Member Info for amerloque

Screenlearner: Canaries are notable for simultaneous unusual large volume and price increases. The OTC purchase price of $0.209 was aggressive but reasonable compared to that of the LSE (~$.17-$.18). However, the increase in OTC trading volume was exceptional( 100 times the 60 day average). Nanoco Trading on the LSE was that of an average day and not particularly noteworthy.

Were it not for rather generous funding by the UK government, Nanoco would possibly not exist today. I do think that they could have taken a much stronger stance regarding the cadmium ban. As many posters here have urged, they do need to apply pressure to Samsung.

Screenlearner: This happens when traders submit market orders in an illiquid market. Recently, Nanoco was trading alternatively at $0.065 and $3.20. Limit orders would have prevented this.

Airportman: PPE reported that Samsung and NEC were just invited to participate in UK 5G bidding for an estimated $6B in contracts. About the same time, I noticed unusual trades on the Nanoco USA Over The Counter market. The $ volume increased today from an 60 day average volume of $500 to over $53,000. I have warned in the past about the danger of Nanoco OTC traders issuing Market orders and urged them to use limit orders. Today's trading was legitimate and not at market. When I recently reported an unusual OTC trade, Nanoco soon followed up by announcing the STMicro agreement.
I suspect that something is going on, since this is a US resident having submitted a limit order (a lower price could have been obtained on the LSE exchange). It could be new deals relating to STMicro, Apple or other USA entity. Alternatively, the UK is possibly leveraging this agreement to bring Samsung to Nanoco's negotiating table. Someone related to the Texas court would have first hand knowledge.

Funny but true.

Could the UK be leveraging Samsung Telecom contracts as an inducement to get Samsung to settle with Nanoco?

Correction: Share price raised from $0.10 to $0.209.

The USA OTC market averages 5k shares per day. Today, there were 256.6K shares traded, raising the share price form $0.11 to $0.209. Very unusual!!

I understand, Nanonano, your feeling of deja vu. Having begun investing in Nanoco shares in 2012, I have seen nothing but dead ends. Yet. in view of the two years of prepararing for volume production followed by on-going Nanoco refinement, I strongly suspect that the STMicro deal is nearing commercial production stage. There should be no surprises, since both Nanoco and STMicro must already have a clear understanding of the product's capabilities and limitations. While Nanoco lacks strong sales capability and often seems desperate in its dealings, STMicro has a strong sales organization and would not have entered into this deal without having already identified end users with real needs.

Please change "probably" to "possibly". After leaving Silicon Valley, I discovered that cocaine usage was far more endemic in Silicon Valley than I had ever imagined. I cannot say that this was true of Apple--just likely. I do know that Apple would possibly not have survived had Jobs not returned as CEO.

Hopefully, Wickymicky. However, I doubt that pipeline portion of the patent could hold up in court. Pipelining is nothing but distributed multiprocessing, which have been around forever. Jobs was truly brilliant, but long before John Sculley III left Pepsi and became CEO of Apple, Apple employees have suffered from delusions of genius. Having worked many years in Silicon Valley, it always amazed me that, while there are many smart people in Silicon Valley, employees often believed they had achieved genius just because they had been hired. People say working for Jobs was difficult, most likely because many of them failed to live up to their drug induced self-delusions.

ddubya: I believe your personal opinion regarding Samsung antics to be FACT. As you know, QD Vision's primary source of revenue was cadmium QDs. It had been unsuccessful in its attempts to develop electroluminescent quantum dots (which seem far off even today). QDV was then forced into bankruptcy and sale by a Nanosys cadmium QD patent infringement suit it could not afford to defend. I followed QDV closely at the time and never saw an inkling of a cadmium free QD claim.
As an aside, Nanoco trades only on the OTC in the US. I wish it would trade on Nasdaq. Your price is accurate. I exaggerated when I said it traded at $.25.

ddubya: The latest OTC trade is $0.25.

Ddubya: It seems that starving Nanoco for funds is a continuation of a behavior that would justify increased damages.

Someone (Oracle of Omaha?) just bought 200 shares at $0.17 per share. This price is not too out of line.

I suspect it was Warren Buffet.

Someone just bought Nanoco shares on the US OTC market for $0.27 (way above the LSE price) when the previous trade had been $0.09 (well below the LSE price). Hopefully, they know something, but I doubt that they have any inside knowledge. This is probably another instance of someone submitting a Market order in a very illiquid market.

I am not qualified to comment, Steadydanny.

I agree, Screenlearner, that we should leave politics off or this site. My apologies, but I was not the first to get political. I felt it necessary to stress the danger of British technology being controlled by China. Quantum Dots and nanotechnology are the future. As much as I want to maximize my investment, I recognize that Nanoco is indebted to Great Britain. They might not exist today had they not received funding from the British government. It does disturb me that British politicians have allowed the cadmium resolution to drag on for so long. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept less to keep Nanoco from falling into Chinese hands and to insure that people of GB benefit accordingly. I also recognize that Brexit solutions will require out-of-the box solutions and searching for commonality of interests.

I respect you, Basscadet, but I don't agree with your Trump comment. Since you raise it, I must say that Americans (Trump included) love and respect the Brits and wish them well. They also appreciate freedom loving Asian people. While I have made negative comments regarding Samsung in the past, I frequently work with, like and admire Asian people, particularly the Taiwanese, Hong Kong, South Korean and Japanese people.

Chinese mainland citizens, having grown up under Communism, often fail to understand and appreciate that Laissez Faire systems cannot succeed without personal self-sacrifice and recognition of consequences and the importance of treating others as you would want them to treat you. Sadly, many free-world citizens and Americans have lost sight of this. Too often, large companies (American companies, as well as Samsung) afford an anonymity that allows and even encourages employees to behave in despicable ways they would never do face-to-face. This also applies to citizens of countries.

Undeniably, China has not played fair, pushing for globalism while locking up global resources. How can Great Britain or anyone else trust a country that covered up the Wuhan corona-virus while monopolizing protective gear and PURPOSELY allowing hundreds of thousands of people to travel from locked-down Wuhan to the USA and the rest of the world in January and February? Also, how can the UK or the world accept and possibly reward China's reneging on the Hong Kong treaty?

You are right that Brexit has made the UK somewhat dependent on the US. Brexit, however, creates many opportunities, including working with the USA to create stronger ties to Russia. Europe and the USA both failed Russia and Gorbachev, a truly courageous and great leader, by leaving Russia on its own to endure Boris Yeltsin, terrible misery and mafia rule instead of helping them emerge from communism. It is time for us to work together to correct this and bring Russia fully into the free world. The alternative, an increasingly imperialistic and militaristic China united with Russia, would be disastrous. A western world united with Russia would be a better world.

Finally, while I wish that Trump weren't so petulant, it is become increasingly clear that the world press has relentlessly sought to overturn Trump's legitimate presidency from before he took office.