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
  -1.75p -2.54% 67.25p 67.25p 68.00p 69.25p 66.50p 68.00p 367,896 16:29:45
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Technology Hardware & Equipment 2.0 -10.9 -4.1 - 160.21

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 (NANO) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
17:11:0367.824,7003,187.54NT
16:50:4467.25928624.08NT
16:50:4467.259,4426,349.75NT
16:37:5368.1320,00013,625.00NT
16:35:2767.2515,00010,087.50UT
View all Nanoco trades in real-time

Nanoco (NANO) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
26/9/2016
09:20
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 69p.
Nanoco has a 4 week average price of 70.27p and a 12 week average price of 67.13p.
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 202,388 shares. The market capitalisation of Nanoco is £160,206,047.54.
28/8/2016
20:43
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....
17/8/2016
16:22
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?
12/8/2016
19:00
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 ...
21/7/2016
16:11
sinbad74: implementation of policy for the year commencing 1 August 2015 continued Long-term incentive The Committee have approved the grant of LTIP awards for the Executive Directors of 100% of base salary for the year ending 31 July 2016, in line with the usual limit. For the first year of his appointment, the Chief Financial Officer will receive an LTIP award over 350,000 shares in accordance with the terms agreed as part of his recruitment. The market value of shares granted will be based on the three day average share price following the announcement of the Company’s results, unless the Committee determines otherwise. Subject to shareholder approval of the new LTIP, these awards will be granted under the new LTIP following the December 2015 AGM. These awards will be subject to the following performance conditions: 50% based on share price growth measured over three financial years ending 31 July 2018 % of share price element vesting Share price target 25% £2.10 100% £3.00 Straight line vesting will apply between these points. The Company’s share price will be averaged across a three-month period (unless the Committee decides to apply a different averaging period) to avoid rewarding for short term spikes in performance. 50% based on Group revenue targets measured over three financial years ending 31 July 2018 % of Group revenue element vesting Group revenue target 25% 2018 threshold target 100% 2018 maximum target The revenue targets are considered by the Board to be market sensitive and therefore we will not disclose these measures at the current time. We will disclose the targets in full, along with actual performance against targets, following the end of the performance period. Performance underpin A core strategy of the business is to continue the development of our lighting, solar and life sciences segments with a long-term aim of transforming them into profitable businesses shipping commercial quantities of the products. Under the performance underpin, if the Committee is not satisfied that appropriate progress has been made across the business, it will have the discretion to cancel all or some of the LTIP award. A two-year holding period will apply post the end of the performance period for Executive Directors.
20/7/2016
17:31
enteleon: Mapocho- I'm sure you will understand that a Share Price may well react much more strongly to a currency change. This is classical "gearing". Yes, there may well be other factors at work for Nano to do with their future deals, but, at the moment, Nano's share price is heavily supported as a "geared play" on $ to £ gradient. Similarly, some "gold-bugs" will buy gold-mining companies as their share price can be many times the nominal increase in actual gold price. The converse does, of course, hold true. SPs can flop big-time with only small changes in currencies/earnings/macro outlook.
08/6/2016
18:28
mwwh: Why is Henderson alternately buying and selling while gradually increasing their ownership at a loss? Why are various institutions shorting a stock that can be expected to surge? The following scenario might explain the stock’s baffling behavior and Nanoco’s massive PR failure. I believe in Nanoco’s product, so please do not bombard me with suggestions that I sell my stock. The way I see it, shorting at this level is insane (i.e., very risky with little to gain) unless one has inside info or is aware of an unspoken collaborative effort (e.g., shorts and longs implicitly understanding each others goals) to enable Henderson and others to accumulate while keeping the price down. How else could Henderson continue to buy if current owners are unwilling to sell at a low price. This possibility is substantiated somewhat by fact that sells consistently exceed the buys while intraday buys are typically accompanied by greater volume than intraday sells. Let's assume that Nanoco's quantum dots are as good as we think and that Nanoco does have OEM deals in place. If Nanoco can keep the price down for another month or two, and Henderson's then reaches 30% ownership in stock (for themselves or on behalf of a third party), they would be required to issue a takeover bid at least equal to the maximum share price over the most recent 12 months (of course, it would need to be much higher to get anyone to sell, since shorts would gone). The acquirer could wait even longer to get a lower minimum required bit, but would run the risk of good news causing the price to rise precipitously. One might ask why the employees would go along with this. If taken private or acquired by another company, all employee shares would vest immediately, resulting in large individual gains. Perhaps, this is why Nanoco employees were recently given stock at zero cost, unheard of even in the Silicon Valley. Perhaps Clinch quit because he was suffering personal remorse. Why would the shorts be involved? While there is probably no overt agreement to drive the price down, shorts stand to gain by driving the share price down, especially if they are confident that Henderson will not drive the price up for another month. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. If this scenario does come to pass, we all stand to make money soon—much more if competing companies participate in the bidding. Nanoco would certainly have to be more forthcoming regarding opportunities.
