Member Info for amerloque

DDubya: I agree that rewards should be based on performance. Yet, this is an unusual situation.
Failure to interpolate constant headwinds created by Samsung's into such measurements would be a mistake and could cause valuable employees to leave. In fact, most small companies would have folded under such pressure. It would be tantamount to forcing a long distance runner to carry a 50 pound weight. We need to reward Nanoco employees for sticking it out. Otherwise, we would hurt Nanoco and indirectly help competition.

Lobo is right. Employees who remained on board through these hard times deserve to be rewarded. Let's not be cheap. Instead, show our appreciation.

Unlikely that Samsung would welcome losing this lawsuit. Regardless of outcome, Samsung competitors will gain increased access to this technology. It becomes a free for all or controlled by Nanoco rather than Samsung. A loss would expose Samsung to triple damage in addition to seeing increased competition.

Well said, BC. Samsung has dealt deadly body blows to two companies--today's struggling Nanoco and the Nanoco that could have been. We will never know what could have been.

Kudos to Nanoco management for tying their wagon to Mintz, offering a level of legal and business acumen previously unavailable.

Feeks: I agree but would add that the industry is driven by a corrupt company, Samsung, which can make or break competitors and has a vested interest in destroying the company (Nanoco) whose IP it has so apparently stolen.

It amazes me that BTB, who was an early investor in Nanoco, has been unable or unwilling to connect the dots. Seems agenda driven.

It seems that Aeva does not use SWIR technology. Do they use quantum dots?

Hopefully, my persistent warnings about Quantum Materials since ~2013 have caused some posters to avoid investing in QTMM, which was obviously vaporware and is no longer trading.

Thanks, NanoNano.

Some posters on this board seem to want Nanoco to fail . They refuse to recognize the uphill battle that Nanoco have had to fight against Samsung, which likely sought to close every door that Nanoco have opened. Free enterprise has defenders and detractors, but no one seems to notice that companies such as Samsung prevent free enterprise's existence. Anyone who believes that free enterprise exists today is a fool.

Even large companies are led by executives who find themselves falling prey to bribes and blackmails that could determine their success or failure. There are myriad ways in which Samsung and similar companies can distort markets and influence purchasing decisions, trial outcomes, and potential partnerships. Opportunities are compounded by the advent of bitcoin. We should question the European refusal to ban cadmium.

I have been a strong critic of Nanoco in the past, but I now admire Nanoco for refusing to give up. Those who insist that Nanoco will fail in the future simply because they have failed in the past are foolish. Nanoco seem to have learned from past mistakes. They are a platform, not a one product company. One big success will likely catapult them to huge success as long as the patents hold up, which seems very likely. The STMicro deal appears valid, being based on a product that successfully moved through 2 stages with Apple and is now in the third stage with STMicro. The most recent announcement hints at short term production agreements.

Hawi: Shame on me. I am uniquely culpable of speculation.

RGM: I was not seeking to be negative. I believe in Nanoco and have more than doubled my share ownership recently. The potential Heatwave market and Samsung lawsuit upside justifies the risk, as long as one risks only money they are willing to lose. Most investments today are dangerous and with far less upside potential. Maintaining a high percentage of cash is important, but too much cash during inflationary times is also high risk. As I mentioned previously, Nanoco customer STMicro appears to be a very safe investment. They tend to make conservative estimates and have already raised guidance once during this quarter. Besides leading in sensors and micro machines, they offer components critical to the IoT world. They announce Q3 earnings on Oct 28.

Could the audit team have forced Nanoco to deemphasize their display technology? It does seem misleading to promote the display markets if the Nanoco display pipeline is empty.

Interesting concept, future performance. Please explain how it works as an investment tool.

Note: The following constitutes founded speculation.
Fact:
While the audit might not have been delayed due to an approaching contract, the late inclusion of a new contract in future estimates could reasonably delay an audit. An audit should examine and test evidence supporting the figures contained in the financial statements. It should assess the accounting principles and estimates used by the company in preparing their financial statements.

The annual report should also perform fundamental analysis (FA), which is a method of measuring a security’s intrinsic value by examining related economic and financial factors. Fundamental analysis is important in determining a stock's real or "fair market" value. Fundamental analysts study anything that can affect the security's value, from macroeconomic factors such as the state of the economy and industry conditions to microeconomic factors like the effectiveness of the company's management and contracts. The end goal is to arrive at a number that an investor can compare with a security's current price to see whether the security is undervalued or overvalued.

As many have pointed out, most contracts have gone nowhere. IF auditors had reviewed contracts prior to releasing announcements and annual reports, we investors might have suffered much less.

I suspect that the recent rumor of a large Asian contract had legs. If so, Nanoco would want to dot the contractual i's prior to the earnings release. While such news would have no effect on annual earnings, it would have a very positive effect on future earnings and Nanoco's subsequent share price. I doubt that an audit for such a small company would require more than 2 months.

Let's leave politics out of this.

Thank you, NGR1616, for posting the Gilstrap award video. He seems to be an exceptional person, a very fair judge. and beyond reproach. If Samsung is not guilty, they should be glad to have him oversee this trial.

It seems that Judge Gilstrap has been very transparent. If there were any conflict of interest, parties to the various lawsuits would have demanded that he recuse himself. By the way, it does not seem that the WSJ author mentioned that Gilstrap Gilstrap has been transparent. Any suggestion that Pelosi's dishonesty provoked an attack on Gilstrap is a stretch unachievable even by Plastic Man.

BasseCadet: Wikipedia states that Quantum dots (QDs) are semiconductor particles a few nanometres in size, having optical and electronic ...". Thus, Nanoco is a semiconductor company producing optical semiconductors that may offer huge conductivity benefits. Perhaps, this is where you lost the thread. You are correct that the article will not affect the court case, but it certainly attacks Gilstrap, perhaps unfairly. Did the author give Gilstrap an opportunity to respond?

I agree that we need to avoid conflicts of interest. However, we should wait to hear both sides of the story. Thank you, Lobo, for recognizing the difficulty in applying such laws indiscriminately.

Basscadet: The details are important. It would not be fair to deny extended family members the right to own stocks. It has been well documented that journalists worldwide have been accepting money from intelligence agencies since 1975. It would be naive to think that Samsung would not also throw money at journalists and media.

As the subsequent article makes clear, if Nanoco's IP contributes to the replacement of Silicon technology, it is of huge importance to Samsung as well as STMicro and others:
www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/33836-what-will-replace-silicon-chips-in-the-next-generation-of-evs

Holdings in the companies mentioned are so common that Gilstrap would never be able to preside over a case. Why no specifics on the family members and type and amount of holdings? I wonder how many bitcoins the writer and the Wall Street Journal received from Samsung to produce this hit piece. As I have said previously, Samsung will not hesitate to use money and power to influence this case. Where are the laws against journalist conflicts of interest?

If the writer wants to expose corruption, he should investigate how a relatively minor Samsung Telecom company managed to win the multi-billion dollar Verizon telecom deal. Samsung's corruption apparently knows no bounds.

Non-execs can contribute, and this one probably will. Nanoco have always needed greater business expertise. Yet, I agree that LO's primary motivation is likely greater control. This is justifiable and in our interests. I am very pleased at the addition and have just added substantially to my portfolio.