Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

The Inside Science programme was broadcast last night, but Growing Underground have been around for a number of years. They say that using LED lights made their business possible because the lights generate less heat and therefore could be placed much closer to the plants than using sodium lights. If energy is the main cost, you'd have thought that QD lights would have an economic advantage over LED. Like the display market, there appears to be some resistance to adoption, but the reasons are unclear.

Radio 4's Inside Science (available soon on iPlayer) features an interesting little company growing salad crops and herbs hydroponically under LED lights, in an underground bomb shelter under Clapham Common. They say the cost in energy is high, but is offset by the reduction in travel costs. Like the program about seed research, they don't mention QD lighting at all, so you have to question why not. Surely this is the exact niche market we're aiming for? https://www.independent.co.uk/Business/indyventure/growing-underground-london-farm-food-waste-first-food-miles-a7562151.html

I think you are missing BtBs point. Later in the year when new GPUs are released, there will be a compelling reason for gamers to fork out for an unquestionably better all round experience. Before the end of July though, the uptake is likely to be limited. How that translates into orders for Nanoco is anyone's guess, but I think BtB is right to be cautious about this financial year.

"Edison Investment Research is terminating coverage on Gear4music Holdings (G4M). Please note you should no longer rely on any previous research or estimates" Didn't last long. No reason given, anyone got a clue?

"Low energy light specialist"? Harumph. How very dare you IC, you, you... word manufacturers!

It's not clear which video you are referring to. In the Directors Talk Q&A in March he said this: " we expect to see product in the market with our quantum dots in quarter 2 of this year" (presumably calender year rather than financial year) Then a month later he said this (also on DT): "In display, we�ve made steady progress, albeit a bit slower than we had anticipated in the commercialisation of our display technology. We�ve learned that the development cycle for new products and display take a long time, sometimes up to 24 months but I�m pleased to say that we expect to see our first products hitting the market this year, 2018." That was only about 35 days ago. Perhaps there will be another update soon, but with two in the last two months I'd say ME has been positively chatty. In answer to your question: it's highly doubtful that they will specificy which products contain nanoco dots, so no, and even in the trading statement due about August, I wouldn't expect more than a vague generalised statement about display. Look to future Edison updates for a little more detail, perhaps.

'Quantum dots, with their wide industrial and medical applications, are �arguably the first commercially successful application of nanotechnology,� he says. It remains to be seen if industry can make them environmentally friendly.' Damn, I thought we'd made it big in the states, but it looks like the University of Illinois hasn't even heard of us. Sad.

That patent seems to have a similarity with the anti-viral "paint" being developed with UCL, in that it provides a protective coating for surfaces. Boeing may be looking for a partner who is capable of commercialising these types of material? Alternatively, they may be interested in the new sensors, which surely have multiple potential applications on planes, trains, and boats, as well as cars. Having seen the news about a cyclist being killed by a cougar, I want a cat detector on my bike, along with at least ten heat-seeking missiles.

Interesting indeed! With nanomaterials penetrating the zeitgeist, display emerging from the fog all shiny and spectacular, and the CTO of Life Sciences recently presenting on ' Nano-pharmaceuticals: A Roadmap to Commercialization', it looks like diversification is not just sensible, it's inevitable.

Apologies to Imad Naasani (CTO Life Sciences) for this uninformed, amateurish attempt at paraphrasing his patent: The aim of the inventors is to provide nano-devices that target Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) molecules. These molecules are over-expressed in head, neck, renal, colorectal, lung, breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer cells. In pancreatic tumor cells EGFR is over-expressed in about 70% of patients and such over-expression has been associated with a poor prognosis. Presently, the 10-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is <1%. Because EGFR is a promising target for cancer therapy, monoclonal antibodies (mAb) have been developed that bind to EGFR and block binding of the EGF ligand. One such mAb is the human-mouse chimeric antibody cetuximab. The rationale of this invention is to take advantage of the ability of an anti-EGFR such as cetuximab to both inhibit EGFR on tumors and to label them with fluorescent QDs. My simplistic interpretation is that they are chemically 'welding' (my word) antibodies to QDs, and also attaching various other chemical 'hooks' (my word) such that the antibodies latch onto the cancerous cells. Then the antibodies, the QDs and surgeons have opportunities to fight the disease. The QDs can act both as a marker and a destroyer, by interacting with a light source. In their words (paraphrased) - The formed (QD-Cetuximab) agent carries four different functionalities: - Tumor labeling through fluorescence properties of the QDs, - EGFR inhibition due to cetuximab binding to EGFR, - Synergized tumor uptake due to EPR (Enhanced Permeability and Retention) effect contributed by the nano size of the conjugate, - Tumor phototherapeutic effect due to the ability of the QDs to generate singlet oxygen or condense energy in the form of heat that can trigger cell suicidal cascade (apoptosis). The combined effect is believed to provide a very efficient treatment with lower side effects than with cetuximab treatment alone. It should be appreciated that the present invention provides many applicable inventive concepts which can be employed in a wide variety of specific contexts.

