Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Nanoco LSE:NANO London Ordinary Share GB00B01JLR99 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.75p -1.84% 40.00p 39.25p 40.25p 40.50p 39.00p 39.25p 41,660.00 09:12:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Technology Hardware & Equipment 0.5 -12.6 -4.5 - 95.29

Nanoco (NANO) Latest News

More Nanoco News
Nanoco Takeover Rumours

Nanoco (NANO) Share Charts

1 Year Nanoco Chart

1 Year Nanoco Chart

1 Month Nanoco Chart

1 Month Nanoco Chart

Intraday Nanoco Chart

Intraday Nanoco Chart

Nanoco (NANO) Discussions and Chat

Nanoco Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
23/2/201709:18Nanoco/Dow - 2016 a transformational year for CFQD10,167.00
10/5/201603:12One stock that's a game changer and one stock changing the face of gaming2.00
15/4/201611:51Nanoco - Cadmium-Free Quantum Dots - World Leader15,672.00
06/1/201611:06NANO - Trading Pattern-

Add a New Thread

Nanoco (NANO) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Nanoco trades in real-time

Nanoco (NANO) Top Chat Posts

Nanoco Daily Update: Nanoco is listed in the Technology Hardware & Equipment sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker NANO. The last closing price for Nanoco was 40.75p.
Nanoco has a 4 week average price of 41.63p and a 12 week average price of 42.65p.
The 1 year high share price is 78.75p while the 1 year low share price is currently 35.25p.
There are currently 238,224,606 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 243,965 shares. The market capitalisation of Nanoco is £95,289,842.40.
lauders: I wish you well if you make the decision to finally proceed robotface. Just checked on the "performance" of my remaining holding in the investment wrapper which was bought for the long term all along. Down 74.32% since purchase! Says it all really! Will need a LOT of positive news from NANO to just break even. I invested my remaining and much depleted funds from my other holding into COA at 61.89p (including costs) per share on Friday. If I take my initial cost of my stake in NANO into consideration when I bought the holding and which I sold on Friday, COA will have to reach the heady share price of 142p for me to get my money back. Of course I am betting that the chances of COA increasing over 100% from here are greater than the progress that will take place at NANO, yet I do understand, before all the bulls here start posting in defense, that I may have got it totally wrong and NANO will blast away from here! I wish NANO holders good fortune as I am still a very minor holder myself and good fortune for you means good fortune for me. It will just be VERY minor in the grand scheme of things to me financially.
lauders: chaba1 - I admire your loyalty/dedication/confidence in NANO! I am hanging on by a thread here and want to believe but I have been a holder for years and don't see the share price heading the right direction even though there has been plenty, apparently, of progress with the company and deals/agreements. I thought the market was forward looking and if so it should see the potential here. It seemed to see more potential a few years ago when the share price was nearer 150p, but ever since that potential has obviously reduced, despite the newsflow, so hence my pessimism at present. I really hope you are right, but opportunities are passing by left, right and centre by continuing to hold NANO and you really do need to be a LONG TERM holder here to reap the benefits IMO.
perfect choice: Well isn't Nano a challenging share (understatement!). Took me some time going back to find it, but I originally exited Nano in September because I felt they could not build up revenues quickly enough to avoid a further and final fund raising (see post 5401 on the 27th September - that "reasonably well funded" ME comment at the Cannacord event told me something wasn't quite right and ME knew he didn't have a comfortable level of cash left before cash flow break even if things delayed further. I believe that stage has now been reached. After buying back in at virtually 40p on the day of the Brexit vote, my nervousness of Nano meant I sold the 2nd tranche of my shares at 50.25p on the 21st November after selling the first at 46p on the 11th. For a rare change, I seem to have got my trading pattern right. Something is not right, you may well get some drifting down of share price waiting for news but the chart gives a clear picture of changed direction. Ending below 40p today wasn't good. Is Nano dead in the water suddenly despite Merck and Wah Hong agreements and Dow paying for an upgrade to their facility? No is my current view. But the difficult path is yet to be completed. One issue I see not mentioned much here is the lack of RoHS enforcement on Cadmium. Without that there is simply no incentive for display OEMs using cadmium based QDs to change. Samsung have Hansol for now to meet their current demand so while they were reported as testing Dow CFQDs to give approval, that is all it was. No commitment to volume supply. Its not the CFQD film manufacturers which create demand and so revenues to Nano, its the OEMs in expanding their range or converting to Cadmium free that will. Right now there is no visibility of either of those happening thus more delay to the extent Nano need to commit to a cash call like it or not. I will buy back in after that placing is made. Looking at the current 3 agreements what is stopping them? Well take Dow first, potential there to start supplying to Samsung and LG as intended. But until Samsung actually launch their stated intention of QD technology into the rest of their TV range, there is no demand for Dow to fulfil IMHO. Samsung will use Hansol capacity until there is almost none left. So even if Samsung launch an expanded TV range at CES 2017, based on actual world wide availability of new models launched at