Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[ih_169538] 18/11/2016 16:07

You make Trump look good on the fact checking issue and he was plain awful.

[whum] 18/11/2016 15:52

quite a spread on the share price at the moment

[roadster750] 18/11/2016 15:51

ntbb, your right the weather forecast looks shocking.

[ntbb] 18/11/2016 15:41

Perhaps news Monday, I wouldn't wanna be out over the weekend

[syd777] 18/11/2016 15:27

Crunch just corrected it to £s.. 9 cent and $33 million MC only.. Anyone here agree?

[ih_169538] 18/11/2016 15:24

Your a little ways off the market cap Sydney as usual your facts aren't correct.Time to fix Edelman his morning cup of tea..is he up yet ?

[syd777] 18/11/2016 15:15

Risk blue yes I did lol..meanwhile QMC share price is now 0.06 pence and showing a market cap of £29 million only.lol.

[riskblue] 18/11/2016 15:02

Syd You missed the 2014 bit off the date.

[syd777] 18/11/2016 14:57

LG will use QDs in 2017 with supply from DOW.

[ih_169538] 18/11/2016 14:53

Bagpuss ,QMC doesn't need a partner like Merck or Dow to scale because the cost is minimal for them to do so.Remember when Nanoco gave Dow the exclusive rights it was because they didn't put in the some 13 million to the planned Dow facility ? The scale up costs for Dow was tens of millions times what it costs QMC to spend scale.All one needs to do is see the example of Hansols 1 line size for 800 units a day in the Samsung presentation to see how costly it is and labor intensive it would be to run.I'd imagine Dows facility which is also batch would be the same.Merck will have the same issues.Two words CAPEX and OPEX

[howl01] 18/11/2016 14:30

At least Merck sent out a quarterly update :

In order to meet the growing demand for quantum materials, we entered into a non-exclusive licensing agreement with Nanoco of the United Kingdom in the third quarter. The license allows Merck to immediately start marketing Nanoco's environmentally friendly cadmium-free quantum dots and to ultimately establish its own production facility in the long term. Quantum materials enable ultra-bright displays with a notable expansion of the color gamut. They ideally complement our portfolio for the display industry

[syd777] 18/11/2016 13:00

Out in China they are trying to use Cadium based QDs by capping it with Ployethyleneimine.Nanocos CFQDs could be the first to be used for bio imaging if things go well..

[perfect choice] 18/11/2016 11:35

Please refer to Nanosys action against QMD Vision. One of the reasons given is inferior quality. With Samsung going for "best in class" quality the other players will make sure consumers know they are buying basically a poor quality TV. Some people may be fine with that as cheap, but many would be put off. Its competition.

[onething] 18/11/2016 11:00

That may be the case for you, but probably 90% of television buyers worldwide would not make the distinction and would go for the cheaper telly.

[balaura] 18/11/2016 10:48

So...do I want my TV with a cheap but inferior mass produced QD from QMC, or the multiple award winning, batch produced superior QD from Nano? I don't think it will take me too long to decide :)!

[bagpuss67] 18/11/2016 08:03

It's won't cost Merck big bucks until thet actually build the factory. No sign of that yet. The bottom line is that there is no bottom line yet despite all the awards and all the talk. No follow up from Merck yet? Why aren't they cracking on with things? Leaves us concerned that this will be Dow but worse in that they licence the tech and don't even build a factory. Come on Nano. We need some commercial income. You have been spending for years on "nice to haves" like you have some income.

[fil340] 18/11/2016 08:00

RNS report on quarterly royalties from Dow? Not sure there is a legal obligation to release, though I hope they can justify it on the basis of investor relations.

[mr.oz] 18/11/2016 07:58

The share price is just starting to tell its own story too.

[howl01] 18/11/2016 07:56

And I'm still up waiting for this rns

[howl01] 18/11/2016 07:54

Nanosys do appear more commercially successful but they were using cadmium which was far more advanced and had no barriers to approach the oems/film makers whereas Nano were playing catch up the material development and were prevented from commercialising directly due to the exclusive agreement with Dow. It would seem maybe it was a poor deal or maybe not - they would have struggled possibly to raise capital without the Dow connection. Dow are definitely not commercially naive and we are repeatedly told they are focused on Korea - why would they not broaden their focus to the rest of Asia if they were not receiving positive feedback. And yes why the Merck interest (although not fully committed yet) if the material or process looks unlikely to succeed in the market. Merck are the undisputed expert in lcd materials supply. Merck ad I say is still not a done deal though to be fair as I say.

[fil340] 18/11/2016 07:51

This board has been burning the midnight oil! Fun & games. Anyway. Nanoco don't need to be the only CFQD provider to give shareholders a stonking massive return. Good luck to those brave enough to invest in QMC. Personally I think Nanoco have the new industry standard CFQD on their hands. ME's statement that they have "90% of rec. 2020 with optimized filters" is fantastic news. And pair this statement with the validating fact that Merck have very recently signed up to pay expensive license fees to Nanoco, and have made clear their intention to build a plant to produce said dots. This is no coincidence. Now. Can anyone on this board really claim better knowledge of the LCD display market than Merck, who sell >60% of the worlds lcd materials? The idea that they're going to pay Nanoco a huge license fee, build a plant, and fail to sell literal tonnes of CFQD's strikes me as irrationally fearful. One could say of any company "oh oh oh, past revenue is no guarantee of future revenue" which is 100% true, and to me a perfectly equivalent level of irrational fear.

[kenirogas] 18/11/2016 07:38

What makes you think Dow have failed the process, rather than failed to get customers? LG's insistence on OLED is surely the largest factor here? Good luck with a response from OPs. to the Merck rationale btw, I asked the same thing a couple of weeks ago, but got no replies.

[bagpuss67] 18/11/2016 07:21

Very interesting debate and gets to my main concern. Is nanoco's tech capable of commercialisation without subsidy like Hansol. Dow failed and maybe are having a think about the "enhanced" tech. Still it doesn't sound like its continuous flow tech. My only question would be that surely all that was apparent to Merck and yet they signed up with nanoco rather than just cutting to the chase and going to QMC?

[ih_169538] 18/11/2016 05:09

He's busy counting nanoco cad free quantum dots in his sleep now after tucking Edelman in for the night.Syd's had a late night planning tommorows promotional program,probably will be promoting Nanocos "only real cad free dotz" again as there's not much new to say.

[howl01] 18/11/2016 04:55

Think syd may have now be finally unconscious - does the guy not sleep?