Member Info for Basscadet

Hi Trek,

I work at a bank and have some familliarity with the Basel regulations. I haven't worked in that area for a while though nothing directly of this part. However, doesn't it actually mean that any financial institution clearing precious metal contracts has to have 85% of the value as ready cash available in case the transaction goes south? So, if a bank has $100M of gold contracts going through their systems at any one time they need to have $85M in their capital adequacy pool recorded against it. This extra cost would depress the gold proce if anything by restricting the number of participants in the market. Have I completely misunderstood it?

Maybe BIOM's materials aren't appropriate? They have to be very specific for each application.

My biggest worry with this one is the competition. There are much bigger fish now operating in the field and plenty coming to market with seemingly better products. I was watching Bloomberg a couple of days ago. There was a CEO from Georgia who had just raised a couple of hundred million using a SPAC. He had a completely biodegradable plastic made from bacteria and was aiming to replace all the straws, coffee cups and plastic bags in America over the next few years. BIOM's material needs industrial composting. It won't degrade out in the real world.

BIOM needs to claim as much market share as it can as quickly as it can and keep the research up. With the tiny market cap I'm sure we'll all have a chance to make a profit on the shares but the company might not reach it's full potential.

I bought when you did Chrisdp86 but averaged down at £1.20. Sitting at break even now.

I think we're getting off topic but suffice to say I'm a centrist. Extremely deregulated markets and extremely regulated ones produce pretty the same outcome - oligarchs that are either rentalist robber barons or corrupt party officials. Large local markets are essential to producing world beating companies but I can hardly talk about that any more coming from a country that just voluntarily reduced the size of it's local market by 80%. Once a company is too big though there's nothing wrong with breaking it up. It usually benefits investors as the sum of the parts become worth more than original whole and stimulates competition. The oft quoted example being Standard Oil. We may well see Congress or the EU break up some of the tech giants. Would be no bad thing IMO.

I've got no links to the details of the RoHS submissions so maybe wrong. However, seems to me to be plainly in Samsung's favour if a major market bans the cadmium dots being used by most of their competitors. I do recall that NANO's argument to the EU that cadmium free alternatives existied in sufficeint volume to allow for the ban was to reference Samsung's products and that they supplied tech specs to demonstrate that they were comparable to products made with cadmium.

For now I'll wish you and everyone a happy new year for this evening and hope for a better year for NANO. At least we are getting some new life in the cad free market in the shape of LG, the STMicro connection is exciting and we should find out a lot more about the company's prospects when it comes to slayng the Samsung dragon by the end of 2021.

Not sure we need international agreements Amerloque. More that politicians need the will. They won't have that until the link between money and politics is broken. We're getting further away from that position sadly. We've got Bozo's cronie capatilism and you've got the biggest corporate lobbying industry in the world. If people really wanted politicians to level the playing field we would have elected Corbyn and you would have elected Bernie. S Korea and China are no different.

I still don't buy that Samsung had it in for Nanoco though. Stealing the technology yes but it probably stops there for my money. Just on no. 4) surely RoHS would have been squarely in Samsung's interest? NANO used technical information from Samsung in their submissions (not sure if Samsung helped with that but wouldn't be surprised).

Has anyone seen it called Quantum Nanorod Emmitting Diode? My understanding is that LG have registered QNED as a brand name like Samsung did with QLED and that it probably stands for Quantum Nano-cell Emitting Diode. LG describe the the new screens as combining two technologies: quantum dots and nano-cells.

Don't think rods necessarily come into it. Dow could be the supplier though. Nanoco's relationship with Dow moved to improving quality after they lost the supply contracts with LG and Samsung. Maybe they've overcome the red bleed to LG's satisfaction and can stick their dots on LG's nano-cells.

It sure does ddubya.

I was referring to the theories that pop up on here about Samsung nobbling Dow, frustrating AOI, paying off their competitors to not use NANO's dots, hypnotising Wah Hong, etc. I'm only holding Samsung responsible for their products not other companies'.

Any new orders coming on top of the ones already announced should move it up a lot. Let's hope some are incomming.

