But if an N95 mask costs somewhere between £2 and £6 then we still need to know why these graphene ones are better in order to justify the extra cost. I don't think major customers will buy bulk otherwise. Is it because of comfort, they can be reused, provide extra protection or something else?
Nanosys seem to be well honed at letting Nanoco build relationships and participate in product development with potential customers and then stealing in at the last minute to sign the deals. So I'm with BeingTheBanker on this one I'm afraid.
You can test whether it's an old cookie by loading the page in incognito mode and trying to log in. That way you don't have to delete everything before realising it doesn't even fix the problem.
Also, you can delete just LSE's cookies Screenlearner. For example in Firefox go to Settings -> Privacy & Security -> Cookies & Site Data -> Manage Data and type "LSE" in the search box. Remove the 13 cookies that come up. Saves losing all the session data for your other sites.
I thought the underlying results were actually strong Divchaser. The bank itself is very resilient as you say. I'm worried about the politics though. They shouldn't have made that statement about the security law. Apart from the fact the law itself is completely immoral it makes the bank a target. Also, the cartel money laundering situation is still well remembered in the US. The current administration is so petty and vindictive they may take action. JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are still pilling into China so if HSBC had just stayed quiet I'm pretty sure everything would have okay.
Things are going from bad to worse in the US. Death rates are rising following the recent rise in infections with the usual 2 to 4 week lag. There'll be no economic revival over there in the near term. Got to hope some of the treatments currently being tested prove effective while we wait for vaccines.
I think all one can really focus on right now is that the balance sheet is strong. Very little of the current situation is within HSBC's control. It looks like the bank is well positioned to survive. Then it will all be about claiming the opportunities that come about during the recovery. In the meantime, for who knows how long, it's going to be painful.
A couple of things are worrying long term. 1) Reputational damange from the statement supporting the HK security law. I wish they hadn't done that. 2) Reviewing the long term dividend policy. Divis are stopped currently on the orders of UK regulators. If they can't be brought back as they were pre-COVID once we're back to normal it will hamper full SP recovery.
Mainland takeover HKtruth. By China? Will never happen. HSBC's always threatening the UK government with moving the HQ to HK but that would always have made the bank Chinese. Empty threat IMO. However, with the UK about to be torn apart stuck between the US and China and HSBC in the eye of the storm how about moving it to the EU? A big block that can provide some real protection.
The progression of the technology is indeed difficult to follow enteleon. Here's a couple of relevant points that I admit I'm probably not that qualified to understand properly and so might not be quite acurate. That said, patents are only granted for 20 years and can't be extended beyond a small amount to allow for delays in the processes of granting and admistering them. So, for the patents in question Samsung will only have to pay for the TVs already sold and maybe a license for a couple more years production.
Regarding QNED. I believe NANO's patents cover the seeding process so whether QNED TVs will be covered depends on whether the dots will be produced using that process or some other one. I don't know whether the patents ralate to specifically to production of dots on film and so QNED wouldn't be covered because the dots are on the diode and not in a film layer? Because the patents expire soon anyway a more interesting question is what other patents NANO has that Samsung might have to use to make future TVs at various places along the tehcnology roadmap?
Interested in people's thoughts here because this is a very fuzzy area to me.
Western companies can't just catch up though Qd22 no matter how much money is thrown at it. BBC Click (I think it was that show but must admit I can't remember for sure) had an interview with the 5G people at Ericsson sometime last year. In theory they had technology that covered the whole 5G spectrum but there was no way they could supply the higher frequecy end at scale without being prohibitively expensive. They said they were several years behind Huawei and probably would never catch up. That might change of course now the commercial landscape has changed but they still have to do a fair bit of science. I doubt that can just be accelerated.
The reason IQE hasn't had a big 5G payday yet is that it's technology is more relevant to that higher frequency area. The milimeter stuff. Those networks haven't really been rolled out at scale yet. Huawei was ready to start. They will already have purchased a lot of components from IQE or companies IQE supplies so maybe near term results will be unaffected. Then there will be a drop as Huawei scales back and other compnaies try to catch up followed by a boost as countries that pulled out of Hauwei contracts rush to catch up with those that haven't with their roll outs.
That's not much more than a guess.
I'm nearly in the market for a new TV. Samsung's the only game in town I'm afraid ddubya. Current one is an OLED and it's got the dreaded burn. I wouldn't touch one of those again and the only alternative with equal if different performance is QLED. I'll wait as long as I can but I doubt it'll be until anything's settled. NANO might be getting $14,000,000,100.
Personally I guess that long term there will be a benefit as lots of kit has to be replaced but short term there will be negative disruption as new suppliers spend 3+ years trying to find solutions for parts of the 5G spectrum they were behind Huawei in figure out how to scale up.
Agree amerloque that Nanoco are rightly sueing Samsung over the process. ddubya was referring to whether Dow should be agreeved as well. I was pointing out probably not as they didn't own any of the intellectual property themselves.