We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I stand corrected
Spot on. Do the maths on the numbers and you'll see the named 3 sold precisely enough to cover the tax & NI, no more no less.
If you can do some basic maths you'll also be able to work out that LOAM didn't tender 100% of their shares (I've seen somebody else quite a % figure very close to that which I've calculated, dont recall who as it's so hard to sift through all the nonsense on here these days).
Regardless the drop in the share price is worrying but that's not going to change until we get news of some proper sales. I remain optimistic/ hopeful for the future and far more balanced than most here on the company & BT's performance.
@nanonano missing your level-headed contributions
Dammit, something going on with my phone or this website.
Implication is indiscriminate selling, rather than selling nano because it's worth less than 16p
... because it's worth
Implication is indiscriminate selling, rather than selling nano because it's worth
I couldn't make the results call on Tuesday but have now watched the presentation in full and have some thoughts.
I posted a few weeks ago that I thought the European customer may be Philips rather than STM. Nanonano set me straight and the results appear to corroborate that (this may have been disclosed before and I've missed it); the reference to 200k customers in the presentation is also prominent on STM's website.
The display slides 19/20/21 are, IMO, misleading which is disappointing given all the noise to date around Samsung etc etc. 19 shows the total addressable market - great. Broadly the future non-Samsung QD market is about the same size as the Samsung QD market which we know was worth $150m so, broadly, we can assume the total 'opportunity' is worth about the same. 20 shows the heatmap seen before but, as Brian acknowledges, includes Samsung, Hansol & a Samsung customer. Why are they still there??? Presumably because without them the top right hand corner looks pretty vacant but still, given the accusations of misleading messaging in the past, update the chart and give us a clearer picture.
Slide 21 shows the remaining 16 names and of the 8 that have been analysed there is only 1 potential infringer. I'm going to assume they started with the 'best' candidates so we can pretty much ignore the remaining candidates. So 1 candidate representing some share of approx. $150m, unless there is a move towards cadmium-free. Conclusion - dont get excited about display (I know most people here aren't).
Sensing remains jam tomorrow. The additional guidance around the revenue implications of the anticipated first order shows at best it's only going to be the first teaspoonful. Somebody posted up an interesting interview with Jonathan Steckel a few weeks ago where he spoke positively about QD but also said words to the effect "it's great but we need the market to develop the use cases." Brian does acknowledge this risk a number of times.
So far so apparently negative, but here's the rub. The junior market is full of jam tomorrow companies at huge valuations which face the same commercial and execution risks as Nano but also with short to medium term funding risk. Nano is insulated from that yet the market is ascribing less than zero market to the jam. I believe (want to believe?) that Nano is grossly undervalued with a number of short-term potential share price catalysts (first production order, cash return, other product progression news, NED appointment???) even if in the fullness of time the jam turns out to be a few dessert spoons rather than jars & jars.
If the assumption/ expectation is the first production contract is for STM/Apple how come nano are still discussing contract terms? Wouldn't this all be agreed by now and just waiting for the order to be executed?
Thanks for your reply Nanonano. And welcome back, have always appreciated your input.
Some thoughts I wanted to post here to hear other's views:
Firstly, the currency hedging RNS. Is that in itself really worthy of an RNS? My reading is the company is emphasising the point that the proceeds are greater than the market cap.
Secondly I don't think the major European customer is STM. Based on the split of revenue by type & geography in the most recent interims I think it's Philips (majority of revenue is services which is said to relate to a major electronics customer, majority of revenue comes from Holland). If I'm right what conclusions can be drawn on the underlying product? Does it strengthen or weaken the Apple Vision Pro link?
Feeks - that is absolutely, 100% the crux of it
Thanks for the clarification re the email. There's been so much nonsense posted here in the last few days (moreso by newcomers, and I acknowledge I am more of a lurker than a poster) that very little should be taken at face value.
I agree with the change in tone but Edison mention the speculation on internet forums and who knows, maybe it was the willy-waving on Sunday that prompted yesterday's RNS.