21/5/2016
21:31
enteleon: Mapocho and PC- thank you both, as always,for your intelligent, balanced thoughts. Every now and again, my commitment to Nanoco wobbles-I began investment in early Spring, 2011. I guess I need extra-long patience ! I can't quite fathom the whole scene. Hartlove (CEO of Nanosys) was saying as recently as late February this year that there was a "significant performance gap between CdSe and Cadmium-free QDs". Yet, within a week or few, Samsung announce (and have followed up with major advertising) their SUHD, with QDs, allegedly non-toxic. I do wonder whether the Nanosys QDs are low-Cd, below the 1 part in one million ROHS threshold, but not strictly Cd-free. Bless them, Nanoco have stuck to their totally Cd-free guns and, undoubtedly, that is where the industry will head. Nanoco held that competitive advantage for several years, but the competitors are now right up behind them. I agree that QDVision is probably toast, but Nanosys and now QMC have to be taken very seriously indeed. I, too, sense that the Dow/DuPont merger is bound to destabilize staff and dilute the resolve and strategic clarity. I just desperately hope the Dow contract has not been a huge red-herring. It does bother me that only recently Old Mutual declares a 0.5% short-position- that's about 1.2 Million shares. Maybe they are biding their time to actually short-sell when the price spikes higher. The other shorters are hanging in there, rather than beginning to buy back. We're also terribly vulnerable to swing-trading. These issues will only ameliorate if/when Nanoco achieves a sustainable higher price with proven income from Dow/Original Equipment Manufacturers(OEMs). On the Apple issue. I guess it is fairly public knowledge that Apple has an immensely secure R and D facility in California. I can say from a totally reliable and well-placed source that Apple have purchased very high resolution equipment used for the manufacture of flat-panels up to 150cm in length. So, maybe Apple is exploring larger display units. The fact that Buffett/Berkshire-Hathaway has just revealed a $1 Billion investment in Apple is interesting. The US Federal clamp-down on tax-inversion and a likely political drift (serious if Trump is elected President) towards isolationist US industrial economics may push the larger US OEMs into more home-based manufacturing. This could be good for Nanoco with their tie-up with Dow/DuPont in the longer-term. The most helpful revelation from the interview with M.E. was his acknowledgement of the very poor investor relations hitherto. I do now sense that Nanoco's Institutional Investors will prod the Board to support the share-price with more regular RNS. Thanks again for your intelligent encouragement. Sorry to waver !
21/5/2016
19:00
perfect choice: My view on the Dow non-exclusive was that Nano saw the threat that if they did not go direct, then CFQD competitors would threaten Nano's chances with other OEMs outside Korea. Dow for their own reasons only seem to want to focus on Samsung and LG right now it seems, although supplying the 2 largest players in the market is a pretty good start to say the least. I have seen a snippet that Dow's merger has distracted them in their decision making process so I do wonder. At the end of the day Nano have taken control of their destiny while retaining a major supplier in the form of Dow and I can only see that as good. I do wonder now in hindsight that Nano may have taken the wrong decision to go Cadmium free straight away while the market has taken up cadmium based products. But agree QDV are going to be history in due course. Cadmium free is the future I am certain of that myself. Now we know (last RNS) Nano are in commercial discussions with somebody for supply from Runcorn either from current expanded facilities or through a JV for a new production facility. I actually think the next 6 months will be major turning point for Nano both on the Dow supply and direct route. Through both display and lighting there seems to be too many prospects starting to appear to not have a positive impact on Nano. But as ever until we really hear form them, the Nano price will drift within a trading range. But timing of news? Well it is not inconceivable for that to be as early as next week at SID? We wait and see.
13/4/2016
16:09
bottomfisher: Like most small investors on this board I have no idea whether Nanoco’s quantum dot technology is going to turn out to be a great commercial/financial success or an expensive flop. Last year’s appointment of David Blain, Nanoco’s new finance director, is a painful reminder of how quickly high-tech spinouts from Manchester University can fall from grace. Blain was FD of Renovo, whose share price soared on the promise of Justiva, its wonder drug for treating wound scars. But its shares subsequently collapsed after the drug failed late stage trials, and a much shrunken Renovo tried to reinvent itself as Inspired Capital, a provider of finance to small businesses, before sinking from public sight after it was taken private last year. Nanoco shares are a high risk gamble. Whilst I take some comfort from the comments on this board of more analytical types like Perfect Choice and Mapocho, plus the continuing increase in Henderson's stake, my main reason for hope is based on the recent investment activity of two people who know far more about Nanoco than most of us. The first is Richard Griffiths, an investment banker who has been involved with Nanoco since it came to the market in 2009. At that time his company, Ora Capital, owned around a third of Nanoco’s equity. Over the years Griffiths’ various investment vehicles have run down their stake in Nanoco, and, although he did subscribe to last year’s placing at 105p a share, they continued to sell down their Nanoco stake as the share price fell in the following months. However, on April 1st Griffiths’ Blake Holdings increased its stake by 4.9m shares to 18.9m, or 8.62% according to the RNS announcement, making him Nanoco’s third biggest shareholder after Henderson and Baillie Gifford, who together own just over 30%.. The second positive sign was the recent purchase of another 50,000 shares by Gordon Hall, a non-executive director, who has been on Nanoco’s board since its beginning as a public company. Hall, a former ceo of Shield Diagnostics, did not participate in last year’s placing but since then he has increased his stake in Nanoco from 100,000 shares, to 250,000 shares. I know nothing about Griffiths or Hall but take some reassurance from the fact that two serious private investors, who know far more about Nanoco than most of us, are increasing their stakes despite all the uncertainties highlighted by various contributors to this chatroom.
26/2/2016
19:27
mapocho: If Nano didn't have a product of any worth they wouldn't still be here after 15 years. Dow about to complete on their 3-year investment. Nano share price near all time lows. Qdot industry exploding. The news come results will have to be dire to send this lower.
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:34 V: D:20160926 22:28:25