Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[nigwit] 02/7/2019 21:24

Evidentially, you are unable to recognise and give legitimacy to opposing views or remain impartial and unsentimental.

[nigwit] 02/7/2019 20:44

That is a legitimate view that I can understand, even I differ with parts of the analysis.

It's certainly preferable to calling people names after you've asked them a question, which they've answered in good faith, and you haven't got the time or the words to respect them and express yourself in an adult manner befitting of the stock market.

[mr.oz] 02/7/2019 20:44

enteleon
As ever, balanced post thanks
Amazing how far out people's so called analysis can be

[enteleon] 02/7/2019 20:20

One definition of intelligence is the ability to sustain two or more conflicting thoughts in one's mind and eventually come to a balanced view. A final view may end up being binary: yes/no, but that final view may have entailed a very diverse accumulation of past history/ confidence in product/ trust in management, etc.

One major concern I have is that the extension of the RoHS leniency did not dissuade Samsung/Hansol from developing an evolving lineage of Cd-free display products from several years ago. The key here appeared to be the high degree of industrial vertical integration between Samsung and Hansol. My disappointment with Nano has been the lack of same, despite the enormous intellectual/industrial clout of Dow/duPont and Merck, and, to a lesser extent, Wah Hong. For many of us long-holders, ME's talk of conversations with many OEMs has worn a bit thin. OK, that's a subjective, emotional comment.

From a factual aspect, Tenner has made it quite clear many months ago that 90% of revenue for the next two years would have come from the US partner. He has downplayed the display avenue. ME, too, has played down the revenue expectations from Plessey.

Thus, I am not convinced that it is wise to predicate an investment case on the excuses of the RoHS issue and slow-moving OEMs. Surely, after a decade or more, we should have seen greater signs of commercial acceptance of Nano's products. If you examine the prognostications made by Edison back in 2016/17, you will see that, by 2020, Nano was due to have penetrated 49% of the display market with revenues of $59M !

I totally agree that the potential areas for Nano's products are extensive: surgical/pharmacological; security; sophisticated printing; LIDAR. I fully accept that all of Lombard-Odier, Baillie Gifford and Richard Griffiths have stayed the course, but others, including Mitsubishi Capital, UBS and the Universities Superannuation Scheme, have not.

I would love to imagine that the US partner will come good again, but this remains a "can only hope for" entity. If the US partner is Apple, one can only hope that it does not behave towards Nano as it did towards Qualcomm.

So, we can all choose our own hopes and doubts and with the absence of anything even verging on the concrete in Nano's case, it's all we've got.

[howl01] 02/7/2019 19:47

I did warn you he's a crank

[mr.oz] 02/7/2019 19:12

Get a grip Nige

[nigwit] 02/7/2019 19:01

Thank you David. I agree its not a giant leap, that would take many patents I imagine but it's all part of a picture for us to try and interpret if we can.

[sd_anon] 02/7/2019 18:52

Agree we can only speculate at the moment. IMO most likely next step is either 1. New contract with someone, possibly US partner again 2. Cash raise (between 10 and 20p IMO) or potentially both. What other options are there?other than a takeover which is feasible but pure speculation until we hear otherwise.

[davidw1] 02/7/2019 18:51

This new patent does not appear to be at the forefront of an electroluminescent proposition NigWit but it does seem to offer a good deal of advancement. The key points appear to me to be that NANO claims a “commercially feasible” way to;

Embed CFQD in beads, which are coated with a barrier to protect against oxygen, water and free radical contamination and maintain performance for longer;

To disperse these beads within a resin matrix, which is cast in the form of film, which is then heated and chemically bonded to a diffuser for display applications. It can also be dissolved in a water-based ink and printed on to security documentation such as passports.

I have always been keen on the idea of exploring security as a market, as some competitors have done. Looks like NANO might be tinkering with that prospect.

[mr.oz] 02/7/2019 18:51

mmm
Not as harmful as misleading people by stating things as a fact when it's just hope
Made it more palatable for you nitwit

[mr.oz] 02/7/2019 18:29

Almost everyone they've engaged with has walked away, as far as we know,

So you're talking you're own agenda

[nigwit] 02/7/2019 18:24

I understand that mine is a controversial view among most bulletin board posters but I haven't found management to be anything but straightforwards and as clear as can be expected from those who, necessarily and in common with all businesses, can't make full disclosures concerning confidential information or treat any group of share holders differently from another.

Indeed, if I believed corporate governance was an problem, then I would not invest so I simply don't understand why some apparently do and then complain in public, where it can do harm to other small investors.

I think its worth noting that Ballie Gifford and Lombard among others have been stalwart since these are institutions who are quite capable of closing out when they want to.

It is true that the market has not developed as fast as forecast, that is why the share price has fallen from 160p at its peak. This must be disappointing but it has been an opportunity too since I don't think it comes down to much other than confusion caused by RoHS and slow-moving OEMs and these are factors that will pass.

I can't fairly criticize management when they've contracted with firms like Apple. DuPont and Merck who have been effected in turn by events beyond their control. I notice Apple cancelled a contract with IQE on the same day as Tenner's RNS. Is he to blame for that too?

So, FWIW, in my analysis, management are guilty but only of not correctly forecasting the future.

Now we have to decide on experience and on the facts we are given, which are that there are ongoing discussion with 20 separate potential customers including the US Partner. The risk is clear and should not need explaining to experienced investors but so is the potential.