CES 2016, it will be Summer 2017 before any expanded range hits the stores and so at best means Dow revenues Q3 2017 with physical supply Q2. Looking at LG and their intention to launch QD based TVs next year, the same logic applies on timescales. Dow simply cannot force supply, they have to wait for Samsung and LG to want their supply. So it may be Q3 2017 before Nano sees any major income from Dow. I am also taking the view that Hansol will be retained for sole supply to the top end SUHD range, Samsung will use Dow supplied CFQDs for the lower end of their TV range when they expand QD technology. This is a personal view only with no evidence but it would explain why there is no rush on the Samsung side. So how about Merck, well simply they are still "marketing" as they state, that is some way to go towards committed orders for volume supply which could be anybody's guess. Wah Hong is the one supplier I could expect something a little more earlier and I do wonder the source of the "CFQD" TCL model as Wah Hong were already modifying their production lines. But that means supply readiness not actual output. Even if Wah Hong are the first to hit commercial supply, Nano are not going to survive on their revenues alone. So its a case of how long to wait and yet more time. I come back to those RoHS regulations and no enforcement yet in place, plus Samsung coping with Hansol supply for now. There is simply nothing to create demand in the display market until something changes. Despite all the market trends and analysis for the growth of QDs, until demand is created it is just that - analysis. So firmly remaining on the side lines for now and will wait for a placing or if the share price really gets silly near the 30p mark, then worth a stab like I did at 40p after the Brexit vote.
chaba1: Can someone explain why buy more than sell and share price go down? And why sell a little amount of shares the share price go down a lot? I cannot understand what I understand is when demand more than supply normally the share price go up.
ih_169538: PC I think your understanding of batch vs flow needs a little investigating.Why do you think the industry hasnt really taken off yet.Its because of the cost associated to produce the materials.Batch will never be cost effective compared to flow process its as simple as that and why Dow hasn't had commercial sales and why Samsung is having Hansol outlay all that expense for relatively small amounts of material ( enough for 800 tvs per line x 10 lines or 8000 units a day ).Nanos batch system seeding materials is another issue.Making the vats larger and having ten of them doing it does not lend to uniformity which is key for quantum dots.Its the reason why there isn't a display company using their material in a qd tv as of today.To suggest Samsung wants Nanos material through Dow we can revisit the press of a year and a half ago where Samsung said the material was not up to par and to costly.Your CEO is a hell of a salesman I will admit to that,I don't think I need to post timelines not met over and over again to make a point.As far as QMC is concerned their CEO has updated his comments recently which should change the outlook you are sharing as well they have secured a 9.75 million dollar credit facility they can draw on.They ( QMC )don't need many employees to mass produce because the system is highly automated unlike Nano,Hansol or Nanosys { Edelman says 60% of your cost is employees meaning a very labor intensive process where more things can go wrong and uniformity becomes an issue } and why hire employees to walk around doing nothing before sales ramp up.Nano is bleeding red much more than QMC as far as cash burn each month so that is a non starter. Recent comments from CEO Sri Perevumba : Competition must be fierce, including from giants like Samsung. How can your company thrive in this environment? I get asked that a lot! Much of the competition comes from smaller firms, like ours, trying to disrupt larger players. Some have won designs and shipped QDs into TV applications. We have patents and valuable IP licenses, and our scalable QD manufacturing process is highly automated, so we can offer customers both high quality and high capacity that’s not significantly impacted by labor or geography. We see the larger players in the industry as potential customers and partners rather than competitors. Most don’t have well-established, high-quality quantum dot technology in house, or sufficient manufacturing capacity. Large players should be eager to partner with a company like QMC. You said large & small, public & private companies are already using quantum dots. What can you say about the cost, quality, and other elements of existing QDs? Much of the success in the market emanates from companies that have supplied cadmium-based (heavy metal) QDs. This is important because, with restrictions on the use of cadmium in Europe and Japan, the future for those products is not bright. We are not the only game in town, but the volumes of products supplied by competitors is still quite small. Since we use manufacturing processes that we believe are superior, we expect to deliver a better product suite, again, at a very competitive price. What about technology risk from new methods of producing quantum dots? Could your Intellectual Property become obsolete? We are the new method for making QDs; we are the ones posing a risk to the incumbent’s IP. Our IP is strong, and we are always developing new IP to secure and consolidate our position in the market. This is still an emerging science, so I expect a lot of developments in the next decade, and we’re seeing a lot of research being done at universities, as well as at large and small companies. No one knows for sure, but the expanding size and wider range of end-uses promise a large QD market for the foreseeable future. Do you feel that QMC has a finite