Member Info for amerloque

BC: The more licensing deals, the better. If Samsung wants quantum dots, they should have to purchase them from Dow/Dupont or other Nanoco licensed company. By the way, Nanoco needs to update us regarding their Quantum Dot plant in Korea. Does Dow still acitvely produce QDs in Korea? How has their plant been used recently?

I agree, BC.

I agree, NGR, that it is not likely in the short term, since Nanoco would first need to demonstrate a consistent growth rate over multiple years. It is very realistic if Nanoco proves successful in multiple markets. Besides making us rich, my point is that Nanoco management needed the loan to enable the first steps toward long term success. Lawsuit victory will increase the value of the shares but do little for the PE Ratio (which is the real kicker) unless Nanoco can turn itself into a going conceern.

Although the 100+% loan cost seemed excessive, it enables Nanoco to invest in the future with minimum risk. Shareholders also stand to benefit if they wait 2 or 3 years. Finally, I see Nanoco planning for the future and making good decisions. Let's give them some credit.

We have often discussed Nanoco's potential share prices. Despite many other factors involved, there is a general consensus that the PE Ratio should never exceed the growth rate (implying that it could be as high). This is perhaps why it was so necessary to borrow money to invest in research, sales and future product development. Growth rate depends on product sales, not lawsuit victories. Combining a strong product line with defensible patents, financial backing and a lawsuit victory would ensure many years of strong sales growth and PE Ratios--as high or higher than 50. Earnings per share of $1 could then produce a share value of up to $50, making us all extremely wealthy.

I think my math and the above assumptions are correct, but I welcome corrections. I believe I can provide references backing up the calculations, but I have been wrong before.

Thanks for all the great research. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think "reasonable doubt" applies to civil cases. While reasonable doubt is the basis for criminal judgments, I am pretty sure that 'preponderance of evidence' is all that is required for civil trials.

American support of Samsung would be a huge problem, since many PTAB appointments are controlled directly and indirectly by the party in power. Warning! The UK needs to monitor this relationship. It is fact, not political commentary, that the president and entourage are reputed to be more corrupt than usual. Recent reports indicate that American intelligence agencies have been paying media since 1975 to control worldwide and US media messaging.

We can only hope that Samsung will not abuse its money and power.

I am not concerned about Nanoco's price. Rather, I am convinced Nanoco is a great long term investment. In a couple of months, I will probably buy more shares. The Nanoco - STMicro partnership, however, led me to invest in STMicro, which is the leader in a very disruptive semiconductor technology. STM has risen substantially lately. This last quarter results were amazing, and analysts generally agree that STM will experience an extended rise in value. If you compare it to other semiconductor companies such as Nvidia, you may appreciate the opportunity.

While I understand why the stay may benfit Nanoco and strongly believe that Nanoco will eventually be very successful, I don't place much faith in Edison's analysis. They have failed miserably on many forecasts. I also question their disclaimer that "Edison has a restrictive policy relating to...conflicts of interest". Edison serves as the primary mouthpiece for Nanoco. Are we to believe that Edison receives no compensation from Nanoco? Edison and Nanoco need to clarify their relationship. We also need Nanoco to explan why volume production has suddenly moved from 2022 to 2023. Don't hide behind a shady PR relationship.

My past research showed that Nanoco would not have to grant licenses to a competitor. Samsung has certainly been a competitor who cannot be trusted. Samsung could source quantum dots from Nanoco, Dow/Dupont or other licensed company.

As I have been very positive recently regarding Nanoco, it would have been hypocritical were I not to double down. I assure you that I am not a hypocrite.

If I were Nanoco, I would delay further Stmicro announcements (if legally possible) until after the East Texas Courts make a decision on staying the trial.

If the decision favors Nanoco (likely outcome), good Stmicro news would then boost Nanoco shares substantially while assuaging any favorable Samsung court news.

Right on, ddubya. I doubt that Lombard would have bought 13M shares if they foresaw huge problems. If Nanoco does need additional funding, it will happen after the trial and when Nanoco is doing well. I understand that Nanoco expects volume production in the financial 2nd half of 2022, which begins in Feb 2022.

