Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[nigwit] 28/5/2019 07:58

That’s my take too NI. It’s clear to me from reading all the information that whilst Nanosys are still improving cadmium-based dots the OEMs are reluctant to buy Nanoco cadmium-free dots in case they suffer a price and/or performance disadvantage in the market. It’s an arms race where one side is playing by the rules and the other isn’t.

Even a slight difference would be enough to sway customers and they can’t expect them to understand the toxicity issues if RoHS won’t enforce its own directive

I’ll look out for more submissions and the experts’ report.

[notimpressed] 27/5/2019 21:31

nigwit its interesting that dupont and merck are weighing in, as it implies
they have potential sales, held up only by the continued use
of cd based products. this also implies nanoco's product is to spec
and acceptable to OEM's.
i would guess its all down to price differential between cd and cd free product.

[nigwit] 22/5/2019 22:49

There’s an interesting response to the cadmium ban exemption extension application to the RoHS from the Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI) on this link

hxxps://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_15/3rd_Consultation/contribution_SE_CA_KEMI_RoHS15_ex_2018_1_and_39a_20190513.pdf

In summary. The agency does not produce QDs (It’s not a commercial organisation hxxps://www.kemi.se/en ) and opposes the application.

I imagine this will weigh heavily against the application

[nigwit] 22/5/2019 22:23

it rose 317% from September 2017 to it’s most recent high of 55.5p. Big profit-taking pull backs are to be expected.

[howl01] 22/5/2019 22:20

Thanks - your maths is fine I suspect ;)

[andycapped] 22/5/2019 22:06

About 73% (64p, Deutsche bank)

[howl01] 22/5/2019 21:57

What's the percentage increase required to get to target of the expert brokers we're supposed to take note of?

[andycapped] 22/5/2019 18:03

What I meant was a 46% rise from the current price, if returning to the mid fifties.

[nigwit] 22/5/2019 16:47

The drop isn't welcome but it's always been a possibility since the results were not clear on timings and then Edelman's sale was bound to cause doubts no matter how it's explained or miitgated.

± 30% swings on no news over a few weeks are not uncommon on small caps that have risen fast so I don't see it as a cause of concern long term and I don't believe anyone knows anything they shouldn't. I don't claim to know what will come next, and I don't pay attention to anyone who says they do, but, plainly, it can recover just as fast as it dropped, or faster. If another director buys in or there's a broker's update, perhaps from Jefferies, or better still, a purchase order it might spring right back to 55p or even higher.

(You might want to check your maths by the way)

[andycapped] 22/5/2019 16:08

I think there may be a bit more to it than simply sentiment to justify a 46% price drop in the last month.

[nigwit] 22/5/2019 11:59

Everything will be okay so long as the company executes its strategy so I tune out the day trades and concentrate on the science and the market potential. All the time Dow, Merck and the US Partner, likely Apple, stay committed to Nanoco I'll see no reason not to feel the same way and I still see a full recovery in due course.

Meanwhile, trying to make fast money by influencing weak minds on message boards is not a viable strategy and it's unwise to let those charlatans who attempt to do this influence you.

They don't have a mass audience and can only effect things temporarily, or not at all.

[bagpuss67] 22/5/2019 11:03

Volume a bit higher some slightly bigger trades going through?

[bagpuss67] 22/5/2019 06:31

Nigwit. What's your take on the debate on another board about the quality of Nanoco dotscoming out of the ROHS letters?

[howl01] 21/5/2019 20:11

Looks like the start of someone offloading to me.

[bagpuss67] 21/5/2019 18:37

A lot of sells but not huge volume overall. And a very odd steam of 500 share sales to start things moving down this am

[andycapped] 21/5/2019 17:36

Either a lot of PI's have been spooked by ME's sale, or there's a larger holder offloading once more.

[nigwit] 21/5/2019 11:12

Nanosys and DuPont submissions in PDF format added here today.

hxxps://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/index.php?id=316

Scroll to the bottom.

Unsurprisingly, Nanosys are for the extension and DuPont are against.

Nanosys claim that cadmium-based QDs will lead until 2022 when they expect Cd-free dots to catch up. However, this is because they’ve continued to develop cadmium-based dots during the extension to the exemption instead of focusing solely on Cd-free materials, which is against the intent and principles of ROHS. We know that they are massively behind Nanoco and Samsung in relevant CD-free patents.

Nanosys go on to claim that until 2022 Cd-free displays with equivalent gamuts to those Cd-based will achieve use more energy, which will lead to greater cadmium and CO2 emissions from power stations more than offsetting the benefits of banning cadmium outright in EEE.

It’s clearly going to come down to a balance of legal, political and technical arguments.

I’ll keep an eye open for more submissions and for the consultant’s report to the EU and post links here when they appear.

[bagpuss67] 21/5/2019 08:42

Wow. Odd trades. Any explanation for that?