Member Info for amerloque

TB: I agree that multiple companies are probably chasing Nanoco. I am not British, but I recognize that the British people have supported and invested in Nanoco and deserve to profit. I hope that the BOD considers this when selecting the bid winner.

Thanks, GrdianAngel. The following link, published on 11/22/19, discusses current shortages of polarizers and quantum dot enhancement film (QDEF) in China.
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20191122PD206.html

Shortly after I bought my first nanoco shares at £0.60 in Nov 2012, share price rose momentarily to near £2.00 ($3 at the time). Been downhill since, but have managed to reduce exposure by buying in at £0.085. I first bought on the AIM, but have long been forced to trade on the USA Over the Counter market, which is not very liquid. This has definitely limited my trading.
WARNING FOR PERSONS TRADING ON THE US OTC MARKET:
I SEE TRADERS PAYING EXORBITANT PRICES ON THIS OTC MARKET. NEVER TRADE AT "MARKET" PRICE ON THE OTC MARKET! ALWAYS SPECIFY A LIMIT PRICE!

I suspect that Nanoco will claim a high price for the following reasons:
(1) The quantum dot market is gigantic and continuing to grow.
(2) Many basic patents already exist.
(3) Anyone entering the field at this time is likely going to face many legal battles..
(4) Nanoco's 750 patents offer safe harbor, product opportunity, and licensing revenue.
(5) Companies with sufficient financial resources could reap huge benefits with relatively low investment.

Is anyone aware of employees leaving Nanoco? As characteristic of any sinking ship, we would see "people deserting" if the future appeared overly gloomy. This does not seem to be the case.

Nanoco now appears foolish for believing that industry and the government cared about the environment. This has been a corrupt EU process. Why have Nanoco management and the British government not been more outspoken? Nanoco and EU and British citizens should be outraged.

CryBaby: Congrats! I need 32P to break even. Still don't understand why Feb 6.

Tissue: Why Feb 6?

Very interesting and unexpected. Samsung certainly does not want Nanoco to fall into Chinese hands. Acquiring Nanoco or placing large orders would accomplish this.

I don't mean to ramp, but Nanoco seems to be in good hands with Evercore. Evercore has huge connections in oncology (Takeda, Celgene, Teva, Elanco) and semiconductors ( Dell, Qualcomm, United Technologies, having advised them on transactions often involving tens of billions of dollars. Evercore also prides itself on maintaining transaction independence.

BTB: Nigwit implied that officers could choose either a cash bonus or stock options. I saw nothing indicating that cash was a possible choice. Moreover, I doubt that the projected Current Ratio and recent failures could justify cash bonuses. Options that mature in two years make sense, since they would encourage key staff to stay on board at least until sale the company completes (at which time such options would likely be executable).

The quantum dot blockchain application may make sense, but this acquisition does not. There don't seem to be any patents transferred with the Capstan purchase. The seller, who runs multiple companies and seems to be involved in every hot technology today, is probably happy to receive $750,000 in shares. He does become CTO of QMC, which lends a little credibility. However, the number of QMC shares (now more than 550M outstanding) has increased by 50% in the past two years. QMC's financials are upside down. Revenue is declining. QMC's Current Assets is $1.173M and Current Liabilities is $7.073M. They are running on fumes and paying debts by issuing shares. It appears that creditors are willing to own shares that have little value as long as there is a good PR story. This might simply be a way to make the shares look more valuable so that they can continue paying their debts. I'd stay away.

Has anyone ever spotted a sales person emanating from Nanoco? Very rare animal. Some people claim that they are superfluous to successful business and that closing is a byproduct of reading a patent out loud.

I do not understand your reasoning, Upbeat01, given that 1 µm = 1000 nanometers. Why would current QD materials will not be able to apply?

The CFD purchases by a knowledgeable party are very short term SP positive, since they are too expensive to hold long term. "There is a general rule of thumb that states long CFDs, because they levy a financing charge, start to get expensive to hold after 4-6 weeks. CFDs therefore are not best suited for investing in shares which you wish to hold for a long period. They are ideal for short term trading and speculation." Therefore, it is unlikely that we will see a placing occur immediately.

Vuzix share price has almost doubled in the past 2 1/2 days, with more than 8x average daily volume. This seems to be driven by the introduction of natural glasses with AI face recognition (up to 15 recognitions per second) using Plessey technology and possibly Nanoco red dots.

I find this board much improved since NW's disappearance. Research is needed, but it is delusional for members on this or any board to believe they can influence the long term share price. Like many on this board, I invested for long term profit and will only be successful if and when Nanoco achieve sustainable profits. This might not happen until the EU finally bans cadmium. Further extensions are unacceptable and would justifiably raise questions of corruption.

It is surprising that the author fails to mention Plessey's gaN-on-Silicon technology, which appears to have many advantages over Sapphire. See www.plesseysemiconductors.com/gan-on-silicon/.

I am no expert, but it appears that Nanoco have overcome huge price and performance gaps. I cannot accept that Nanoco would claim substantial CFQD improvements if they did not believe that they were sufficiently price and quality competitive to justify their use in displays. Eliminate the waivers, and companies will buy Nanoco QDs. Otherwise, Nanoco has some explaining to de.

RoHS restrictions were first leveled in 2011, although ROHS investigations into cadmium and other materials began as early as 2006. I have to believe that Nanoco CFQD's are an improvement over past technology. Slightly better products do not justify waiving restrictions on dangerous materials, especially for a company that knew of the dangers from day one of its creation.