Nanoco price is going down, it is likely being pushed down to create buying opportunities. I have an order in to buy shares in the US, but no one seems to be willing to sell for less than $0.60. No lack of optimism here.

Yet, Samsung will need QDs, and Nanoco or a licensee would presumably be the logical source if they possessed sufficient means. Can we even trust Dow/Dupont given their remarkable silence when Hansol became the supplier.

Is it possible that Merck might become the new supplier and even be the electronics company referenced in this new contract?

NGR: Click on Nano Share News on the LSE site. The news report states:, "The project extension moves the phase 1 development work to the next stage. Nanoco says it will continue working on a range of materials for a number of potential applications." Nanoco has previously stated that it has been working with other companies.

I disagree that my comment regarding the Samsung factories is out in left field. This is an issue of justified concern. If we don't do something about the current factories, can we trust Samsung not to cheat? Can they be trusted to pay us licensing fees for every QD they produce? They must not be allowed to continue producing CFQDs. Nanoco needs some way of verifying that they are not producing QDs. If they need CFQDs, they need to buy them elsewhere. Why not from Nanoco?

Earth to Mars: Runcorn is much too small to supply Samsung, much less meet non-Samsung demand. Are Dow/Dupont trustworthy (have not demonstrated so thus far)? Besides the fact that Dow/Dupont have been a huge disappointment, the status of the Dow/Dupont factory is unknown, and the licensing fee would need to be adjusted significantly upward.

It would take years to build the plants needed to supply Samsung. Yet, we need to make sure that the Samsung factories are no longer under Samsung's control. Besides, forcing Samsung to turn over plants (that it had no right to build) to Nanoco seems to constitute reasonable punishment.

The announcement states that this new contract moves the project from stage 1 to stage 2. STMicro has been in stage 2 for quite some time. Therefore, I believe this contract to be with a different company.

Regarding why they are secretive, Nanoco and their customer are possibly seeking to avoid disruption and backlash from Samsung, as seems to have happened so often in the past. Samsung's influence extends across the globe, and Samsung does not hesitate to use it.

Selling on settlement should be done only with the intention of buying back ASAP, since orders should quickly flow in. Let's not forget that some Mintz lawyers assigned to this case have strong licensing expertise. The Mintz relationship raises Nanoco's business acumen and connections to new levels. Nanoco and Mintz will almost certainly be strategizing appropriate post settlement steps.

There is another issue we have not discussed. Any Samsung settlement must address the issue of how to supply Samsung with QDs. This presents a dilemma, because Samsung cannot be trusted. I even have doubts about Dow/Dupont. My reading indicates that, because Samsung is a quantum dot manufacturer and thus a Nanoco competitor, Nanoco is not required to grant Samsung a manufacturing license. Yet, Nanoco does not presently have sufficient capacity to supply Samsung. Thus, any settlement should consider granting Nanoco ownership of Samsung's quantum dot factories and include an iron clad, long-term contract with very substantial penalties.

If Nanoco wins, it is very probable that the will see a sustained yearly profit growth of more than 100%. Such and occurrence would result in a PE ratio of high double digits. Imagine further that annual profitability exceeds 1 BP per share. A high double digit share price is not out of range.

There is risk, but how often do we get an opportunity to bet roulette black or white with a long term 5,000% potential return?

by high double digits, I mean "50+ £'s"

I agree whole heartedly, Frostbar. Lack of funds to benefit from patents have constrained Nanoco from the start. A win would give them tremendous leverage and ample funds to issue a dividend, buy back shares, and expand rapidly into many markets. Companies infringing on their IP will either license the technology or face lawsuits.

With the caveat that technology could always turn the world upside down, Nanoco profits could soar to 100% or more per year for multiple years, causing the share price to exponentiate. Their biggest problem will be managing growth. They need to profit as much as possible from expiring patents, while building a solid foundation for the future. Much as Bezos has done at Amazon, they need to balance a profitability focus with establishing a world class foundation.

Given good management, Nanoco's share price could reach into the high double digits in coming years.