"with a further milestone payment from our US partner (likely to be more than the recent �1.8m)," Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that NigWit is actually expecting at least TWO more milestone payments this financial year - the final one from the initial deal, and the first one from the extended deal, and possibly even a second one from the extended deal too. That is absolutely possible, given the rapid achievement of the first two milestone payments, but personally I think it's somewhat optimistic. As for the amounts, I'm not sure what is likely, but the average so far has been �1.3M? I'd actually prefer all of these to fall into H1 next year, because they would provide visibility and support for the share price in the form of early and reliable revenue towards next years results. Either way, S'all Goodman.

I'm happy we already have a solid platform of known revenue from other sources, but find it really difficult to get a handle on the display market. Thanks to all for the updates, which seem to aggregate to slow, but excitingly tangible progress. Based on the various announcements, we are presumably expecting most display revenue this year to be coming from Wah Hong. Are there any signs that Dow will be making much of a contribution? Are we expecting anything at all from Merck, perhaps milestone payments?

But funding growth ought to result in a higher p/e ratio not a lower one, because the market ought to be basing the share price on future prospects. Prudential's policy has seen it's earnings per share grow significantly for a long time compared to it's peers, so why is the market not expecting that to continue? PRU: earnings per share=145.2, price=19.16, p/e ratio=13.2% AVIVA: earnings per share=35, price=5.416, p/e ratio=15.5% This means the market is willing to pay a relatively higher price for Avivas future earnings than for Pru's. Pru's earnings growth is consistent, whereas Aviva's is all over the place (last year it more than doubled, the previous two years it declined), yet the market presumably thinks Aviva will increase it's earnings more than Pru in future? Seems like there must be some degree of uncertainty over that, and the market is supposed to hate uncertainty. While the comparison between Pru and Aviva is interesting, it is merely a symptom of Pru's general undervaluation. It seems to be marked down compared to the average large company, despite above average performance and more than credible growth prospects. The split should prompt a reevaluation.

SWOT still contains the false claim "cropping time for wheat can be reduced from 5 months to 5 weeks with QD lights". As pointed out many times, the source for this said LED lights, and seeding time not cropping time, so you have deliberately included something you know to be untrue.

Your perfectly entitled to be positive, but your 'rational' hypothesis seems to only work if you ignore certain facts, like Nanoco informing the market that two payments have been made, not three. They may have deliberately mislead the market, it just seems unlikely. Whether it falls in H2 or H1 next year is not of vital importance to the issue being discussed anyway, which is whether the next trading statement is likely to trigger a re-rating of the share price. Any views on that?

It seems to me you've gone out of your way to pick the most optimistic possible interpretation of the facts, rather than the most likely one. If you are wrong (you are!) I reserve the right to say 'told you so' at least twice.

It seems to me you've gone out of your way to pick the most optimistic possible interpretation of the facts, rather than the most likely one. If you are wrong (you are!) I reserve the right to say 'told you so' at least twice.

That sounds like something different to a milestone payment, don't they usually have something measurable being accomplished? Also, wouldn't the recent announcement about milestone payments have included it if it had already been paid? Not impossible, but it seems unlikely. Even if all these payments fall into next year though, they are now credible, quantifiable, and add spice to the next trading statement. From what we know already, it's going to be very different from any previous Nanoco one.

I assume you mean the extended agreement announced last month, rather than last weeks announcement of Nanoco 2D? Not overlooked, but that agreement sounds more longer-term in nature, given that there is no proposed date for production. The agreement is only 17 days old, It seems highly optimistic to suggest a milestone has been reached already. If so, we're running the mile at world record pace! It's definitely possible that one, or even two, could be reached by the end of July though, given the rapidity of payments from the initial agreement. They did state that development activity will begin immediately and also said that there would be 'development-based funding'.

Thanks BTB, we're generally in agreement, but my reasoning is slightly different. Firstly, I can't see where you have included the tax refund in your calculation? Secondly, NigWit has suggested the third milestone payment could be achieved around August, just outside the year end. No-one really knows, of course, but my assumption is that it will fall into H1 next year. Finally the display sales, the big unknown. I think the recruitment evidence is inconclusive: there are other reasons for increased staffing such as recovery from the savage cuts of last year and the rapid doubling in capacity. The plethora of activity by some of our display associates is more convincing, but we've been fooled by this before. I tend to be pessimistic about prospects for this year but considerably more hopeful for next year. With little to go on, I have to assume there will be something substantial from display sales, but probably less than the 4>9 million forecast by analysts at the start of the year. We still have about 11 weeks to go though, so plenty of scope for more good news and limited downside due to the confirmed income.