Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Forgot about this in the interim report: 'A further �1.84 million due in the second half from HMRC in the form of an accrued R&D tax credit refund ' That's another chunk of income to boost the final results. I'm now hoping for a further re-rating of the share price from the next trading statement, based on a marked improvement in financial credibility and much greater visibility of the short and medium term prospects. We already have a degree of certainty over income from further milestone payments and recurring revenue from volume production starting next year, and are no longer at the mercy of the byzantine display market. Am I being overly ... cough, cough ... optimistic?

Apologies ManofLeisure, I made the mistake of comparing HUR's rise over 3 months against Nano's over 6 months. An exaggeration, but not intentional. My main points still hold though - the companies have little in common and Nano's upwards momentum looks more sustainable. Good luck with your strategy, it's served you well so far!

Hurricane has risen in tandem with the oil price - about 25% over the last 3 months. Nano's rise of over 100% in the same period is because of transformational deals, doubling of production capacity, hitting milestones ahead of schedule, confirmed revenue, and massively improved short term, medium term and long term prospects. Just sayin...

Nice deployment of the M word, rc30, let's keep it rolling! I'm hoping for G-sync fever to become an epidemic amongst high spending gamers over the next few months. They want it and we just want all their cash: win-win? Don't know about OLED generally, but that Incheon TV is certainly looking a bit crispy. LG means Lightly Grilled.

"In the case of the Nanolight I think it refers to there being nine lights in the product." The ordinal prefix for nine is nona- rather than nano-, so it's a stretch. I think the company name precedes this product, and I suspect they were just trying to make their fancy LED lights sound all technical like wot those sciencey people do.

"For you non-mathematicians out there, one billionth of a meter." Non-American non-mathematicians? Hey nonny no!

The image sensors Edison discussed sound quite different from the proximity sensors referred to by ME. Edison talk specifically about next generation 3D sensors to augment phone cameras, so maybe we need to think about a company working on both auto applications and phones.

When you said we are "well into profit" what exactly did you mean then? Are you expecting them to announce a profit in the final results or not? Your figure for H1 revenue is incorrect: the published amount is �0.26 million.

"they are now well in profit." I wouldn't go that far. Edison are predicting a reduced loss of �6.4 million, based on revenue of �4.7 million. On that basis you'd need total revenue of over �11.1 million to wipe out the loss. The only revenue we have confirmed is 260K from H1 and �2.6 million in milestone payments, leaving a shortfall of �8.2 million.

Does the comparison with IQE suggest Edison are hinting at Apple? To my mind everything is pointing that way now.

The amount of the milestone payments was unknown, but surely this is better than most of us dared hope? �2.6 million is a tremendous boost to the finances. Presumably the revenue when we go into production in January are going to be similarly impressive. It's likely the final milestone payment falls outside H1 next year, so the revenue next year will be off to a great start. We're suddenly looking in reasonable shape financially, which is absolutely excellent. This is exactly what the markets have been looking for. Congratulations everyone, we really seem to be on our way now at last. Last weeks jump was probably down to leaks?

amerloque, all of these nanomaterials are really three dimensional in that they all have width, length and depth (even if the depth is one atom). I was trying to point out a flaw in NigWit's distinction between 1 dimensional and 2 dimensional materials. Zero and one dimensional materials obviously cannot refer to the number of actual physical dimensions, but instead describe the number of dimensions in which electrons are constrained: hence a quantum dot, which constrains electrons in all directions, can be called zero-dimensional. A quantum well constrains electrons to movement in one dimension. When it comes to 2D materials however, the terminology is not consistent, the two dimensions referred to are actual spatial characteristics rather than constraints, the one-atom-thick third dimension is ignored for convenience because it is not variable. Before Nano 2D, Nanoco, as far as I am aware, have never quantified materials in terms of their dimensions or dimensional constraints: all we know is that they have made Quantum dots and other unspecified nanomaterials. Clearly, the QDs are not 2D materials, but the others are unknown.

