Member Info for TerrorWit

There are some large trades up to 1 million shares on the book so, whatever that means, it’s not a hollow pump. Someone is selling and the market is absorbing it.

Where Nanoco lead others follow…https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/may/11/dua-lipa-sues-samsung-millions-use-of-her-image?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

FlyingHigher, you're guessing. The covenant is one‑way: Nanoco can use Shoei's sensing patents without being sued. It doesn't give Shoei the right to use Nanoco's sensing patents.

If Shoei wanted to enter the sensing market, they'd need a licence from Nanoco – or risk being sued. The agreement doesn't change that.

So the idea that Shoei could "render Nanoco worthless" in sensing is speculation, not fact.

Flying Higher

I understand but how do Shoei operate in sensing with the patents Nanoco have in sensing?

"SINT" is the venue code for a Systematic Internaliser – a broker filling small retail orders from its own inventory, not the public exchange.

Those trades are just background noise. The real signal is in the large blocks (200k, 108k, 100k shares) – those are institutional-sized orders moving the price.

Ecclescake is right about the large trades. The SINT trades aren't a ramp; they're just market plumbing.

Sammy88, the public news was the interim results three weeks ago, confirming that the JDAs are on track, the cost base is reduced, and the litigation is settled. The market is just slow to react.

Here’s a perspective that's often lost in the noise. Nanoco is a tiny company – a few dozen people on an industrial estate in Runcorn – that took on Samsung, one of the largest corporations in the world, and won a nine‑figure settlement. Then it did it again with LG. Then it defended itself against Shoei and cleared its path in sensing. That's not failure. That's a David and Goliath story that most small tech companies never get to write.

Survival itself, over 20+ years, in deep tech, is a kind of success. Most spin‑outs don't last two years, let alone two decades. The fact that Nanoco is still here, still developing, still executing, is remarkable.

A problem for many of the bearish long term holders is that they’ve never been inside a business like Nanoco. They don't know what it's like to manage a development programme, to negotiate with partners, to balance cash runway with R&D spend, to deal with litigation or delays and setbacks as a normal part of the process. So they invent narratives: conspiracy, incompetence, failure and project their own fears onto the company.

If they spent a day at Runcorn – talking to the scientists, seeing the labs, understanding the development cycle – they might realise that the company is not a faceless machine of failure, but a group of ordinary people trying to do something extraordinarily difficult.

Flying Higher

How do you suppose Shoei would get into the sensor market without access to Nanoco’s patents in that space?

Conservative Case (EV = £10–15m)

· Cash: ~£10m

· JDA value: Assume minimal near‑term revenue. The market currently assigns zero.

· IP value: Assume only the cash matters.

→ Share price: 5–8p

(This is where we are now.)

---

Base Case (EV = £20–30m)

· Cash: £10m

· JDA value: Assume the first Asian customer scales to production as guided. Assign a modest multiple (2x–3x) to potential revenue.

· IP value: Assign some value to the cleared sensing path and the validated patent portfolio.

→ Share price: 10–15p

(This is where the stock is now trying to re‑rate.)

---

Bull Case (EV = £40–60m)

· Cash: £10m

· JDA value: Assume both JDAs scale, with the second also moving to production. Assign a higher multiple.

· IP value: Recognise the platform value (quantum dots for sensing could be a multi‑billion‑dollar market over the next decade).

→ Share price: 20–30p

(This is where the stock could go if the sensing market materialises as forecast.)

---

Speculative Case (EV > £100m)

· Assume the sensing market booms, Nanoco captures a meaningful share, and the company becomes cash‑flow positive.

· Assume a takeover or strategic investment at a premium.

→ Share price: 50p+

Looking at the trades, which is not my normal practice, it looks like institutional accumulating. Can't see the ramping doing much to change it.

To be honest, whilst I like to see genuingly thoughtful posts, I'm pleased the relentless negativity of the last few years seems to have vanished for the last two weeks. Curious coincidence though.

Although the company won't name their JDA parters they have indicated in their presentations, which you can look up, that the developments are towards under screen sensors for smart phones, so, maybe look more towards companies who make those sensors - people like Sony and Samsung.

Since the most recent interim results confirmed that strategy is being executed on time and since the litigation appears be over for the foreseeable future it’s possible to justify a revaluation already.

This might explain the welcome change of sentiment

The only facts today are:

· Volume was high (2.2 million shares).

· The price closed up 6.3%.

· The range was wide (5.20p – 5.90p).

No one knows what that means for tomorrow.

Bunsenburner, you're right that trading below enterprise value is unusual for a company at this stage.

Possible reasons:

1. Sentiment overhang. The forums have been dominated for years by persistent negativity, which deters new buyers in an illiquid stock.

2. History repeating. Before the Samsung settlement, retail investors drove the price to 70p on crazy hopes of a billion‑dollar payout. When the actual settlement was substantial but realistic, many were bitterly disappointed. Institutions sold at the peak. That experience still colours how the stock is perceived.

3. Lack of institutional sponsorship. No major fund has taken a stake recently, so the price is set by this retail sentiment.

4. Uncertainty about the JDAs. The market is waiting to see if the first Asian customer actually scales to production. Production has taken much longer than anyone ever anticipated which is not unusual in itself. But has added to the sense of negativity.

5. Liquidity. The wide spread (5–10%) means even small sellers can push the price down.

That said, an EV near zero means the market is assigning no value to the JDAs, the cleared sensing path, or the validated IP. If execution continues, that gap will close. If not, the discount is justified.

You're asking the right question. The answer is: the market is sceptical. That's the opportunity — or the trap.

Smkr, since you asked (sort of):

A quantum dot is a semiconductor nanocrystal so small that its electrons are confined in all three dimensions. That confinement changes its properties – the smaller the dot, the higher the energy of light it emits when illuminated.

By controlling the size of the dot during synthesis, you can tune the colour of light it produces across the visible and infrared spectrum. That's why they're used in displays (QLED) and, increasingly, in sensing (SWIR).

Nanoco's specific innovation is a cadmium‑free quantum dot, using a "molecular seeding" process – growing dots from tiny cluster compounds. This gives them precise control over size, composition, and (as the recent Quantum paper shows) even single‑atom doping for quantum technology applications.

Feeks, the run‑up to the Samsung settlement is a clear example of sentiment driving price. The same dynamic works in reverse. Persistent retail negativity creates a sentiment overhang — especially in an illiquid stock where small investors listen to each other.

In the long term, sentiment averages out. But while the company is executing quietly, it can cause real swings. That's not opinion. It's market mechanics

NN

I think any investor who throws mud at a company, its management, and its share price as relentlessly as you do must expect pushback.

You're expecting to hold a persistently negative conversation — whilst undermining other people's money as well as your own— without anyone speaking up.

If it wasn’t me, it would be somebody else.

No Kooba, you have to be the first with the idea, otherwise it doesn’t land. Honestly! Some days it’s like trying to explain integral calculus to a battered haddock.

Yes, I thought the Jane Austen references would go over your head. You really are most uncultivated.