Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. 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.
I do not view recent posts as negative SL, just an airing of matters that we should each consider in our investment decisions.
I would prefer NANO could make a commercial success of itself in some field, rather than be saddled to the outcome of Samsung litigation. I am not sure why that cannot be achieved and hopefully BT will deliver. Entirely reasonable too that BT should be given time to settle before making his keynote speech - lets hope for a rousing one.
Too much negativity both here and in the market in my view. Often happens when people have to wait for a few months for things to happen. In the real world progress takes time and effort behind the scenes. I say let's give BT a chance at least until the October report. I'm hoping for /expecting at least some paid "consultancy work" to be announced. I know not lots of money, but it pays for the staff bills whilst possibley adding extra patents.
Very likely to be the case, but we don't know, because the company has never said a word about it, leaving investors to speculate as is often the case. They were always keen to announce new engagements, but coy when it came to any follow up, quoting NDC's etc. Samsung are a big deal, but not the only game in town. Toshiba are releasing QLED tv's this year, there have also been the monitors from Asus and Acer with QD enhanced screens.
I think that's simply because of RoHS. Cadmium based dots are cheaper and better and "cadmium free" is not a selling point to many customers.
Certainly, I wonder why we hear nothing of Wah Hong any more? So many potential customers provide the expectation of sales, only to disappear quietly into the night. Failure to implement RoHS, together with OEM retooling costs for C.F. Production dOES not help.
It is possible Samsung has been doing its best to sabotage NANO but there is a credibility issue in terms of commercialisation of Display, and history repeated itself with IR and Apple (and now Merck?).
I had hoped BT would be quicker to reveal his plans for NANOs future and do wonder if the strategy is now to hibernate, whilst the Samsung dispute plays out and also to quietly develop the ST Micro product. I hope not but increasingly, it feels that way. If LO had not remained so supportive I would have been more concerned. No reason to move on for me but intensely disappointing that Careware is our only success. What about other applications such as in car Display, or vertical farming? Surely it is possible to make a success of it somewhere, even if we need to sell CFQD at breakeven to do it.
"Although the lack of sales to Samsung have now been explained, it doesn't answer why others have failed to take up the tech in display, and why they've favoured Nanosys."
Note that Samsung had a ready market for its [stolen?] cadmium free QDs. Yet, they invested in and promoted Nanosys cadmium QDs while avoiding cadmium in their own products. Moreover, Samsung never seriously advocated for the RoHS cadmium ban, probably because doing so would have helped Nanoco without benefitting themselves. Samsung's pattern of behavior indicates that they might well have used their influence to sway prospective Nanoco customers and partners away from Nanoco.
Surely production engineering was originally supposed to be the preserve of Dow now Dupont?
Although the lack of sales to Samsung have now been explained, it doesn't answer why others have failed to take up the tech in display, and why they've favoured Nanosys.
We should get the scheduling conference from Judge Gilstrap tomorrow afternoon. Then we have the year end update from Nanoco sometime in October. Perhaps they'll put some more flesh on the bones then.
TLWilliams and others: I think that the collaboration being currently explored is with STMicro. I gather that one of STMicro's major customers is Apple. I think it is interesting that Apple left the door open with Nanoco in not extracting any claw-back for the investment Apple made in Nano's plant. Cook, Apple's very smart CEO, has a leitmotif of "We always look to the long-term".
I would appreciate some help from better informed posters than I, but I think Apple's approach to Nano was regarding LIDAR- Infra-Red external guidance systems for autonomous EVs. It's interesting that Elon Musk, for whom I have a great deal of respect, has given LIDAR bad press, saying that it's very expensive. I believe that there is another dimension to Infra-Red for autonomous EVs and that is for driver-surveillance. The reality is that Tesla has suffered several fatal accidents, owing to drivers believing that their Tesla is Level-5 self-driving, when, in reality, they are at Level-2. The worst accidents were caused by Tesla drivers falling asleep. Musk has drastically over-promised on the time-scale for Level-5. It appears likely that safety-conscious countries, including the EU, would demand sensitive driver-surveillance systems. I would like to know more about how much these systems rely on Infra-Red.
The Merck story seems to be on hold. But, Merck are very smart people. I do sense that if Nano was to be successful in winning its IP-theft litigation, it would establish Nano's IP as being foundational in low-temperature manufacture of QDs. That could change a great deal as far as future collaborations are concerned. Some while ago, Merck were venturing some very exciting ideas about window and internal fabric panels with "smart" properties. If those were to include QDs, they would, without doubt, have to be Cadmium-free.
If I sense any major weakness in Nano's make-up, it is that it's too "geeky". Nigel Pickett is incredibly bright, but maybe his strength is more as an inventor than the production-engineering side of things. This is where, Charlie Hotz, Tech Director at Nanosys, may have an advantage. This is not to diminish Pickett's loyalty and commitment to Nano. He's hardly ever sold shares, still has a major holding in the Company and recently put in another £30,000 in the recent share-placement.
It seems a real UK tragedy that with ARM and Imagination Technologies bought out, high-tech on British soil is a bit thin. I remain hopeful that Nano can find its mark. Let's hope that Brian Tenner can be a well-grounded leader and focus the staff at HQ. Good luck everybody.
While I always felt that a new Merck deal would await greater certainty of the Nanoco-Samsung outcome, I suspect that STMicro could roll out quickly. After all, the STMicro product has been under development for quite some time and does not appear to depend on the patents in question. Any delay
in Merck, STMicro or other agreements would need to be factored into any Samsung settlement (additional cost to Samsung), since they impact Nanoco success. Samsung's behavior has already impacted Nanoco severely and needs to be punished. Keep running up the bill, Samsung.
Mintz has probably advised Nanoco to limit public announcements until the court determines whether the case should go to court. For once, I do not mind the paucity of announcements.
Sorry TLWilliams but my view of the contract situation is gloomy over the short term.
Merck, if anything happens, is likely to be less valuable than the last one. They triggered the renegotiation.
New collaborations in this market take a long time to bring to market. I'm sure the company will announce the new one that's in the pipeline if it gets as far as signing anything but it's likely to represent another long period of product development before we get to any real revenue generation. I duobt it will move the SP out of the current range for a year or two which puts us on the same timeline as the court case anyway.
I agree with you in the entirety of your message. The research carried out on this board is nothing short of extraordinary!
I feel as an investor I am perfectly aligned with the board in that I am sat here waiting for a positive outcome from the litigation or for a letter to drop on the mat with an order for some dots!
I am grateful to all contributors on this board, who appear to be the only individuals who are currently showing an interest in the future of this company. A new CEO was appointed at the start of this month. He has yet to make a statement regarding his vision for the company. Between early November and February there was a bid process in play; to date I have no idea as to what actually happened during this time (this information is hidden behind NDAs presumably?). Since then, it has been all about the patent infringement litigation against Samsung. All the significant information I have regarding this process has come from this bulletin board - from contributors, whose research skills are superior to my own. There has been little of value from the company itself.
Whatever happened to the contracts under negotiation, about which we were told in the vaguest terms by the previous CEO?
Today, the last time I looked there had been one tiny trade all day. The LSE website is quoting the current share price as 13.3p, although there is a significant differential between the buy- and sell- prices for 10,000 shares.
Does anyone else think that this company, having sufficient funds to keep afloat for the next year or so, is in a state of suspended animation while awaiting the outcome of the litigation against Samsung? It certainly seems that way to me.