Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[fil340] 30/12/2016 11:49

Until ME can "show us the money" (ie announce a contract, even a modest one) Nanoco is a ridiculously - insanely - risky stock right now. Might as well put it all on red 21.

[slipperysidewinder] 30/12/2016 11:44

Well said fil. But seriously Nanoco has become " real porn " for dome of the remainers here. It is a really odd occurrence.

[slipperysidewinder] 30/12/2016 11:44

Well said fil. But seriously Nanoco has become " real porn " for some of the remainers here. It is a really odd occurrence. It is almost pathological blind faith in a doomed product.

[fil340] 30/12/2016 11:43

Dow and Merck can afford to play medium and long term games. Nanoco can't. Come July next year, Nanoco stock plunges, the company starved of revenue. Board changes and general chaos and maybe a 15p share price or less. And Merck and Dow won't mind a jot. They can manufacture for whoever ends up holding Nanoco's patent portfolio.

[slipperysidewinder] 30/12/2016 11:42

Simple matey.

It will be just like Dow, a factory that will be able with little or no alteration, be capable of producing a multiple of different permutations to achieve a TV screen.

It is called hedging your bets and gaining bargaining leverage. It is sound business practice. They need to constantly update facilities anyway.

Unless you see the agreements with Nanoco, you are totally in the dark. We all no ME is an expert at parading sow's ears as silk purses.

[syd777] 30/12/2016 11:38

Samsung dose not supply the LCD to the world,Merck is looking at LCQD.The tech is changing every 6 months.

[kuss1] 30/12/2016 11:34

Brucie5,

That's too difficult for slip ...

[brucie5] 30/12/2016 11:29

Slippery,

Could you please answer the equal and opposite question for me: why is MERCK investing millions in a new factory to make NANO's dots, and why the interest from WH?

[fil340] 30/12/2016 11:27

M.E. the geek from Runcorn;
Sang his sweet tale til dawn;
when awoken were we;
too tired to flee;
Alas! We were no more than a pawn.

[kuss1] 30/12/2016 11:23

The problem for the industry is that Samsung aren't going to share their limited supply of Qdots. So those other 15 or so OEM's will need to go elsewhere. Cadmium is a disaster with no future, so that rules out Nanosys. QD vision is dead. That only leaves Nano, Dow and Merck.

Nano can now produce some 500kgs out of Runcorn, or some 40kgs per month. To hit their revenue target of around 7 million by end of July that's equivalent to 6 weeks of production off just one OEM contract.

CES will be interesting to see how many OEM's are happy to be named with Nano's cad free dots.

[syd777] 30/12/2016 11:21

Samsung QLED process still requires a film and that will still require a lot of QDs.Hansol dose not and has not got the capacity to supply the industry.Nanoco has aquired Kodaks QLED patents and Samsung are still miles away from achieving a light diode based QDs.TCL and HiSence will not buy off Samsung and Merck is still on course to announce its new factory and is hedging its bet with Nanoco for its CFQDs and the real QLED breakthrough.

[chaba1] 30/12/2016 11:19

you don't know the truth of where they got this. And the other TV guys will perhaps want to compete by buying from someone else like Nanoco

[whum] 30/12/2016 11:07

There was an Old Man with a beard,
Who said, 'It is just as I feared!
Two Owls and a Hen,
Four Larks and a Wren,
Have all built their nests in my beard

[slipperysidewinder] 30/12/2016 11:05

fil

At least you see it how it is. These guys at the top end are all in it together. Rather like the Globalists and elitist politicians of the EU, theu carved it up between themselves donkeys years ago.

The elephant in the room, that would stop me buying Nanoco, is if tge technology is asgood as ME says and therefore if they are to be such an industry major player, then why doesn't Samsung simply take them out a5 a chicken feed price.

The remoaners just don't get it.

[fil340] 30/12/2016 10:28

JoePublic: Competitors will be fine paying Samsung to get top-shelf kit at a reasonable cost. Have a look at iFixit and you will see Samsung stamped on components of Apple's products and they're supposedly bitter enemies.

[fil340] 30/12/2016 09:49

Slippy: Lol. That would be a really terrific trademark "Samsung means Samsung". In my minds-eye I can see it there on the shiny packs of Samsung's QLED(TM) metallized QD-LEDs.

MrOz: Do you recall ME's comment "Dow are in the final stages of approvals with the Big S" made earlier this year? The guy cannot really be trusted and he's now on my check-list of things that need to change for me to reinvest.

[mr.oz] 30/12/2016 09:40

Was this the 'significant to Dow" hint ME gave with forked tongue?

[slipperysidewinder] 30/12/2016 09:35

The longs here are like Remainers. They cannot believe that the OEM's have not gone along with the ME sales pitch and bought into Nanoco dots hook line and sinker. Firminator is like Clegg, he wants a soft Nanoco. A company that can have it all, whatever the OEM's choose. And then George Osbourne, AKA keniroggs pops up, "You will all be doomed if you don't accept Nanoco dots. We will need an emergency placing! Who will supply LG? What about Merck? Don't you see, it will be the end of the TV. I dare you? It will end in technological disaster".

So what do they do? They refuse to accept against all commercal evidence that the vast majority of OEM's simply do not want to pay a farthing for Nanoco's technology. It simply doesnt do the job like ME says it does at an affordable price. The industry is moving away from Nanoco. Distant on the horizon.

You won't get your say in the Supreme Court and you won't get a second refferendum.

Except the will of the OEM's. Samsung means Samsung.

[fil340] 30/12/2016 09:30

Very colourful comments, as always slippy. I want to see Samsung's new tech, and part of the full set of my worst fears arise in that article: see "shield" and "ready to supply". These metalized dots can take more heat, hense greater brightness. Might still be film, but if they can take more heat they can go closer to the diode. Plus "ready to supply" makes no sense based on Hansol output - unless qd requirement per tv has dropped drastically. Pointing directly towards packaged qleds with embedded metalized qds.

[bagpuss67] 30/12/2016 09:29

One of the reasons this will go to the wire is extremely poor cost control IMHO. It's only now and belatedly they are cutting but it's too late. It's S++t or bust with revenue now. Even though things may have progressed with Merck and Wah Hong the risk profile is massively increased IMHO. A cash call now surely would be in the 30's best case.

[joepublic1] 30/12/2016 09:27

No self respecting competitor will want to cooperate with Samsung for supply of a critical material and perpetuate a dependency on a single source controlled by its competitor. Any 'co-operation with Samsung will be for marketing purposes to promote QD screens using some kind of joint marketing logo perhaps and is just a reaction to the LG OLED alliance initiative. Both recognise that consumers want to see more than one vendor adopt a technology to give it credibility.

[whum] 30/12/2016 09:21

Edward Lear would be put to shame on this bb