Member Info for amerloque

It appears that Richard Griffiths sold 3,377,242 shares on July 14. Is this coincidental?

Some unaware investors buy and sell at Market price. Only limit orders should be issued on this exchange. Since OTC market makers are voluntary, they are not subject to traditional exchange rules that protect investors. In the past two days, some investors have sold at $0.10 per share, while others have bought at $.70 and $.30 per share. I initially purchased Nanoco shares on the AIM exchange in 2012, but my broker was forced by the US Government to transfer my shares to the OTC, which is not at all liquid. This is unfair to Americans and has definitely affected the way I trade.

$42 B? Does not seem enough to pay for the orchestrated sabotaging one of the UK's brightest and most promising companies. Take them to school!

Good catch, Screenlearner. Part of my post, where I made a similar point, got lost from my post:

Note that Nanosys was not really a competitor of Samsung, since it produced only cadmium based quantum dots. It now appears that Samsung sought to block
Nanoco’s growth and its credibility. By investing in Nanosys, Samsung would insure that Nanosys would receive sufficient funds to dominate the non-Samsung market. Moreover, the investment combined with the announcement to the world that Nanosys was a market leader raised Nanosys’ visibility and credibility in the world compared to Nanoco, which had just suffered multiple disappointments.
In addition to the above questionable behavior, I have to wonder why Samsung did not push more forcefully for a ban on cadmium quantum dots. Could it have to do with the fact that Nanoco needed this ban to be successful? In reality, Samsung did not need the ban, since they were their own in-house customer for quantum dots. If Samsung were so intent on eliminating Nanoco, would they have stopped at bribing officials to delay implementation of the cadmium ban. Past Samsung history tells me, “No”.

Nanoco should subpoena records from Samsung Venture Investment Corporation (“SVIC”), since there is strong reason to suspect that SVIC participated in sabotaging Nanoco in order to safeguard Samsung/Hansol’s stolen CF QD technology.
I suspected nothing at the time, since it made sense for Samsung to invest in a promising quantum dot leader. On reflection, I strongly suspect that Samsung’s investment had ulterior motives when they made a substantial follow-on investment in Nanosys in June 2015 (there was an earlier investment in 2010). Following years of working and negotiating with Nanoco and DOW Chemical to source cadmium free quantum dots from Nanoco and DOW (the world’s only known volume manufacturer of CFQD), Samsung had just announced in February 2015 that it had chosen Hansol, a Samsung chaebol company to supply its quantum dots. The June 2015 rather hyperbolic announcement follows:

'Samsung Venture Investment Corporation (“SVIC”), the venture capital arm of the Samsung Group. The investment is follow-on to a 2010 investment; the new funds will be used to expand production capacity as demand for Nanosys technology for displays grows rapidly.
“Our investment in Nanosys is consistent with our strategy to work closely with established market leaders.” says Michael Pachos, Director at SVIC. “Nanosys is a technology leader and has built a significant business in the space. The company has demonstrated both a technical and business vision in driving adoption of their products and we look forward to contributing to the progress of Nanosys.”

The mysterious and sudden emergence of this Hansol cadmium-free product was a shock to Nanoco and the world, as it had taken Nanoco almost a decade to develop this technology.
Nanoco certainly must have suspected that their IP had been stolen and must have voiced their suspicions. Samsung, of course, has a long record of stealing IP from smaller companies. It was very unlikely that Hansol could produce legitimate CFQDs so quickly without stolen IP, but Nanoco had no way of proving such at this time. Samsung apparently attempted to soften the blow by insisting that Samsung would need Nanoco to be a second source. We know this because Michael Edelman repeatedly carried this message to shareholders for many years.
Setting aside the likelihood of stolen IP, we need to ask another very important question. If Samsung had indeed stolen IP from struggling Nanoco, how could they prevent Nanoco from growing prosperous enough to sue them? There were two quantum dot TV worlds at the time—the Samsung CFQD world and the non-Samsung cadmium world. Funding Nanosys would improve the latter’s ability to dominate the non-Samsung market and possibly lead to Nanoco's demise.
Note that Nanosys was not really a competitor of Samsung, since it produced only cadmium based quantum dots. It now appears that Samsung sought to block

Silicon Valley invented vaporware. Is it possible that Nanoco invented the 'vapor-customer'? I researched thoroughly, but found nothing. Nevertheless, I am certain that Michael Honest Abe Edelman must have proactively informed us in a timely manner that any hope of Samsung revenue had disappeared. Moreover, mentions of Samsung in annual reports every year must have been accidental, as were the 14 TV manufacturers prospects actively evaluating Nanoco CFQDs for many years.

Saddest of all was ME's failure to give all of those starved Nanoco and DOW sales people a proper burial. The silver lining is that Samsung seems to have really liked the product, and the DOW plant makes an interesting mausoleum. Apropos, I wonder if this plant is also being used to make Samsung dots.

I agree with you, Screenlearner. I don't see Nanoco selling to Samsung under any scenario. I do like ddubya's suggestion--a reverse takeover of Samsung.
Botbot, your RNS prognostication is spot on.

