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
  -1.00p -2.60% 37.50p 37.50p 38.75p 38.50p 37.50p 38.00p 226,097.00 16:35:25
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Technology Hardware & Equipment 0.5 -12.6 -4.5 - 89.33

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
23/3/201719:22Nanoco/Dow - 2016 a transformational year for CFQD10,739.00
14/3/201704:03Nanoco - Cadmium-Free Quantum Dots - World Leader15,673.00
10/5/201603:12One stock that's a game changer and one stock changing the face of gaming2.00
06/1/201611:06NANO - Trading Pattern-
10/12/201507:45nanofraud4.00

Add a New Thread

Nanoco (NANO) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2017-03-23 16:35:2537.5023788.88UT
2017-03-23 16:30:0038.5012146.59AT
2017-03-23 16:29:5537.75954360.14AT
2017-03-23 16:29:5537.75389146.85AT
2017-03-23 16:29:5537.7523387.96AT
View all Nanoco trades in real-time

Nanoco (NANO) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
23/3/2017
08:20
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 38.50p.
Nanoco has a 4 week average price of 39.64p and a 12 week average price of 41.76p.
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 219,788 shares. The market capitalisation of Nanoco is £89,334,227.25.
22/3/2017
14:36
notimpressed: regarding the share price and ME, he sold his shares in 40 ish range, maybe he is smarter than we think and the true nano price is 40p or thereabouts.
15/3/2017
08:42
mrplay: The predictions going round are that the April results will be disappointing with lots of promise for the future as per usual. Due to this and no news the shorters are increasing which means share price could drop to insane levels again. This can be stopped by one action. News of a tv in production. Looks like a good sign that philips is in or going into production. So far we have a parrot on a tv screen and silence from nanoco. If Mike could say we are now moving into production it protects the share price If he is silent is will continue to drop.
09/3/2017
18:41
kuss1: Dr. Brian Gally, Nanoco's new Application Director is an interesting move. Nano will soon have Dow, Merck and Runcorn as production hubs. That 7.5 million revenue only about 6 weeks of production out of Manchester. The share price isn't tanking, despite what Slippy predicted. 'short of the century going to 10p'. That was more than 18 months ago. The Qdot industry continues apace. No-one yet can produce cad free apart from Samsung's internal production. To state that Dow may be producing for Hansol is nuts. Remember, QD vision had 180 patents when the Chinese were willing to pay 100 million for it. Nanosys have around 280 patents, Nano approaching 500 with its 15 year research history. That's why the price isn't moving.
23/2/2017
17:28
enteleon: Howl01- As usual, your comments are very balanced and thoughtful. Thanks also to petepitstop reminding us that we have to await results in April. I do share some of your pessimism, Howl. Over a two to three year horizon, Nanoco is looking like a one-trick-pony ie:Display. Nano are clearly interested in the high-margin medical imaging (hence Nano buying into life-science website domains) but this is several years away. Nigel Pickett has also been working on solar patents, but this angle has been terribly slow in the coming. Soon after its IPO in May, 2009, Nano announced a partnership with Tokyo Electron with regard to solar panel developments, but, as with Osram and lighting projects, this appears to have bitten the dust. I have also heard that development of the Atomic Layer Deposition is agonizingly slow and expensive- this, I understand, being a prerequisite for QLED. On the optimistic side, I listened several weeks ago (on Bloomberg) to one of the senior equity strategists at Needham (they of the Needham Growth Conference). He was very balanced and explained Needham's strategy of very patient contrarian buying- a genuine investment approach, not tainted by fast-buck trading. Looking at the daily share-price action, I detect a mid-morning to noon dip and then a modest recovery. It is purely my conjecture that there may be some (possibly US) position building, facilitated by nervous investor selling. The general market uplift is bound to persuade some folk that their money is idling in Nano shares, therefore why not catch some better and faster trains. There is evidence of some support at 38.5p over the last eight days and there should be very solid support at 36p odd. It is always so difficult to make clear judgements about Nano. They are somewhat dysfunctional and they lack clear vertical integration with one or more actual TV producers. Their relationship with WH may hopefully change that. Dow appears completely unmeasurable and always has been. Let's hope their merger with DuPont (due end March) can focus their strategy. Merck could get very interesting, but the politics in both the US and Europe look uncertain. I'm hanging in there by seat of pants- the Nano ride has never been easy !
22/1/2017
01:36
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.
05/12/2016
22:05
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.
30/11/2016
18:25
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.
18/11/2016
01:41
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://epsteinresearch.com/2016/11/03/quantum-materials-corp-tiny-products-giant-potential/ 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.
14/11/2016
13:21
bagpuss67: It's just a rumour. Odd that Nano share price mysteriously rising though.
13/11/2016
20:57
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....
Nanoco share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
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:33 V: D:20170324 04:10:02