Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[nigwit] 21/8/2019 18:51

It’s a bit of a stretch for me to agree that Nanosys are in cahoots with Merck. I see there’s a historic connection but Nanosys are hardly known for being shy so I’m sure they would not have named Yissum alone if they didn’t mean to. It’s certain that, if you look hard enough, you’ll find everyone’s connected anyway.

Also Merck are against Nanosys and in support of Nanoco in the RoHS consultation.

So any new secret connection is speculation based on reading between the lines instead of accepting what’s been said at face value.

[howl01] 21/8/2019 10:23

Seem to remember extension announced around the deadline last time so would be around October from memory. If you check the date of last extension and then cross reference this board at that date it should confirm.

I think the Nanosys Merck link suggestion is correct. The Qlight lab looks like Merck's research hub subsidiary and Yissum always seem co-assigned in IP. By extension IP belonging to Merck.

The announcement referenced specifically Nanorods and maybe this is part of their specific interest in licensing?



There are novel seeding processes mentioned in manufacture of the Nanorods- sound familiar?

Historic post re Merck and Yissum



Not to say Merck have abandoned Nanoco - the Nano license may be necessary in fact. Could also well be a different application to BLU display (probable maybe) but to me a Merck Nanosys tie up is evident.

[activmojo] 21/8/2019 10:15

Came across this article which gives a good summary of why Apple are holding back on AR, primarily due to motion-to-photon latency and power requirements.

Also interesting to see the money apple have expended so so maybe if they overcome the technical issue it could be back on track.

hxxps://www.engineering.com/ARVR/ArticleID/19375/Apples-Reportedly-Throws-in-the-Towel-on-AR-Glasses.aspx

[andycapped] 21/8/2019 10:07

Would expect an announcement one way or the other for Rohs.

[woody33] 21/8/2019 08:32

If they were going to extend the exemption, wouldn’t it have been announced by now? Surely they wouldn’t wait until the last minute as it won’t give much notice to manufacturers etc.

Woody

[howl01] 20/8/2019 23:19

Not sure I understand your reply? Merck weren't mentioned by Nanosys but bought Qlight from Yissum some years ago. There is a very strong relationship between Merck and Yissum going back over years. Question was whether this licensing indicates a relationship between Merck and Nanosys also? Patents I've looked at at least seem to assign to both Qlight AND Yissum and also sometimes Merck. As far as I know Merck still own Qlight anyway.
Qlight were also focussed on cadmium free solutions, along with Merck now. Nanosys claim to be focusing soley on development of cadmium free solutions now also so ROHS exemption expiry theoretically benefits them all no?

[ghaon] 20/8/2019 22:35

I wouldn't read too much into Merck being mentioned. Lots of other majors (e.g. Google, Intel, Microsoft, etc) are also mentioned but that doesn't mean they have a material business relationship with Yissum. Importantly, Merck are a major contributor to the RoHS Exemption Consultation in support of Nanoco and this was provided only a few months ago. That support hasn't changed as Merck (and obviously Nanoco) would be a major beneficiary when the Exemption ends because of its licensing arrangement.

[howl01] 20/8/2019 22:16

Nanosys have exclusively licensed Yissum patents - is there a relationship with Merck forming there possibly? Yissum- Qlight-Merck?

[beercapafn] 20/8/2019 19:10

ASCOV. please... But will they listen.

[ascov] 20/8/2019 18:47

Any chance you could all give it a rest and just comment on the stock instead of clogging up my inbox with vitriol ?

[nigwit] 20/8/2019 18:29

An interesting and hopeful analysis of Quantum Materials with obvious read across for Nanoco.

[nigwit] 18/8/2019 18:25

Samsung investing heavily in hybrid QD-OLED panels.

[nigwit] 18/8/2019 11:42

I'm not going to discuss this with you since whatever I say you will not believe. I have already told you what happened anyway.

My inbox contains numerous messages from silent posters thanking me for my posts on this board so your babyish accusations don’t concern me anyway and I doubt they interest any other serious investors either.

[mrplay] 18/8/2019 11:33

Do as I say not as I do. HYPOCRITE
You always hide and swerve around your ban. Many talk about you having a nervous breakdown and went on a ranting spree to the point moderators had to stop warning you and force a Ban. You were ranting at posters on a share forum which you did not hold? correct?

[nigwit] 18/8/2019 11:09

These reactions are unsurprising and speak for themselves most eloquently.

[howl01] 18/8/2019 10:38

Talking of blatant errors of fact .....!

[nigwit] 18/8/2019 08:46

Thank you for that Entelon. You are a gentleman. I hope I did not criticise you personally but that I did pick up on the factual inaccuracies of your post in a non-personal way.

I abhor the bullying and bawling that is common on these boards. It’s self-centred, childish and unproductive and everyone can see through it.

For me the investment case comes down to whether or not Nanoco’s IP is commercialised before they lose the market’s indulgence. These things aren’t clear so whether or not one remains invested is a matter on of one’s attitude to risk and a matter or balancing that risk with all one’s finances.

It’s not for anyone to tell anyone else what to do or manipulate sentiment in such a way as to influence individuals unfairly yet that it what most posters seem to do.

There is always a bear case and a bull case and the share price represents the balance between the two. All I ever try to do is present the facts as I see them in one place and explain, for what it may be worth, how I am approaching them all in a genuine, positive spirit of mutual cooperation. Since Nanoco has attracted many individual posters who seem irrationally negative and who also seem to think they have a public duty to put others off and crusade against management, my posts may seem entirely optimistic just by contrast but believe me when I say that I appreciate the risks and always have done.

It is a brave play but I think it will pull through (it almost did already) and I want to be invested when it does and not when it’s too late to benefit. No one said it is for widows or orphans though. No one said it would be fast. On the contrary I have always expected it to take five years and privately thought that I would be lucky if it took less.

Bearing that in mind and again FWIW the results notice that was just published contained no surprises and little colour. I’m hoping some more detail will be added by Edison soon and by management when they present the results in October. Meanwhile, I see no reason to rush a decision or change my position either way. In my view all this jumping in and out and short term price-watching is what costs small investors their pensions.

[lauders] 18/8/2019 01:31

I may have been wrong to express my thoughts on Nano recently, but my belief system has crumbled to dust.

Believe me you were not wrong enteleon. You have a right just like everyone else, negative or positive. Especially when you express you views so politely and refrain from calling names or swearing as per many ADVFN posters. Please keep it up.

Bearing the scars, Nano is just a bridge too far for me now. I would just love an inkling of forward visibility. Brave hope is not enough. Best wishes all.

Spot on! Let's leave NANO to the brave.

[enteleon] 17/8/2019 23:31

NigWit- you are absolutely right to criticise me. I have never intimated that I don't want to be criticised. We only make progress by making an assessment and being open to challenge. I would like to think that this is your ethic, too. Do please let me know what my other blatant errors of fact are and then I can learn. You're right that I do not know LOAM's CFD status. I was guessing that it was a short hedge. I may be totally wrong and if I am I apologise.

From memory, I believe that you have said that you started to invest in Nano around the time of the fund-raise announced on October 4th, 2017. I hope I am allowed to be a bit emotional as I go back many years before that and I, like many on this board, carry the financial scars ! Throughout, I have tried to take a balanced, informed view and have been helped enormously by several posters on this board, as well as a great deal of private research. I may have been wrong to express my thoughts on Nano recently, but my belief system has crumbled to dust. I am not angry, just sad and mostly for both decent investors and the redunded staff.

LOAM certainly do seem to know Nano inside-out. Their first very major investment was reported on April 1st, 2017, when Henderson Global offloaded their entire holding which was in excess of 23%. LOAM declared an investment of 21.07%, plus a CFD of 2.14%. Over the next five months,including a sale of 1.68% to COGEFI-Gestion of Paris, LOAM sold off until, by the time of the cash-raise, they were down to 14% of the ordinary share capital. LOAM agreed to fully underwrite the 47,655,821 shares at 18p and, on the share-issue date of November 15th, 2017, they cranked up their holding to 20%, simultaneously reducing their CFD from 2.17% to 1.8%.

Interestingly, two days before ME sold off 45,797 shares at an aggregate of 53.5p (April 18th, 2019), LOAM offloaded just over 3% to Oddo BHF. Twelve days later, (April 30th), ME sells 2,060,000 shares at an aggregate of 45.7p. On June 21st, Nano announces the collapse of the Apple deal. The same day, Oddo BHF sells their entire holding.

Aside from LOAM, there are some very solid names on the major shareholder list (as of 31/7/2019) including Hargreaves Lansdown (14.31%), Richard Griffiths (5.66%), Interactive Investor (4.91%), Barclays Wealth (3.47%), Halifax Share Dealing (3.04%). I think that Prudential have a holding. Legal and General came out in early 2017; likewise Baillie Gifford in early 2018; Henderson Global sold out to LOAM in April, 2017. Mitsubishi Capital, UBS, Universities Superannuation Scheme, Standard Life Investments and State Street Global Advisers are long gone.

Bearing the scars, Nano is just a bridge too far for me now. I would just love an inkling of forward visibility. Brave hope is not enough. Best wishes all.

[nigwit] 16/8/2019 18:05

If posters don't want to be criticised they should check their facts and stop pontificating by guessing things then stating the opinions they form without supporting evidence as if they are facts. Among other blatant errors of fact Entelon wrote that LOAM’s CFD was probably short to hedge a long yet the RNS of 1 August states it confers voting rights.

[activmojo] 16/8/2019 15:55

TCL PR yesterday
hxxps://www.soundandvision.com/content/tcl-adds-quantum-dots-mini-leds-atmos-new-tvs

[mwwh] 16/8/2019 15:22

Point well made Howl01. The patent purchase was later. Sad to see newbie attacking Enteleon, who was one of the great voices of reason on this site for so long. I have also expressed concern over the lack of a backup plan, but I still retain some optimism. The future of Nanoco probably rests on the outcome of the ROHS ban. Every person in the world should be outraged if Cadmium is exempted once again. Hypocrisy may prove the death of one of the few truly green corporations.