Maxi, again agreed.
When news comes out that motivates trading volumes, be it positive or negative, I expect Cavendish will buy at whatever the SP is.
Whether they buy at 30p or 10p a share it will all be value accretive as it will increase the company's earnings per share.
Maxi
Yes, I believe the low levels of liquidity make it difficult for the company to buy back. I'm not saying it would be impossible for them on some days, but on numerous days a significant buyback would inflate the SP, possibly breaching the buyback rules below. Until then the SP will bounce within the spread, which doesn't mean much whichever way it bounces due to the low volumes. So, it's unwise for anyone to read much into the SP movements at the moment.
"the highest shall be the higher of (i) an amount equal to 105 per cent. of the average of the market value for an Ordinary Share as derived from the London Stock Exchange Daily Official List for the five Trading Days immediately preceding the day on which that Ordinary Share is purchased; and (ii) an amount equal to the higher of the price of the last independent trade of an Ordinary Share and the highest current independent bid for an Ordinary Share on the London Stock Exchange at the time the purchase is carried out."
Feeks, I see what you are saying but knowing that Samsung were willing to settle out of court a protracted legal battle would have been unlikely to result in a nil return. Hence my argument that if the company felt its business prospects outweighed the potential for a better return on the litigation they would have been happy to settle..
It's not really about hoping something will turn up. They have been working with STM, and the other major customer in Asia, for a number of years hitting all the development milestones on a product that could disrupt the market. And we are nearly there..
You believe the management team settled to keep themselves in a job. I think they settled to focus on the business opportunities. And I believe STM and the Asia customer would have wanted them to settle as they also clearly see those opportunities.
Hi Feeks
"I always felt that grabbing the Samsung cash in the way they did showed that the core business was inherently weak or even non-existent and so far, all this time later, I'm not seeing anything to disprove that notion. You can argue that the directors saved the company, but it is an interesting question for whose ultimate benefit it was saved when there was a much bigger prize on offer"
I don't get that logic. If the company thought it had no business prospects it would have just pursued Samsung for more cash. If they thought they had a product that would, after many years of development, be ordered within 12 months of the settlement - alongside other business opportunities - they would have settled for $150m and cracked on with business...
Nanonano, I’m not sure the timings add up. AMS-Osram were already well advanced with the Apple project whilst Nanoco guidance is that they are aiming to add another large customer, potentially focused on the display market, within the next few months.
So I’m not sure that customer is Osram.
I'm not disagreeing from a technology point of view. More about cost of change / production. There will always be different technologies, even used by the same supplier - e.g. Samsung high v low end tv's or Apple premium v lower spec phones. Cost will be key for consumers - the improvement in image quality would have to be worth the extra money.
I see a trend for a bigger divide between the cost of high end and low end phones but with the difference in features narrowing.
Nanonano, Apple were developing microled in part to try and reduce its dependence on Samsung. Sounds like it was too costly to produce for now.
This puts the ball back in the park of oled, or q-oled. I am comforted that all the display technologies seem to be made better by adding a Q at the start!
If you like reading patents, this one is old but juicy…
STMicroelectronics InAs quantum film SWIR TOF sensor patent… our latest 2 year JDA with STM isn’t being done for fun, if successful it could lead to orders for new materials in FY26…
If STM sell QD TOF sensors alongside QD global shutter sensors it could really cement STM as the go-to seller of cheap QD SWIR sensors, which would increase their revenue and ours..
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.0/publication-dates/20231122/patents/EP4279960NWA1/document.pdf
Nothing new, but info about the STM Croilles factory that makes the QD films. Being scaled up.
https://investors.st.com/static-files/81515e93-369c-4d1d-8aa2-5c7643cf9027
Yeah, it’s a good use case. The specs match those of the STM SWIR evaluation kit that is available, as posted previously. There are plenty of uses, the tech looks good and it does exist (in EVK).STM’s Croilles factory is built for producing them at volume. Will find out over the coming months whether they sell like hot cakes or not.
I sometimes, some people feel we missed out on the big money, QDs in TVs and that maybe the sensor market is a distant shadow.
Worth having a good read of the article below.
To extract a couple of sections:
"The sensor market size was valued at $256.2 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow to $652.2 billion by 2032, exhibiting a significant CAGR growth of 17.3%. The increased usage of sensor technology in various applications such as cameras and medical equipment and technological advances in gas sensors are the key market drivers enhancing the market growth.
The Swiss-Italian giant of the sensor market, STMicroelectronics NV, already has sensors for different applications in its portfolio. In July 2023, STMicroelectronics, has launched a new international shuttering imaging sensor that offers high resolution and is available for use in a compact size and with low power consumption."
Not saying those are the QD sensors btw, but the article highlights that low cost sensors will profit in the market that is building...
https://www.omrglobal.com/articles/trends-in-sensor-technology
K, yes it was nice to see Steckel refer to Nanoco.
There was some bad blood in the early days, before your time invested here but you might know as you clearly do your research, between the pioneering QD players. References below. Lot's of the companies had something a little different from the others in terms of IP. Our schtick / primary IP was, and still is, about how we can produce Cd free QD's reliably at scale. Others can produce Cd free QDs but we had the IP that allowed for quality mass production. That's why Samsung became the market leader in QD TVs...
Anyway, Steckel will be quite rightly proud of the achievements of his baby QD Vision so to see he has tagged us is good. Naturally, what we all want to see is the Nanoco equivalent of "Intel inside" stickers on end user devices. Sadly, we are at the very end of the supply chain and will never be well recognised or credited (if at all), but I believe we could still be very profitable..
https://optics.org/news/7/4/30#:~:text=QD%20Vision%20has%20since%20become,displays%20in%20the%20European%20Parliament.
"QD Vision has since become embroiled in a row with another of its rivals, over the use of cadmium in the QD nanocrystals. UK-based Nanoco Technologies, which is developing a cadmium-free alternative (based on indium) said it wanted to challenge the legality of cadmium-based QD displays in the European Parliament."
This one was good to see on Jonathan Steckel’s LinkedIn account a few months back…
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7153339270089347072-xzM9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios