Member Info for amerloque

Correstion: ,Are you attempting to immitate Biden speech, Troublesome?

Are you attempting to imitate Biden speech, Kooba?

USB, who tend to be very conservative investors, hold a large percentage of Nanoco shares. This is reassuring. They might also have insight into Apple's Vision Pro product.

I made a personal comment, Troublesome. If you reread my post carefully, you will see that I never suggested that others block Kooba's post. The arrogance of Koob's post was such that Ido not wish to be bothered by future posts. Your reaction surprises me. Previously, I have enjoyed your sardonic humour, which is unfortunately lacking recently.

In general, I find way too much whining and bitterness on this site and will block posters I feel lack value.

I will not try to stop you, Kooba, but will personally block reception of your posts in order to minimizes posts in which I have no interest. I have previously blocked tthose of Ngr, but will unblock his posts since they now seems to belong among the more rational on this deteriorating site.

I could not agree more.

Less than one month ago, Sharp announced plans to cease large scale LCD display production and sell off its its semiconductor business. I might be overlooking something, but this hardly suggests Sharp will expand quantum dot production, especially with Nanosys who is essentially a shell of a company (to forestall Nanoco lawsuits?). Remember that quantum dots are a form of semiconductor?.

Sharp lost almost $1B in the past year and possibly now resorting to AI vaporware claims to maintain credibility. Nanosys association reinforces the vaporware trend.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/05/c5d6300610f3-sharp-to-discontinue-lcd-panel-production-at-osaka-pref-plant.html

I agree wholehearedly with LordWM. I just bought 23K shares and will buy more if the price goes down significantly. Current Nanoco management have been unfairly blamed, but have brought Nanoco back a long ways and even seem to have happy employees, a characteristic inconsistent with failing companies.

Thanks for a strong analysis, Morbox. I also believe that Nanoco is in a good position. Moreover, I suspect BT and other Nanoco management know more than they are saying, which limits their ability to buy shares at this time without risking lawsuits. We also need to recognize that Nanoco employees have been underpaid for many years and probably lack large investment resources. After seeing them struggle for so many years yet remain loyal, I hope that they will benefit signifiicantly in the future.

Having failed to control Nanoco, why would he stay invested. Good riddance of an apparently evil person who appears to lack good sense. Sadly, he will probably manufacture a new justification for suing Nanoco. While he may win against Lombardier, he is not likely to win any further lawsuit. Nanoco has advised everyone that it expects sales expansion in the future. I plan to buy more shares following the conclusion of their current open market purchasing program.

TwoGood: Given that Nanoco has stated that it expects to receive deals and to achieve profitability and even cash breakeven in fiscal year 25 (which begins in August), there seems to be no basis for such a lawsuit.

I feel that potential upside merits the risk. I am comforted by the fact that Motley Fool (very smart people) have raised their evaluation of Nanoco.

Despite what is said on this blog, I believe that Nanoco management are neither dishonest or dumb. I cannot conceive that they would have executed the buyback without expecting substantial orders this year. If and when this happens, we will see an upsurge in share price.

The fact that the share tender was oversubscribed is puzziling, but may indicate that LOAM lacks inside information. On the other hand, a large LOAM sale would probably cause the share price to drop, enabling them to buy back shares at a lower price.

I stand corrected If Nanoco fails to receive the anticipated orders this year. I would also lose much of my investment.

@404x: Please offer a detailed jusitfication for your comment. regarding BT. besides contributing nothing to the discussion, it is lazy and far too harsh.

Nothing is being returned. Nanoco is simply giving us the opportunity to sell our shares for slightly better than the market price. This shows that they are not idiots. I bought large numbers of shares with the intent of holding on until Nanoco becomes profitable. Why would I want to sell now when they are nearing some level of success. If the buyback is unsucessful, they will likely raise the buyback price. If successful, the number of shares will have been reduced substantially, causing a eventual increase in value, especially if profitability is achieved in 2025.

Straight from the mouth of GPT Chat.

Chatgpt is an industry thought manipulation tool addressing thought-challenged people. Why not base research on known fact?

While Samsung led the world in Quantum dot TV product development, it galls me to see Samsung get pioneering credit for quantum dots. Samsung led Nanoco on for years in order to steal their technology. Samsung's enormous influence in the industry appears to have helped to block Nanoco at every effort to succeed with other companies. Ultimately, Samsung's top scientist admitted to being unable to create cadmium free QD's and asked Nanoco for help. Samsung eventually transferred stolen techonology from Nanoco to a Samsug subsidiary and possibly even other companies such as Nanosys.

Amazon was the first company to produce quantum dot devices in mass quantity. I bougnt one of the first Kindle QD products. They were amazing, but did not use Cadmium free dots. Kindle's later models did not use QD's, probably due attention drawn to the cadmium danger.

@ Two-Good

1) Two-Good: Samsung IP revenue recognition is £6m a year.

Amerloque: Nanoco has defined Samsung revenue recognition to be 3.1M bi-yearly. This is in stone and will continue to be treated as revenue for many years. Nanoco expects to receive licensing fees from other customers in the future, perhaps even in 2025.

2) Two-Good: Cash already received, can't have it twice, nice idea, hence its just spreading the settlement" into the future and recognising it as future (fully paid) licence revenue..

Amerloque: A. Can't have it twice??? "Long-term prepaid subscriptions (e.g., annual plans) should not have revenue recognized upfront for the entire amount. Revenue is recognized gradually over the subscription period, aligning with performance obligations. Deferred revenue moves to recognized revenue incrementally." Nanoco would report an annual total of 6.2M Pounds in quarterly increments. Since Cash has already been updated at the time it was received, one would never update it again. Revenue Recognition affects earnings, not Cash Balance.

3) Two-Good: Whereas cash spend is a given £400k a month upto £4.8m burnt which needs to be covered.

Amerloque: ???? No argument here. Nanoco specifies that they will recognize sufficient earnings to breakeven. Given identified earnings of 7.1M per year and prospects for new sales, this should not be difficult.

4) Two-Good: Breakeven I believe was in cash terms not underlying or reported profit terms.

Amerloque: Although Nanoco did express cash flow breakeven confidence, profit breakeven seems to be a much easier goal. If Nanoco achieves cash flow breakeven, we should see a nice profit, especially since the licensing revenue carries almost no Cost of Goods expense.

I have finally discovered how to convert my E-Trade NNOCF shares on the US over-the-counter market to Nano shares. After discussing this issue with multiple brokers and even Nanoco management, I have discovered an incredibly simple solution. Every broker told me I could not move NNOCF shares to their accounts. Thus, I was forced to keep almost 200K shares on a very illiquid exchange, and that I would need to sell them and then repurchase them at a broker able to trade on the LSE. It greatly limited my ability to manage these shares.

The solution turned out to be incredibly simple, since the underlying NNOCF shares are, in fact, LSE Nanoco shares. Frustrated with both E-Trade and Morgan Stanley who had acquired E-Trade, I decided to move all of my accounts to IBKR (Interactive Brokers) and evenually replace them with LSE Nano shares. I had expected IBKR to not accept the Nanoco shares. Surprisingly, they accepted all, and I now own the equivalent number of Nanoco shares. I can now trade these shares directly on the much more liquid London Stock exchange.

I strongly recommend that all NNOCF share owners investigate moving their shares to IBKR.