Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[howl01] 29/5/2019 14:48

Nanoco prone to fudging both facts and figures and been caught out a couple of times. If you have no gripes about management then you've not been paying attention.

[nigwit] 29/5/2019 14:15

I disagree. The company keeps explaining and updating guidance. That’s why most holders are silent. It’s just that bulletin board posters typically prefer to over-interpret and invent unnecessary conspiracies and then to demand more and more information and guidance, which no company is under any obligation to provide. We’re simply not entitled to a constant commentary from our investments.

There’s nothing in the RoHS documents that is not consistent with guidance either.

[nigwit] 29/5/2019 14:15

I disagree. The company keeps explaining and updating guidance. That’s why most holders are silent. It’s just that bulletin board posters typically prefer to over-interpret and invent unnecessary conspiracies and then to demand more and more information and guidance, which no company is under any obligation to provide. We’re simply not entitled to a constant commentary from our investments.

There’s nothing in the RoHS documents that is not consistent with guidance either.

[andycapped] 29/5/2019 13:46

I think more slack would be cut to the CEO if some explanation of why display commercialisation has failed to materialise within the original forward projections. Instead we’re left to wonder, or interpret from our own investigations.

[nigwit] 29/5/2019 12:51

Calling people hypocrites and liars is not acceptable. If anyone in Nanoco had lied then they would have been removed by institutional investors and prosecuted by the FCA.

The truth is that CdSE QDs have been developed for far longer and by many more labs and are therefore technically superior and cheaper to Cd-free dots, although the gap is closing fast. Had the RoHS not extended their ban then all that you were guided by the company would have come to pass. Now we see that other companies have continued to develop CdSe QD's during the extension time, which the RoHS granted in order that they may find alternatives so the market is stymied and the guidance has been changed.

This situation is obvious and doesn't need a vexatious explanation. All the professional commentators say it presents an opportunity to buy cheap shares.

That's up to you but if you fail to face facts because you're prosecuting your own private war you'll most likely continue to loose money or waste opportunities.

As investors we have to be rational.

[nigwit] 29/5/2019 12:08

That really should be moderated

[nigwit] 29/5/2019 09:44

How many cad-free monitors have been sold by anyone other than Samsung?

Anyone know?

[howl01] 29/5/2019 09:25

Nanosys selling cad free to HP/AUO.

[mrplay] 29/5/2019 09:16

Let’s be real the delay on display is not due to rohs. You can still sell cad free display with or without the ban. The problem is that nanocos dots are not good enough. Either in quality, the ability to produce quantity or the price. They failed to produce what mike keeps stating and prefer to blame rohs. If rohs is enforced it just means forcing oems to use nanoco rather than choosing to. Who else expected no displays from nanoco mid 2019. What is the real reason if we are world leaders?

[nigwit] 28/5/2019 17:44

hxxps://d2iankuf53zudv.cloudfront.net/Content/Upload/PDFs/05_24_19_Vuzix_Sword_Final2.pdf

More progress for Vuzix. An interesting application too.

[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)