window of opportunity during which it has to gain traction or risk missing key growth stages in the market? Yes, each market from TV to Solar to innovative uses to ensure the authenticity of pharmaceuticals, each have windows of opportunity. We are constantly monitoring these windows to make sure we’re well–positioned, and we think we are. However, as mentioned, display represents the clearest path to revenue generation. Solar provides us with longer-term potential, potential for which we could possibly self-fund based on cash flow from our display segment. I understand that the Company has been sending sample material to a number of parties. What type of end-users are being targeted? Yes, that’s right. Companies receiving samples are those able to take our QDs and produce film composites for use in TVs and other display applications. We are talking about a handful of large, well-established players in the TV supply chain. This is a critical step for us, and we think it demonstrates where we stand in our development phase. Small companies like ours are able to sell samples because our customers believe that our technology and our ability to operate at industrial-scale is secure. That means the ability to ramp up if/when we receive commercial-scale purchase orders. And, look, the companies buying our samples aren’t playing games, the display industry is a serious business. There’s lots of money at stake, including investment on their part to evaluate our samples and make QD-composite films. To the extent that you believe the valuation of QMC is attractive, why should readers consider investing now? Why not wait for commercial purchase orders? As evidenced by major TV manufacturers beginning to offer QD-enhanced model lines, QDs have arrived, but the market is wide open. If we are at a tipping point in QDs, then waiting for a major de-risking event like a purchase order could mean missing out on a large move in the share price. It’s that simple. We’re confident that our team can provide QDs of the highest quality, in the volumes necessary, for wholesale commercial introduction. If we can execute on that premise, QMC could be a very interesting company. Still, there remains considerable risk. We’ve been at this for years but have yet to cross the finish line. That’s the unmistakable risk/reward proposition for investors, an opportunity which evolves as a company goes from, “lab to fab.” We have a great future ahead of us, and we’re aiming to create a valuable company for our employees, customers and shareholders. hxxp:// On November 8, 2016, Quantum Materials Corp. (the “ Company ”) signed a $9.75 million purchase agreement (the “ Purchase Agreement ”) with Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC (“ Lincoln Park ”), an Illinois limited liability company. The Company also entered into a registration rights agreement (the “ RRA ”) with Lincoln Park whereby the Company agreed to file a registration statement related to the transaction with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“ SEC ”) covering the shares of the Company’s common stock that may be issued to Lincoln Park under the Purchase Agreement.
bagpuss67: It's just a rumour. Odd that Nano share price mysteriously rising though.
kuss1: They said 1-1.5 years or just over 12 months as an average. Nano don't need any IP from Nanosys. They have a different approach. Dow, Merck etc, are not interested in Nanosys, they opted for Nano. Science progresses slowly and then jumps. It's a mistake to see everything in the present. Who knows what Nano will come out with next or Samsung for that matter. But Qdots are with us now and they will dominate the industry in the near-term. Nano's 15 years of development and nearly 500 patents have a value which is why the share price isn't 5p, which it should be based on financials. As I see it Nano are in a far stronger position now than they've ever been. Especially with the death of Qd vision and the near death of Nanosys. You'll still betting that Hansol are better at mass production than Dow/Dupont and Merck. A very dangerous assumption in my opinion....
mapocho: Brucie5, It's a difficult question to answer because the industry is not static and it's hard to be certain of anything. I don't believe for one that Nanosys are commercial suppliers of cad free quantum dots. The reason is simple: they would have made a big noise about it. They haven't. All they've said is that Samsung are using their technology, which is very different 'to we are supplying cadmium free quantum dots to Samsung'. Off the cuff remarks from Nanosys indicates they may be supplying 'material' but we don't know what that is. I actually believe ME when he states that Nano are the sole commercial vendors of cadmium free quantum dots. Regarding Hansol, it's still unclear whether they are producing quantum dot resin, film or the quantum dots, or relevant quantum dot precursors or a combination. It's all in-house so no announcements to go off. Lot's of the tech has come out of SAIT: disposition and printing tech for example. It's clear that Samsung have had to license aspects of their tech from Nanosys, which by extension is really MIT. Hansol though are not commercial vendors as all of their produce goes to Samsung. The Hansol/samsung breakthrough with cad free quantum dots on a commercial scale really caught the whole industry off guard. The had successfully been able to produce indium phosphor quantum dots, a chemical combination that the other players had not pursued. But going back to funinator's point, we just don't know the capacity of SAIT/Hansol in terms of production. I think the industry will be desperately short of cadmium free quantum dots as they become the preferred choice for manufacturers. Even if you take Samsung out of the equation, who will supply the rest of the industry? I also think people are forgetting this is an