Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 12:00

Nanoco deal in tatters

Osram plug pulled

Propergators disaster


Smoke and mirrors? Not arf

[howl01] 07/11/2016 11:50

Sd-anon - figures within annual report - royalties paid retrospectively for the preceding quarter - 1st royalty payment declared April - modest - 2nd royalty payment declared July - increased through increased sampling - total royalties £400k - next royalty payment should be declared this month for Jul-Oct. Royalties stated as in the double figures (guessing 10-12%) which where you can make a rough calculation of the quantities being produced - indicates large scale pre-production sampling by a particular client or else multiple interest. Lots if newsflash expected Nov-jan.

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 11:50

Take it from me the email is 100%

[firminator1] 07/11/2016 11:35

Slippy there is no way in a million years you would have sat on that email which I read pre Mr Oz editing from October judging by your trigger happy attitude to stain Nanoco any opportunity you get. So for me if it smells like sh*t so probably is sh*t and totally made up

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 11:35

Pitybit wasnt the directors buying lmao

[balaura] 07/11/2016 11:18

Really? It looks more like institutional buying.

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 11:16

As i said theyre will be further institutional selling and probably board upheavel on the way.

[sd_anon] 07/11/2016 10:51

howl01 - You say "Dow made a $300k royalty payment to nanoco for quarter ending June '16". I haven't seen any mention of figures for Dow's royalty payments so far, only ME saying they are 'modest'. Could you share your source on this please?

[syd777] 07/11/2016 10:39

Whum given the volume a 100k sell order might be that large sell order.Another 2 weeks before we see the buy back,could hit 1.20 before xmas.

[whum] 07/11/2016 10:31

not an auspicious start to the week.
given the early volume and share price drop, this has the
hallmark of a another large sell order

[kuss1] 07/11/2016 10:06

Those samples enough for 200,000 TVs. And it's increasing..

And Dow don't do face-saving. They'd fire everyone and close down the factory if it had no future..

[fil340] 07/11/2016 10:04

I went to a store once, long before apple had its own shops. I'll never forget the guy who showed me the new Apple iPod. He actually said he didn't understand why it was so popular. When Apple released the iPhone the sharemarket said "yeah, whatever". The market is made up of that people just like that sales guy. As for the validation of CFQD - Samsung's results are all over Amazon. Go check out the ratings. Nanoco's dots are just as good as Hansol's if not better.

[kuss1] 07/11/2016 09:59

Slip, that's $4 million to Dow just for samples, from who?
You don't know your industry. Samsung's QDot TVs outselling everything. New version out in Jan. Nothing on the market can match them.

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 09:52

Kuss

300000 for Dow wouldnt even cover 1 directors salary.

It is quite literally peanuts. Dow are more interested in saving their credibilty.

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 09:49

All

Ask yourself this. Why are dot manufacturers stock prices at all time lows???????

Because they are all about to be the next ARM or Apple???? Of course not. It is because the tech doesnt convince!! Period. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it usually is a duck. Or in this case a turkey.

[kuss1] 07/11/2016 09:47

Dow don't do charity. That £300000 Payne to Nano = $4 million to Dow. So someone's paying. Qdots are here to stay, ask Samsung. To assume Dow/Merck can't match Hansol is misguided

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 09:42

This may hit sub 40 today.

[fil340] 07/11/2016 09:40

Dow sign contracts to save face now? And there is a technology roadmap better than that for QD (film->filter->;on-chip)? Slippy, you can do better. Stop thrashing. The only thing in your favour is the shareprice, and the market will correct that (and you) in due course.

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 09:32

Fil

My take is that both had invested so much in terms of money and credibility that they both needed a way out pdq as the clock was ticking. It is my belief that a face saving excercise was then put into action.

[fil340] 07/11/2016 09:28

The exclusive agreement with Dow was an attempt to outearn in the short term. It remains surprising that Samsung have priced their high-end so far below OLED, especially given the very positive market response to their sets. Mindful of Samsung's strategy, and the knockback obviously, it was in Dow's & Nanoco's interests to lighten the load, to allow Dow to offer cheaper dots. And all IP Licensing agreements come with performance requirements, allowing termination of contract in the event of non-performance. A redo of the contract was a great result for Dow and Nanoco, and boosted my confidence that Nanoco's CFQD's will be in a telly store near you, very, very soon.

[slipperysidewinder] 07/11/2016 09:07

All

Be extremely wary of thinking Nanoco is a sure thing. It is not and may never be.

I would like the opportunity to question ME over a myriad of issues.

I have my view here. Why did Dow even allow Nanoco to negotiate renewed terms of liscence? If Nanoco is what you guys say it is, it would quite simply be business malpractice for Dow to allow Nanoco to market their wares to all and sundry.

And what about the lighting division. I will tell you what? Nothing!