Ddubya: Good news, particularly regarding the lawsuit, would carry us much faster and further, but the pattern combined with recent news is probably enough to complete the cup and handle and beyond. Note that the completion of a cup typically occurs with low volume. That said, the cup is not quite as smooth as I would like to see. The first person to recognize the importance of such patterns became very rich simply by taking buying once the handle was formed.

I have increased my holding, today.

The rise, in addition to Nanoco's improved prospects, may be due to significantly positive trading patterns. Since March 3, Nanoco looks to be forming a cup and handle pattern. Over the past 14+ months, it has also formed a pennant pattern, finally breaking our of a long term down trend in the past few days. Moreover, the Nanoco share price has just broken above the 50 and 20 day averages and is showing positive moves regarding the MACD.

A cup and handle pattern gets its name from the obvious pattern it makes on the chart. The cup is a curved u-shape, while the handle slopes slightly downwards. If this is truly a cup and handle, it should rise to around 25 pense before creating a slight downward handle and then moving higher. In general, the right-hand side of a cup and handle diagram has low trading volume (Nanoco meets this criteria), and it can last from seven weeks up to around 65 weeks. The cup formation is in its 14th week. Such cup and handle formations tend to break strongly to the upside after forming the handle.

DDubya, TLW: Like you, I hope that ME lives up to his forecast. Long ago, I realized that constructive criticism is useless when management fails even to recognize the need for strong sales and business people. The referenced ex-poster often stated that scientists were much more suited to running corporations. Nothing would make me happier than for ME to prove me wrong. Best of luck to all.

Ddubya: You are right. Assuming that Merck is serious about quantum dots, they would need to renew the contract in order to avoid disruption. If Nanoco has failed to protect its IP and thus loses to Samsung, that might eliminate the need for Merck to contract with Nanoco. They already have the technical knowledge. My problem is that I no longer trust ME. He has miserable business skills and has repeatedly misled us regarding Dow and Samsung and other prospects. For example he has continued to mention Samsung, Dow and numerous unnamed prospects in annual reports. Why would Merck be different? I see a bright Nanoco future if they win the lawsuit but suspect that Merck is smart enough to protect themselves with caveats.

Friday, 25 minutes prior to close of trading on the OTC, a trade of 300,480 shares occurred at a price of $0.17.

I may be wrong, I don't see Merck reaching a new agreement until the Samsung lawsuit is settled. Nanoco are probably not legally able to enlighten Merck regarding the lawsuit's status and would not otherwise get an optimal price. Merck, on the other hand, certainly needs to minimize risk. Despite expectations, failure to reach an agreement in the next few days should not affect share price.

You made my day, BBD. This is very positive for Nanoco and leads me to believe that Nanoco and Samsung must certainly be in negotiations. Given Lee's relationship to the Hansol owner, they would be crazy to leave the outcome to a Texas jury. After interminable negotiations with Nanoco, Samsung ultimately chose Hansol who, with no prior warning, miraculously produces a cadmium free product that competes with Nanoco at a much lower price and (as Nanoco now believes) uses the same (patented) processing technology as Nanoco.

This drop seems to be a market rather than a Nanoco issue.

Screenlearner: Thanks for you empathy. While I am under water, I do not consider this temporary price variation caused by a mistaken trade of 100 shares to be a loss. As I never trade on margin, I am not at risk. I am also happy with Nanoco's recent direction and I expect good things in the future. My tale was intended to warn others to be careful when trading on the OTC market. Avoid Market orders and put in the correct price when issuing Limit orders.

So sad! The only Nanoco share trade on the OTC today was 100 shares at $0.0021, thus reducing the most recent OTC price by a factor of 100 and the current value of my shares by 99%. Must have been a mistaken Limit sell. The sale brought in $0.21, but cost $9.95 in commissions. II feel sorry for the trader, but it does not bother me, since I know it will go back up. However, this would result in margin calls for many persons doing margin trading.

STMicro is a fantastic partner and more powerful than I had realized. They launched the first MEMS (Micro-Electronic-Mechanical Systems, also called micro machines) machines in 2006 and have continued to grow and diversify into many types of machines and both micro and nano technology. MEMS, which is one of the most important 21st technologies, and nanotechnology are dependent on each other today, since MEMS offer a path to building nano machines. MEMS is even used to manage nanotechnoloogy and also require a huge range of of sensors of all types, which is probably where Nanoco technology will first be used.

"MEMS and nanotechnology are two different labels for what is essentially a technology encompassing highly miniaturized things that cannot be seen with the human eye. ...there are overwhelming mutual dependencies between these two technologies that will only increase in time. Perhaps what is most important are the common benefits afforded by these technologies, including: increased information capabilities; miniaturization of systems; new materials resulting from new science at miniature dimensional scales; and increased functionality and autonomy for systems."

Screenlearner: As you indicated, these transactions may mean nothing. It is very possible that someone in the USA no more knowledgeable than we recognized the Nanoco opportunity. I felt that it was unusual enough to mention.