Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[mrplay] 16/5/2019 23:33

Would an argument that they have had more than enough time to find an alternative. How many extensions is enough? If they file another extension what is to stop another and another. Enforce and be serious is the only way. My thoughts on London’s emission charge. We have had time to adapt or now pay a charge. So maybe rohs should allow cadmium but at a charge per set. To the point that going cad free is more beneficial. Extension after extension just leads to excuse after excuse

[nigwit] 16/5/2019 21:23

ROHS

“Article 1

Subject matter

This Directive lays down rules on the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) with a view to contributing to the protection of human health and the environment, including the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste EEE.”


That’s the prime objective of ROHS.

It looks to me that any extension to the Cadmium ban will come down to the balance between greater energy efficiency of Cadmium-based dots, which is marginal at best, and the harm caused by eventually introducing Cadmium into the waste disposal system.

Since Nanoco have not found it necessary to comment directly in the consultation they must not be concerned. Given the vast majority of QD TVs already sold are Cd free and so there’s no denying the existence of a viable alternative, that makes sense to me.

The application for an extension gives me the impression that Najing want to flood Europe with cheap Chinese TVs at risk to consumer welfare, which is diametrically opposed to article 1 and the imperative for the creation of ROHS.

reference

[howl01] 16/5/2019 19:26

The short position gives me a bit of confidence at this market cap along with the patent portfolio size which is among the top holders now. Their application to grant ratio is also reassuring. Judging from other takeovers if it comes down to it surely worth a 80-120m bid.

[notimpressed] 16/5/2019 18:52

disclosed shorts now 0.67% which has to be a positive

[notimpressed] 16/5/2019 18:38

as i understand ME's remaining holding is a around 1 mil shares,
certanly not half his prior holding as stated in the ic report,
his donations to a charitable trust are to be applauded, as entrepreneurs
only tend to donate when they are mega rich and established.

[nigwit] 16/5/2019 18:09

Just tipped in tonight’s Investor’s Chronicle, which often prompts buying.

“IC View

At 42.2p, the shares trade bang in the middle of their 52-week range – and in line with our tip (42p, 28 June 2018). We remain speculative buyers.
Last IC View: Buy, 46.5p, 10 Apr 2019”

Link for subscribers

[howl01] 16/5/2019 17:48

Must be there to buy these non existent ar glasses containing Nanoco dots you describe being demonstrated and in a shop near you soon. Disappearing down the nigwit rabbit hole on here.

[nigwit] 16/5/2019 17:31

Busy on Plessey’s stand today

[nigwit] 16/5/2019 10:49

That sounds sensible Bagpuss67.

(FWIW Personally, I’m comfortable that, for QD’s generally and Nanoco specifically, things have yet to get going properly but soon will. Meanwhile, I’ve always expected the price to be volatile as institutional investors shift positions on news whilst the stock is relatively illiquid and unavailable. I don’t agree with the MM conspiracies, I just think it’s some selling followed by others buying and vice-versa and that there’s no way to predict what individual institutions, who can effect the price significantly either way, are going to do next.)

[bagpuss67] 16/5/2019 10:31

Thanks. I've taken a middle ground and halved my holding. Albeit it's still relatively substantial. May build again depending on how Im feeling about things.

[nigwit] 16/5/2019 10:24

You’re very welcome. You might find this recent white paper from Samsung informative too.

hxxps://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/learning-center/white-papers/quantum-dot-technology

[bagpuss67] 16/5/2019 09:47

Thanks for the post Nigwit. Very helpful

[nigwit] 16/5/2019 09:29

Almost forgot. It’s worth noting that Nanoco confirm that their CFQDs utilise non-toxic Indium alloys and not InP.

[nigwit] 16/5/2019 09:17

The guys on LSE have found the application to RoHS by Nanjing and Osram for a an extension to the cadmium ban, which I’ve read.

Nanoco have not been silent on this. They’ve made a representation as part of the RoHS evaluation of InP here.

hxxps://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/index.php?id=292

Scroll down and click on the Nanoco Contribution PDF

All of Nanoco’s comments are interesting and give good background on the current situation in display. Here’s the key extract from page 4.

“Despite the fact that InP is a safer alternative to Cd-based QDs (Cd being a restricted substance in Annex II RoHS), Cd continues to be used in display technology based on the perpetuated Annex III RoHS 39(a) exemption for “Cadmium selenide in downshifting cadmium-based semiconductor nanocrystal quantum dots for use in display and projection lighting applications (< 0,2 μg Cd per mm2 of display screen area)” that remains valid until the end of October 2019.

