Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[notimpressed] 10/3/2017 14:05

onething, that is the million dollar question. if the shorts
had any suspicion of news likely to drive the share price northwards,
it would be safe to assume they would close their positions
at the lowest possible price

[roadster750] 10/3/2017 14:03

We know GMT are also long Nano because they are above the 3% notification the other shorters may well be long, so we know GMT are just hedging.

[onething] 10/3/2017 13:11

Once short positions have been opened the damage is done. The selling pressure has occurred. Closing a short requires generating buying pressure and at some point, unless the company folds, short positions must be covered.My concern with short positions is why are they being held? What does the holder think they know that I/we don't.Some closed on the recent rally to 70p, but there was a large residual short interest that sat tight and found itself back at max profit at these all time lows.

[mrplay] 10/3/2017 12:50

Is Dow now a separate entity?

Growing interest in cadmium-free quantum dots

Global environmental regulations such as RoHS (restriction of hazardous substances), REACH (registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals), and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) have set limitations on the amount of cadmium, mercury, and lead that can be used in consumer electronic devices. This has resulted in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots by vendors such as Dow Chemical Company, Nanoco, Nanosys, and Quantum Material. The cadmium-free QDs are environmentally friendly and efficient, which is pushing for their increased adoption in the market.

[notimpressed] 10/3/2017 12:49

lets hope it includes 7-8 million revenue

[andycapped] 10/3/2017 12:36

I'm not concerned with the short positions. I'm only interested on what is on Nanocos balance sheet when they report their interim.

[notimpressed] 10/3/2017 10:48

Looking like another 0.5 million trades day.
Can only hope though most unlikely, shorts are closing their
positions.

[roadster750] 10/3/2017 10:23

JC Drunker is the apparent puppet master in this circus,its the power behind him that will determine the outcome of this issue, imho.

[sd_anon] 10/3/2017 09:02

Nice find ih. Let's hope something comes of that. Here's the link for anybody who can't find it. hxxps://chemicalwatch.com/54115/european-ngo-voices-opposition-to-cadmium-exemption-proposal. 'ChemSec comments' under Further information is also interesting.

[ih_332411] 10/3/2017 03:42

European NGO voices opposition to cadmium exemption proposal

9 March 2017 / Electrical & electronics, Europe, Metals, RoHS

NGO ChemSec has voiced its strong opposition to a European Commission proposal to exempt colour converting light-emitting diodes (LEDs) from a restriction on cadmium.

The organisation's concerns come in comments to the Commission's consultation on a draft amendment to the EU Directive on the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment.

The NGO says cadmium-based quantum dots cause "serious illnesses and present a severe danger to the environment, throughout the production chain.

"Cadmium and other heavy metals in consumer products should therefore be restricted."

ChemSec says alternative cadmium-free technologies are widely available. And, it adds, manufacturers such as Samsung, LG, Apple and Sony have already adopted a no-cadmium policy.

The organisation's policy adviser, Frida Hök, says the NGO was very surprised to see the proposal. "There is no justification to exempt cadmium-based display products," she says. "Doing so would be against the principles and purpose of RoHS, and would weaken the environmental and health protection of the European Union."

The Commission proposes that the exemption be adopted in May. Entry into force would come 60 days after publication in the EU Official Journal.

A 2016 consultation recommended three-year exemptions for cadmium in colour converting II-VI LEDs, for use in solid state illumination or display systems.

[howl01] 10/3/2017 02:05

WH latest sales data

[kuss1] 09/3/2017 21:13

onething, sweeping assertions is what this thread is about these days.

As for Nano's patents, I'm afraid no-one on these boards could even read and understand the abstracts nevermind the content. But Nano continue to be prolific with their IP. On average 2 to 3 patents per month.



As to whether 180 patents is worth more than 500 is not my point either...

[onething] 09/3/2017 19:58

Signing off now, wary of boring the board, and knowing I have a few bottles of Spitfire to consume. I'm aware of the possibilities here, just frustrated and cautious.

[onething] 09/3/2017 19:54

Of course they have value and of course Nanoco has enormous expertise. I was questioning the value of your sweeping assertion that 500 over 15 years necessarily has greater value than 280 held by others. The rest of it was simply voicing my frustrations and my acceptance that Nanoco is, and never was, a no brainer, despite what I might have originally and enthusiastically believed. Luckily I have never paid more than 60p and on balance have not lost on this one.

[kuss1] 09/3/2017 19:46

Onething,
You are changing the debate. You clain Nanos patents have no value. I disagree. Their patent portfolio has a great deal of value. And many hundreds are very recent.

Notimpressed, the markets are tough. No ones to blame but yourself.

[onething] 09/3/2017 19:46

Being generous, maybe 1 in 10 companies working to commercialise a new technology will make it happen (very generous assumption actually). The failures include perceived early leaders who had products out there first. Just think of the home computer industry, the post war aviation industry, the motor car, blackberry and Nokia (although they had a good run before collapsing), early white goods, take your pick, add to the list. US railway pioneers. Mostly the failures are unremembered now, however cutting edge their product was at the time.Nanoco cannot spend another year promising jam yesterday. It's a competitive market.

[notimpressed] 09/3/2017 19:35

I am not questioning nano from a standpoint of trying to
diminish them, but from a position of desperation having been invested in them
over 3 years at a cost average of 75p, with absolutely no indication
of when we can expect revenue.
No one will be more pleased if as stated at the agm, we have revenue of
7-8 million y/e 31st july 2017.
There are only so many times ME can stand up and tell us we will
have revenue and production, only for it to not happen, before
despondency and disbelief take hold.

[onething] 09/3/2017 19:34

Dow and Merck have not bought Nanoco, they have licensed elements of Nanoco's technology, not 500 patents en masse. I'm sure the bits they were interested in are very much worth their interest.It is almost unimaginable that every patent of the last 15 yrs is still regarded by Nanoco as current and viable technology.

[kuss1] 09/3/2017 19:30

Onething,

The patents were sufficient to attract Dow and Merck. I suggest you ask them if they have any value. Unless you have examined them yourself and come to your own conclsions?

[kuss1] 09/3/2017 19:19

So were Qd visions patents worth 70 million or not? Remember they were a failed commercial company.

[notimpressed] 09/3/2017 19:00

Patents are only of value if they can be tied to commercial
production, as yet we have no concrete evidence that nano
have any sales. In the meantime Samsung are marching ahead
in the cfqd arena, and if they are to be believed nanosys
are involved with hisense, tcl and others in the supply of cfqd

[kuss1] 09/3/2017 18:41

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.

[ih_332411] 09/3/2017 18:21

Cadmium-Free Quantum Dots
Upcoming restrictions on the use of cadmium (Cd) are affecting the QD display market. These include the anticipated end of an exemption that has allowed Cd in QDs in Europe, as well as stronger regulation of toxic substances in China. When asked in a 2016 survey whether they would pay more for a Cd-free QD TV, most consumers said yes.

Manufacturers are therefore motivated to remove Cd from QDs, which were originally based on cadmium selenide (CdSe). The performance of Cd-free QDs has historically lagged that of CdSe-based QDs. However, materials suppliers have made significant advances in changing this equation. By tuning the wavelength at which the QDs emit light, it is possible to achieve a color gamut that covers 94% of the DCI-P3 specification, the standard for state-of-the-art displays.

hxxp://blog.dowelectronicmaterials.com/en/posts/2017/03/china-advances-next-generation-displays