nascent industry. The quantum dots out of Dow and Nano are superior to those being produced 3 years ago. Not just the synthesis but their composition. Nano are now working on graphene dots for example. And Dow haven't just gone through the motions. They've got massive expertise in scale up and have an impressive client base. I did note ME's reference to the competitive pricing of Nanos/Dow's quantum dots. In the end it might come down to who can produce the most for the least cost. But Merck and Wah Hong are willing to pay large up-front fees to get a sniff of cad free production. Why? Why are Merck interested in a possible large scale factory, too. Merck is a massive company, why didn't they agree to market Nanosys's cad free dots? And Dow are not sampling Samsung, they are providing qualification level material. According to ME, Dow are now in the final stages of this. Anyway, I've no idea really, but there are more positive than negatives. The Wah Hong deal and Merck are exciting as they bring Runcorn into profitable production. But the really big positive is that Dow have completed a huge factory in Korea which is producing to the required quality. Still, a risk of course, but what a reward if Nano can pull this off for the display industry. And there's also the lighting, Osram side of the business. There is no value whatsoever for this in the share price. I think it will surprise soon enough. Osram some 5 years now of development with Nano in solid state lighting.... Anyway, you have to agree this is the most exciting time ever for Nano and the industry. And as the industry explodes there will be room for multiple participants. Dow, Wah Hong, Merck see it coming....
tdots: PC, so months and months of complaints from many on this board about NANO not keeping shareholders informed about the status of the Dow plant, status of lighting, status of joint ventures, etc, and you see no reason for QMC to share a little information with their shareholders? The NANO shareholder complaints were very frequent while the NANO share price was declining to its historic low a short time ago, while NANO remained silent. Also, why has the increase in NANO staff and the supposed improvements in the NANO lab facility been a positive sign for NANO but QMC staffing up and expanding has no significance? QMC doubling its lab space in Austin would provide room for a couple more flow reactors, which could easily increase their in-house production capability by 2-300%. This is not an update on the QMC China deal, this is an update on their joint product development agreement with a leading global optical film manufacturer from 22 September 2015 and what QMC has been able to release has been limited by NDA. Something that you constantly point out when justifying no info from NANO on dealings with DOW. So maybe this is QMCs way of providing its shareholders with a hint that even though they can't release details due to the NDA, that the initial development agreement has resulted in a QD film product that is now ready to move forward into production and then potentially into products this year. They did not say that they are continuing to work on the initial joint development agreement, but building upon it. So if the initial product development is complete, then production of the QD film may be ready to start in the near future and QMC may need to start producing QDs now for their film partner using their in-house production capability in Austin. This could support QMC's goal of generating revenues from QD material sales in the third quarter. PC, how have your predictions based on the somewhat vague NANO hints turned out so far?
mapocho: Yes, sinbad, Hansol and Samsung are not standing still. But neither are Nano or Nanosys for that matter. It's an interesting dynamic. Hansol share price up 30% in the last 3 months mainly as a result of their Qdot tech. I recall the shock in the industry when they released their cad free Qdot materials 2 years ago. Nanosys couldn't believe it. LG in hindsight rushed through their QD range, far too early. Nano's Qdots were rejected by Samsung. Nano changed tack and started phosphine combinations. Are Samsung now ready to strike a deal .. that is the huge question. ME's comments on price competitiveness were interesting. Dow have been refining processes and with Nano's help greatly improving yield. But it's still up in the air. We still don't have a product, Wah Hong and Merck dipping their toes in the market but everything's subject to market interest and contracts. But the fact that they are willing to pay upfront is very reassuring. I'm not sure the hot reactor argument is as valid as it used to be. Nanosys are set to increase productivity significantly. The cadmium free composition is probably more important. But for Nano the process is key to the composition. Their molecular seeding process has enabled their cadmium free mix. But the industry is moving apace. There won't be enough capacity of that I'm sure. Samsung plan to introduce Qdots across their whole TV range. 21% of the TV market, some 50 million TV's. Samsung's drive using cad free is what's really stirring up the bees. They know what's coming. There are no commercial suppliers of cad free apart from Nano. 100% of Hansol taken by Samsung. LG are working on the tech for sure. You have to admit though that their push into Qdots two years ago was a failure. It's what pushed Nano's share price down to 37p from £1.40. The market knew the score. It wasn't Dow dragging its feet it was the customer base pulling out. But I feel the opposite now; so does the market. Nano's 460 patents are key here. QD vision are history. Nanosys switching to cad free, Nano very much in the mix, Hansol the dark horse. 3 way race as I see it. But still very much a bull with Nano ...
Nanoco share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:32 V: D:20170223 09:41:43