Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
If Mintz Levin win that would be the time to ask them (or a UK fitm) if they are open to managing a class action on behalf of shareholders? Sound far fetched but Botbot might not mind subbing us if we see £2 per share.
ddubya: You are right. If it could be proven, shareholders might have a class action cause against Samsung, thus placing more pressure on Samsung to settle! A subpoena for all Samsung Venture Investment Company's communications relating to Nanoco's quantum dot prospects and partners might prove interesting.
Very interesting ddubya if limited to a narrow use case. A lot of the money you pay for with the Samsung goes on upscaling and getting the best results possible with a wide array of sources. Props to the Hisense though for 4K Blue Ray and especially their FALD by the sounds of it.
Amerloque. You are perhaps too kind!
Proving it is another thing altogether, but in my personal view Samsung has deliberately and consistently moved to deny NANO’s development, cash and a future In Display. In the process it has also relieved many shareholders of money. I know what I would call that sort of behaviour and I am really hoping judge Gilstrap sees it the same way, in which case they will get what they deserve.
This is not just a case of stolen IP. What legal remedy/penalty applies when it is proven that one company has purposely attempted to destroy a much smaller company in order to cover up misdeeds?
strong support would have helped Nanoco with no real damage to Samsung
Correction: outperforms TVs costing 2 or 3 times as much.
Hi Basscadet. Take a look at the link to Stop the FOMO below, who reviews the Hisense H9G against the Samsung 8K QLED.
https://youtu.be/Pkjog9YlqHo
BTB: Samsung apparently intends to use QDs in many different products, as indicated by its venture group SVIC's, avowed intention to distribute Samsung technology and management skills across many of its 70+ startups; it is a positive sign and a possible admission of guilt that Samsung seems to be preparing for a future that does not require Samsung's own quantum dots, especially if it is true that they intend to source screens and/or film from China. The recent Korean news that Samsung employees illegally leaked IP to China looks fishy. Was Nanoco technology leaked to China? In order to avoid disruption of plans, are they creating an alibi that would exonerate them from blame for using Nanoco technology in their TVs? There is considerable circumstantial evidence that, in addition to stealing Nanoco's IP, they have continually sought to injure Nanoco. For example,
1) If Samsung stole Nanoco IP, it would benefit enormously if Nanoco were to fail;
1) Samsung have twice funded Nanoco's biggest competitor, Nanosys, who benefited publicity wise;
2) To Nanoco's detriment, Samsung have, on multiple occasions, publicly praised Nanosys, a non-threatening cadmium based QD manufacturer;
3) Samsung have been weak regarding enforcement of the cadmium ban; strong support would have helped Nanoco with no real benefit to Samsung since Hansol had a ready made market for cadmium-free QDs; is it possible that Samsung might have bribed EU decision makers?
4) Did Samsung influence Nanoco sales negatively by giving sweetheart deals, pricing or other, to companies such as Dow Chemical (e.g., purchase of a Corning division), Apple (semiconductor pricing), Chinese and other display firms? I have often railed against gigantic trusts such as Amazon and Google, but the same limitations should be placed world wide on companies such as Samsung. Anti-trust violations among giant many-tentacled companies constantly threaten fair trade world-wide and are impossible to govern.
I am not accusing Samsung of the above disgraceful behavior, but past history indicates that such actions would not be beyond them.
I just bought a Samsung quantum dot tv, then took it back because the Tisen interface is a monstrosity and did not support an OTA DVR app I needed. I then purchased a 55" Hisense H9G, which is also quantum dot, but far superior to the Samsung--brighter, far better interface, much better sound and an amazing picture. Moreover, it only cost $645, but compares well with TVs costing 2 or 3 times as much.
I haven't seen any reveiws saying that anyone else's QD TVs can touch Samsung's for image quality ddubya. Got any model numbers?
Agree BtB. Their Ethics Policy says one thing but they appear to have chosen to steer an opposing course on several occasions now. The most important thing for customers is the quality of the product and few see past that, unless they have a vested interest, like me.
The good news for those on moral high ground is that Hisense offer a QD TV every bit as good as Samsung’s but much cheaper. No disclosure yet if they are NANO CFQD or someone else’s though.
Dam phone did the fund raising.... Have a good day folks
Hi Nige got in at 15 and 18.. Next day the sid the fund raising ( Just my luck) Still happy what I got
Fingers crossed for a settlement sooner rather than later Nige. Personally I think they'll wait right until the day before the trial so we will have a year to wait. Quick question, why do you think Dow or Merck will be involved in any licencsing agreement? I'm sure the only way to satisfy Samsung's volume on day one would be to license them to carry on making their dots in house just as they are now and why give some of the margin over to other companies?
Hi TLW
I agree Sp movement at the moment is pretty meaningless. All depends on news. The good thing is given worst possible case (nano lose Court Case), that won't happen for a few months, by which time new contracts will have come thru justifying the current Sp or increasing it. So basically no down side.
The upside is amazing. My original idea of settlement damages of £500m is not unrealistic (given a S Korea court ordered $700m against Samsung for an IP infringement).
Basic Calc 500m / 306m shares should increase Sp by 163 pps = 181, £1Bn inc Sp by 326 to 344...
But again it is even better than that cos any settlement must include nano to have a contract to supply all CFQD's to Samsung (via Dow or Merck). This justifies a far higher Sp than simply adding Value to Mrkt Cap. Or if £500m settlement I expect a Sp of at least 200.
No idea how the Sp will move given a settlement, but if £500m (justifying 200 Sp), it might take longer to reach 200 than could be expected. Simple reason for that is I think a lot of people like me will be selling happily at 150 even if it could reach 200, cos got too much money stuck there. Hence an opportunity.
Last point, if I was on the Board of Directors of Samsung I would sack all the Execs running the Company, cos they are risking the Companys reputation and future.
Hi Maninpink
Any recovery stock is vert very risky, hope you got in at a good price, so be prepared for the worst.
I remain optimistic and Bol.
The share price is currently undergoing random fluctuations (a contributor on the advfn board suggested an analogy by describing it as a kind of Brownian motion) due to a small volume of tiny trades (with shares being bought and sold. This suggests to me that the vast majority of investors are holding their stock pending further news about the alleged Samsung patent infringement legal action. In the absence of any developments regarding the latter, or any new contract wins, this random share price variation will probably continue for the time being.
To take an optimistic view, Nige_W's recent suggestion seems perfectly plausible to me, and perhaps there may be an out of court resolution and settlement to the action sooner than we think. A contributor on the advfn board, who was recently dismissive regarding my multi-bagging 50p share price target as being way over optimistic, now thinks that Nanoco investors might wake up one morning to find the share price at 200p. His guess is as good as anybody else's at the present time. We really have no idea as to how this situation will play out.
Sorry my mistake . I was looking at 3 things at once my friend
Maninpink, sorry but again I can't see any big transactions on the LSE site today. Am I missing something? The odd 50K share buy isn't much when the price is arount 17p a share. Actually I am a bit surprised that volume is so low at the moment.
Some big buys today have you notice
Great board and read as as always.
Going by previous years timetables, we may get an announcement of end of year update by the end of the week or early next.
I'm not expecting any significant news, although Nanoco may choose to wait until the end of the month to update investors on Samsung's response to patent infringement. What do you mean and pigs might fly?
Courtier, I am not seeing what you are! The spread is very large but I see no real increase in SP! Perhaps you have better info than me as I don't have up-to-the-minute data!
Sorry to interrupt a good share chat but I am really beginning to hope here. Are things happening out there? 8% in a morning is more than good...