It's a very illiquid share so any buying or selling moves the price a lot. The last few days are tiny moves in that context.

SP - absolutely no idea but I assume we'll find out one way or the other by the end of 2021.

It's just supposition ddubya that Samsung has been frustrating NANO's projects. I don't find it very convincing myself. I'm sure they'd have better things to do and have just been concerned with squeezing out as much profit for themselves as they can by squeezing out as many companies as possible from their supply chain.

I would expect an RNA if NANO expect imminent significant revenue. These sets aren't officially launched so maybe not yet and even if one comes it might be generic signting revenue from a display partner due to NDAs. If the dots are being supplied by Dow or Merck I wouldn't expect any RNA. Just an increase in revenue coming from existing channels.

Bit doom and gloom there viable. The UK could probably do with locking down the parts of the country that aren't locked down already but that won't make much of an economic difference from where we are at the moment. Vaccines are being rolled out. Things will start normalising. It just depends on how smoothly the roll out goes. Biggest risk Bozo and his buffoons. Let's hope they let the professionals get on with it and butt out.

I do worry about getting those vaccines to the developing world. Hope something can be done for places like Tanzania and Kenya.

Could be Merck. They were concentrating on the next generation. Not film. So, would tie in with their strategy. If they renogotaited the contract to get better terms because they had no interest from customers and then annoucned a deal with LG though well, that would be typical Nanoco business savvy lol

LG have announced a new high end technology to go on sale in a range of TVs in 2021 that combines mini-LED backlighting with quantum dots. Over the years we've been frustrated as model after model from many manufacturers have been released with quantum dot technology only to discover that they weren't cadmium free. However, Korea Herald says these ones are cadmium free:

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201229000767

I can't find any reference online as to who is making the dots but haven't looked very hard. Might be worth looking into. This could be the display development NANO have been talking about. Anyway, if not and if it's Samsung slap another zero on the damages!

My guess Olly is that they'll narrow before the merger date so that they're already matching on launch day. Whether one goes up, the other down or they meet in the middle I don't have a Scooby.

Ditto :)

I'm not on the same page there BtB. NANO alluded to the fact the contract with hrrhum "Apple" was for vehicle sensors. I think they went as far as to say for internal driver monitoring sensors but maybe to enhance external LIDAR sensors as well. I may be wrong but I was never under the impression it had anything to do with the iPhone. Those requirements are ably met using current VCSELs. Agreed though that more sensitive sensors would lower power requirements and so there is a compelling use case there.

Apple got the wobbles on their vehicle programme a couple of years back making some staff redundant and cancelling the NANO contract. If they're all systems go again then I expect they'll be back. Albeit possibly through STMicro. I expect the sensor technology would still be an important part of the product.

I'm not on the same page there BtB. NANO alluded to the fact the contract with hrrhum "Apple" was for vehicle sensors. I think they went as far as to say for internal driver monitoring sensors but maybe to enhance external LIDAR sensors as well. I may be wrong but I was never under the impression it had anything to do with the iPhone. Those requirements are ably met using current VCSELs. Agreed though that more sensitive sensors would lower power requirements and so there is a compelling use case there.

Apple got the wobbles on their vehicle programme a couple of years back making some staff redundant and cancelling the NANO contract. If they're all systems go again then I expect they'll be back. Albeit possibly through STMicro. I expect the sensor technology would still be an important part of the product.

I think we've been round this loop before Dogberry and still think you're overstating those challenges when it comes to LIDAR :-)

There's no real information as it's just a leak. All we know is that they've been working on it for several years but took a hiatus a while back which looked as though they'd got cold feet and were running down the project. They've got some interesting new battery technology but loads of people are working on that. The battery market is likely to look very different even in a few years time. All I would say is no one should bet against Apple bringing this out if they set their mind to it but at the same time their history is littered with as many failures as successes.

To my mind brining out a vehicle is a stretch but if it pushes sensor development further resulting in any new products making it to market it's likely to benefit IQE.

It's going all guns blazing at the moment!