It's unlikely that the next RNS will be as unfortunate as the last so I think most of the risk is priced in now.

[enteleon] 02/7/2019 17:33

Perfectly well understand that future earnings remain very unpredictable. Similarly, we cannot have any real grasp of the perceived value of Nano's IP.

I have major concerns regarding quality of management. Following Nano since 2011, I have noticed the Board's rather erratic project management. Display dubbed "transformational" in 2016. Much excitement aroused by the setting up of the division for agricultural lighting some years ago. Highly curious appointment of Dr Chris Richards as Chairman on the back of this excitement. It should be noted that he is executive chairman and stand-in CEO of Plant Health Care (PHC) which is currently at its all-time low of c. 6.5p.

Furthermore, not long ago, Nano announced that it was terminating all R and D in the area of photo-voltaics and yet I understand that the current contract with the US partner (?Apple) is partly predicated on such R and D. Am I right in thinking that the financial advance from this US partner (principally for CAPEX on the manufacturing lines) is due to be clawed back in exchange for products supplied by Nano to the partner ?

I agree with you, Nigwit, that any predictions regarding the share price level of a cash-call may appear futile, BUT a cash-call remains a distinct possibility. A cynical analyst would comment that Board members were under huge pressure to buy shares to prop up the share price beyond the 10p threshold following the recent collapse, particularly following ME and CR's share shenanigans.

Any investor has the right to demand some visibility and this is in very short supply. Reasonably enough, many posters expected a follow-up RNS to Tenner's brief, and calamitous, declaration of the collapse of Gen II contract. Nano appears to be in serious limbo-land and its future a virtually complete known-unknown with any speculation based on a belief system, rather than informed expectation. Genuinely wishing everyone good luck here.

[j777j] 02/7/2019 15:40

Due a technical bounce from extreme oversold conditions.

[davidw1] 02/7/2019 15:20

Work is getting in the way of play NigWit but I shall take a look this evening.

If that is the right take, it would be a significant move forward in display technology toward electroluminescence. It seems to resolve a number of the issues including contamination, backlighting and cost. I imagine other challenges remain to be overcome before it can form the basis of a quality display, so potentially not something we shall see in the next couple of years. Nevertheless another strand of IP value.

[nigwit] 02/7/2019 15:00

Mr Oz

My opinion is that no-one outside the company knows anything specific about the short term prospective sales pipe from which they can extrapolate any conclusions regarding cash flow either way so it is tantamount to nonsense to postulate the price of a raise.

In any event I am a long term investor who is looking beyond short-term trading opportunities and I am confident in what I see as a growing market for QDs leading to the increasing likelihood that the IP will get successfully commercialized long before I exit so I am indifferent to short term blips. Anyway, the last raise initiated a tripling of the share price.

I'm also sympathetic to the view that Apple won't want to see the IP they backed fall into the hands of their competitors, which might happen in a liquidation of the assets. This view is supported the statements made by both Tenner and Edelman following the last results presentation when they both spoke of a deepening collaborative relationship. These comments are in turn supported by the structure of the Apple deal whereby they funded the expansion.

There are also verifiable observations that Apple is generally investing in QDs and filing its own patents so we know it is a technology they are developing.

I'd suggest everyone re-visits the Runcorn Site visit Presentation from last September (Search for: "nanoco-investor-day-andrew-gooda"). This document clearly explained the applications for the 2D nano materials in both phone sensors and LIDAR. We know the phone sensors are now postponed or cancelled but we don't know what's happening to LIDAR.

My conclusion FWIW is that cash will be found one way or another if it is needed but that it might not be and I don't see much merit in guessing at what cost or dwelling on it unless you're trying to call every small turn, which I have found to be futile.

[mr.oz] 02/7/2019 14:33

Nigwit
What's your opinion on the question of any immediate raising @ 10p

[nigwit] 02/7/2019 14:24

Hi David

So far as I can see the principle application for the patent is in tunable QD backlights to replace conventional LED and CFL backlights.

It claims to be the first heavy metal free QD backlight and, since the patent was granted, that claim must have withstood scrutiny.

I'm interested to learn how you read it too.

[davidw1] 02/7/2019 11:55

That is an interesting patent NigWit. Quite possibly it overcomes the problems that have been experience in terms of performance deterioration through exposure to oxygen and water by encapsulation of dot’s within the film.

Not sure if this solution would be back lit (as I might expect) or if it takes a quantum leap forward and uses electroluminescence? I shall read in more detail when I have time.

[nigwit] 02/7/2019 11:47

There was a new patent granted on June 4 2019(and applied for in Feb '17).

Here's an extract from the summary from which you'll see it concerns emmissive quantum dots. The context is also provided in the patent.

"SUMMARY

The disclosure provides light emitting materials and/or methods of fabricating such materials which contain heavy metal-free QDs.

The disclosure provides emitting materials and/or methods of fabricating such materials which can be fabricated at commercially feasible cost.

The disclosure provides light emitting materials and/or methods of fabricating such materials that emit light efficiently in the visible spectrum.

The disclosure provides formulations containing QDs that can be used to fabricate light emitting materials and/or methods of fabricating such materials using said formulations.

The disclosure obviates or mitigates one or more of the problems associated with current light emitting materials and/or methods of fabricating such materials"

Source