SP predicted dilution over a year ago. A truly balanced, unbiased view would acknowledge that, rather than attempting to dismiss it: "May 2013: Acquisition of Poseve for 237 million shares. September 2013: Acquisition of Pay Corporation for 325 million shares (both deals covered HERE). Subsequently jettisoned following a significant VAT liability issue. January 2016: Acquisition of Emexpay for 400 million shares (see HERE). April 2017: Acquisition of Timegrand for 500 million shares. Doesn�t that look odd to you? Each time, Boxhill issues shares equating to around 20-25% of the enlarged group and, more pertinently, none of these deals to-date seemed to have done anything to actually help grow the bottom line. I imagine the next deal will be in about 18 months� time for around 650 million shares."

Dimensionality seems to often be used in a different sense for 2D materials than it is for other nanomaterials. QDs are 0 dimensional, meaning electrons are constrained and cannot move. 1D materials allow electrons to move along one line only, i.e. up or down, but not in and out or sideways. 2D generally refers to spatial properties, since the basic definition is one-atom thickness, but presumably also implies constraint of electrons in 2 dimensions? I still don't think it 's clear that Nanoco's previous work only consists of 0 or 1 dimensional materials, but it's possible.

"I think 2d materials is separated from novel nano particles. That�s how it reads anyhow. The 2d materials are fundamentally different single or few layer lattice structures to quantum dots and other nano-particles." It's true that Nanoco have never referred to the materials for the new partner as 2D, but they have referred to them as nanomaterials. 2D originally referred to materials which were one atom thick, like graphene, and therefore could be perceived as having no 3rd dimension. Now it seems to be blurring to include materials a few atoms thick, layered combinations of materials, tubes, and other structures beyond simple sheets. It doesn't seem at all clear which nanomaterials qualify as 2D and which don't. By calling the new company Nanoco 2D, does that imply they are aiming to produce one-atom-thick sheets? Edison seem to think they are aiming to produce materials for things like sensors, i.e. exactly the same type of thing Nanoco proper are working on. If Nanoco were a larger company such a separation of old and new generations of material might make more sense, but with a 400K budget it's hard to see the logic.

When did ME say that Mars, wasn't it well before the Interims, and weren't people here therefore reasonably assuming it related to Interim revenues? If we assume it wasn't in the interims, then it follows that the interims must represent the "low position" from which this rapid increase is starting. Interim revenue only totalled �260K, including Runcorn direct sales, so the Dow contribution must have been very low indeed: therefore a "rapid increase" could mean almost anything, from negligible upwards, but given the slow display market (which is a more recent ME comment) it's most likely it will still amount to a small amount of revenue, albeit rapidly increased. Every little helps though, and the direction is positive.

Why are you doubting the existence of milestone payments BTB? I don't think anyone else does, after all they were announced as part of the deal. If they are only 1 million then that probably won't be enough to offset the slower than expected revenue from display. Hopefully the market is anticipating a shortfall from ME's comments and won't be surprised if revenue is below forecasts. Even a revenue figure of around 3 million might be enough to boost the forward-looking share price

At first glance, I thought this amounted to spinning off the nanomaterials division into a new company, much like the plan to eventually spin off the Life Sciences division. It's much more confusing than that. The announcement fails to clearly differentiate the new company's aims from what Nanoco are already doing. The comments from Manchester university seem to focus specifically on graphene, while Edison talk instead about materials which are "like graphene". Presumably multiple materials are involved, and the investor is highlighting graphene for their own reasons? How do these 2D materials differ from the nanomaterials which Nanoco are already developing commercially for the new partner? They sound remarkably similar from Edison's note. The new company will presumably drain staff resources from Nanoco's actively commercial activities? Clarity please.

No. The price earnings ratio is only one crude way of measuring value. The most obvious reason for the relatively low price is the fact that the Pru pays significantly lower dividends than many comparable shares, below the average for the FTSE100, and offers less than half the yield of the best. In any case you got Aviva's p/e wrong - it's about 14.5, roughly the same as the Pru, and since Aviva pay a significantly better dividend they are arguably better value overall. The Pru has stated that their dividend policy is not affected by the split, so that's not going to help.

"Apple is currently focusing on everything it takes to 'view' the world around the car and understanding what it means in the context of navigation and safety." Proximity sensors, tick. Multiple materials are now being developed, so more than just LIDAR, tick. Tock?