the revenue could be higher from the commercial order to your estimate and there could be significanly less sensors enabled. If for example the revenue was $500k and the number of sensors was 1m it effects the required number of sensors significantly by a factor of 10. Plus we are led to believe more efficiency will improve margins.

If the sale was $250k and that sales is alleged to enable "up to 5 million devices" that implies a revenue per sensor of $0.05 cents to Nanoco. At a 50% margin then to breakeven (£8m) they need to sell enough material to make 246m sensors.

I believe they do know the design as BT has mentioned how simple it is to apply the QD layer to existing CMOS sensors.

I had Sony pegged a while ago although Sony Chemicals isn't an entity Sony are still a chemical company within the organisation. Recently various Sony divisions were brought under one umbrella as the Sony Corporation (April 2021) including Sony Imaging Products & Solutions Inc (also Home Entertainment ergo display but I don't think that is relevant here)

I gained confidence that the company is doing the right things. Suggestions they are badly managed are starting to wear thing frankly as they have positioned themselves with good customers and understand the supply chain so it's about stewardship, R&D and innovation moving forwards. The analogies for using a $500m dollar oil rig to drill a $1m return oil well was ok however I preferred the extension of it to knowing what brand of soap the oil ends up in.

These Gen 1 materials are a feedstock and we need to understand that. However as long as Nanoco are the only feedstock then you could say in a few years that every SWIR device with this technology has been enabled by Nanoco and that is valuable PR. But we are not there yet however I am left assuming (due to RHoS exemptions) device manufacturers are happy to use lead if it gains a competitive advantage/unlocks new markets. On that basis I see steady growth as STM punt their wares, or is that wears?

Gen 2 is several years off yet.

We have a different perspective. I'm not sure what carrots you are referring to or where wool is being pulled over but no doubt others will fill in the blanks.

I think the company is hitting targets and I therefore have no reason to think they'll miss the guidance. But that doesn't mean it will come to pass- only time will tell.

I've taken no offence BC but thanks (also to tbow)

I think Troublesome and I have exhausted our personal differences and I'm certainly prepared to move on. I'm sure he/she will feel the same way. It doesn't help when it gets personal for those who just want to discuss the company.

I will still put forward my view though if I believe strongly that matters are being incorrectly interpreted due to prejudice which seems to be the case with a few posters just now. I don't share that prejudiced view but it doesn't mean I'm a paid mole or a huge fan of BT, I just don't think the negativity is warranted - but some aren't able to move forwards.

I'm in my office today and stole some time to listen again to the presentation at slide 13 and I believe the graph relates to the increase in screen area growth hence the 2030 axis and the comment below. So it's likely representing for example edge to edge screen expansion. BT is pointing out that there is an opportunity for Nanoco to benefit in the interest and investment in mLED especially is the RHoS exemption is removed. The chart needed better explaining but I don't believe there is anything being falsely represented there and is in reality no different to their predictions in display growth in TV's shown on the other graph. I have asked the company for clarification and will post the reply if one if forthcoming.

As for me suggesting we keep the cash, it would have meant no reduction in share value that a dividend or buy back will have and would have given them a longer cash runway but I can see why they have decided to return the capital as well.

As for suggesting I'm a mole; you're flirting with paranoia again, but thankfully not with me! ;-)

Both of those questions are easily answered.

1. There’s a new device lab and team that carries a cost of equipment in terms of depreciation, staff, energy and materials

2.we don’t know

I might ask the company about that second graph if I can be hooped and I’ll get back to you

I think a mountain is being fashioned from a mole hill on this.

In the meantime here’s the world’s best fabricator. Perhaps he’ll join as a NED one day. It’s actually very amusing.

https://youtu.be/lFloLGmPKl0?feature=shared