Furthermore, two applications for further extension of this RoHS Cd exemption have been submitted in April 2018 by two companies. The main argument of the applicants is that Cd-free QD technology that would meet the current colour quality and energy consumption performance of cadmium QDs is still not available and that “the performance of Cd-free quantum dots (based in InP) is expected to reach by 2020”.5
This confirms that InP is indeed increasingly considered by the display industry as a substitute for Cd. Thus, if InP is included in Annex II RoHS and hence restricted in display technology, the Cd Industry would have a good case that the Cd exemption must continue as the main alternative has been restricted. This would lead to an absurd situation where InP would be replaced by Cd which is a more toxic substance for both human health and the environment. This would be against the objective set out in Article 1 RoHS, i.e. “contributing to the protection of human health and the environment, including the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste “

[nigwit] 15/5/2019 19:19

NI

£17m is the total value of revenue earned from the USCorp between February 2018 and Dec 2019 and was explained in the results presentation by Tenner and Edelman. From memory £8m is in the current pre-production ramp up and testing and the rest was in the factory extension, milestones and second deal.

[nigwit] 15/5/2019 19:17

PS

There’s only one article that suggests the cadmium ban will be extended again. The source of its information appears to be Nanosys.

I searched the internet and the Rohs website in particular at the weekend and found nothing whatsoever to corroborate it.

[notimpressed] 15/5/2019 19:13

Nigwit where did you get £17m figure from

[notimpressed] 15/5/2019 19:12

bagpuss regards revenue/royalties, on page 90 end of year results 2018
shows royalties and licences to value £147K
as it is not broken down there is no way of knowing if
this relates to payments from DOW, so maybe all is not lost,
but it must be said 2017 figure was £615k, so a big reduction.

[nigwit] 15/5/2019 19:01

I think you’re catastrophising. Maybe you’d be more comfortable in another growth share. It sounds like you’re burned out by this one and need fresh Hope from somewhere else.

FWIW my view is that if the USCorp has spent £17m with Nanoco in anticipation of an order and more again on other parts of the chain then they must want something in return in due course and will keep everything afloat. It’s not the same situation as with Dow DuPont, who suffered with fickle Samsung and LG and now have to find new customers in a nascent market.

[bagpuss67] 15/5/2019 18:39

These are research payments and to build production capacity and don't relate to an ongoing product in the market. If that product doesnt happen there is no revenue relating to it

As we have seen with Dow. Built a factory. No revenue for nanoco

[nigwit] 15/5/2019 18:37

I think you’re both forgetting the recent record revenues and being far too sceptical and pessimistic.

Your attitude suggests to me that sentiment is still depressed and I’ve learned that it’s far better to buy into shares with excessive pessimism than those with excessive optimism so, as a long term holder, I find this comforting.

[bagpuss67] 15/5/2019 18:29

In any event, plessy revenue that may come several years in the future will not happen if Nanoco is no more. If there is no PO from the US customer or even if its delayed Nanoco may run out of cash. The runway it has was clearly set out at the interims. Will equity investors really pony up again

At the end of 2019 if no PO there is expected to be 6m of cash and no revenue is visible at this stage. That is only c 7 months away

[mrplay] 15/5/2019 18:24

The big question is if mike knew that a further rohs extension is likely leading him to sell the majority of his remaining shares. He only seems to fight for his own money. When will he fight for nanoco?

[nigwit] 15/5/2019 18:22

That was a good example of the gratuitous fake indignation i mentioned earlier. The stall is not deserted, or at least you don’t know that for certain. It’s more likely that the photo was taken before the doors opened.

———;——̵2;

I don’t know what revenues AR glasses will generate in FY20. They are possibly insignificant at the moment even after yesterday’s announcement from Vuzix. However, you might have read articles that predict AR glasses are forecast to supplant smart phones in the next few years. The big smartphone makers, especially Apple, need something to replace current smart phone technology, which has stopped growing revenue due to lengthening consumer replacement cycles resulting from a slower rate of new innovations. You can verify this on google.

I also found this press release dating from CES on Vuzix’s website

hxxps://d2iankuf53zudv.cloudfront.net/Content/Upload/PDFs/1_10_2018_Vuzix_Innovation_Showcase_CES_2019_Final.pdf

Here’s an extract concerning MicroLED displays

“The size of the entire display engine is approximately the size of a pencil eraser
and will allow future AR smart glasses to have a virtually indistinguishable look and feel from normal eyeglasses“

You can see the normal sized AR eyeglasses on the display stand. These are currently ahead of the competition. As investors we also look for share buying opportunities ahead of the market.


———;——-


As a footnote. if you check the male model wearing the current Vuzix Blade glasses on their publications you may notice that he’s wearing clothes by Arc’teryx, the upmarket Canadian outdoor clothing brand. If you visit the Arc’teryx website you’ll see the same male model so it looks like Vuzix they are cross-marketing with high profile brands already.