I still hope to see you all in Runcorn, even if only as a patron rather than co-owner of Chambers!
Re the possibility that the funding could be pulled, as Nanonano has said BT has said otherwise in the past and I would refer you to p12 of the 2022 a/cs: "the terms of the funding maintain Nanoco control of any decision to settle." p7 states: "our third party funding partner continues to support all aspects of these lawsuits, including the appeals process."
This board has gone from one state of hyperbole & hysteria to another! And reduced BT from a deity yesterday to an also-ran cop out today. We've learnt that the settlement wont be at the top end of estimates - no £20 share price overnight, that was never going to happen. We've also learned that the settlement will cover all jurisdictions and future patent litigation; implicitly future sales. We've also learned that BT is "more confident than ever about Nanoco's future prospects." This from somebody that has been jilted at the alter twice (OK, perhaps technically once as he wasn't there the first time). I read this as good news on organic growth and believe katstrangler posted a communication from Nano's comms (assuming this is legit) to the same effect.
And as for the reading that Edison are implying Nano wont see a penny, how is that even possible! The funder's share and corporation tax (at 10%, less deferred tax) are both percentages of the gross settlement, how can there be nothing left?? p12 of the 2022 a/cs as reference above also states "..even at what the Board would regard as a modest outcome, the mechanics of the fee arrangements are such that Nanoco will retain the majority of any award". As JBongo suggests, maybe the special dividend is still on??
FWIW it was. Q10 on the 2021FY call.
I think I've answered my own question: Nanoco agreed not to present the middle damages model, this was around the same time the judge ruled Nanco could refer to revenue per TV
Re the link Morbox kindly provided (https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/Exhibit-1/txed-2:2020-cv-00038-00150-002) and the $412m figure on page 17, on that same page there are figures provided by 2 other approaches, $44m & $136m.
Am I right in thinking that all along there has been discussion of three models of assessing damages and that at some point there was an agreement or proposal to ditch one of these models?
Feeks - re the risk of failure at trial I too was highly concerned about this (and still acknowledge that the jury verdict cannot be seen as a foregone conclusion regardless of the merits of the arguments presented) however a few months ago and in response to a question I had on this Amerloque kindly confirmed that Nano and their legal team had 'demanded' a jury trial and posted a link confirming this (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.195566/gov.uscourts.txed.195566.1.0.pdf). If Nanoco & Mintz viewed a jury trial as presenting a greater risk then surely they would not have taken this route.
From the latest RNS:
"Given the Group is entering a new stage in its development, the Directors consider that the revenue targets are commercially sensitive and hence are not being disclosed at this time."
No discussion on this? You guys are slipping ;-)
amerloque - thanks so much. I've been through numerous RNS and Edison docs this morning to try and find this with no success. Another example of the excellent side of this board and a huge positive for me.
The jury angle has been discussed before (jury of 'ordinary' people, covering a complicated matter in a week, case being heard in the same location Samsung have committed to build a new factory bringing new jobs etc etc, Biden recently visited Samsung plant in Korea) but the suggestion that Nanoco / Mintz CHOSE a jury trial is news to me. Is this confirmed? Can somebody please point me in the direction of something to prove it?
Re the RNS, positive but not earth-shattering news on the sales progress, not sure if Turcan news is positive or not. As a pessimist I'm tempted to lean to the latter.
Finally, re the bickering here, it's the one blot on an otherwise positive board, is a waste of time and does nobody any favours. I am, in the context of my own portfolio, fairly long here, but welcome negative perspectives as much as if not more then positive. As investors we should always seek to understand a perspective we may have missed which has put our capital at a greater risk than we thought. You can get confirmation that your investment is sound from the mirror.
"Anyone can check the PTAB stats on this too. Patentees have a 13% success rate. It was only 6% for 2021."
@Feeks - can you please point me in the direction of the data for this? From what I can see the success rate is far higher, although appreciate I could be misinterpreting it.
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/statistics/aia-trial-statistics-archive#:~:text=FY21%20End%20of%20Year%20Outcome%20Roundup%C2%A0