Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

You're welcome James, but it's disappointing you chose to ignore the far more relevant post asking why you are certain that the split will produce a bonanza. China is now considering restrictions on foreign companies selling insurance in China, which is extremely worrying, and it's what I've been warning about for some time as a direct result of Trump's trade wars. China also partially blames the UK for the Hong Kong protests, as well as publicly criticising it over the Huawei situation. Without China, Pru Asia's prospects are diminished considerably.

"this is not a company but a publicly funded research establishment with daily diminishing credibility, both commercially and technically. Sucked dry by its own MD"

Ouch! Pecked to pieces. A sharp, beady-eyed putdown, but realistically ME deserves at least some credit for landing some big deals. Those deals show that multiple big commercial operators were convinced of the technology, at least temporarily. Admittedly, they have all surprisingly fizzled out like damp fireworks when everyone was expecting oohs and aahs, but can that realistically be blamed on ME? Without the aborted deal, dilution would almost certainly already be upon us, so perhaps we should be slightly less harsh in our "constructive" criticism? It also seems unduly pessimistic to assume that ME won't be able to attract further deals: his track record tends to suggest the opposite.

A fallen Apple is cold comfort when the chill wind is still blowing...

"substantial preliminary support for the Fundraising from a strong new strategic investor that intends to make a cornerstone investment in the merged business"

Suspect this might be Gresham House? They recently set up an "Energy Storage fund which is investing in battery storage solutions"

Locked management in? Surely the reality is that the deal rescued Nanoco from years of an almost total dearth of income, to which they will return next calendar year (unless ME can pull another rabbit).

Nanoco's continuing failure to secure sustainable revenue existed long before the deal, we cannot retrospectively blame Apple for that. The suggestion that they entered into the deal with a two year plan to undermine and weaken Nanoco, to block them from other (imaginary) deals, and spent millions in order to reduce their market cap by a few millions doesn't seem credible or logical. It's much, much easier to believe that Apple just changed their mind for their own internal reasons, imo.

However, I do agree that Apple probably remain interested in Nanoco's IP, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see Nanoco staff leaving and re-emerging as Apple employees eventually. Perhaps an Apple office will suddenly pop up near Runcorn before too long?

Difficult to entertain the idea of Apple playing hardball - they paid for an entirely new factory then just wrote it off, as well as all the milestone payments: hardly compatible with the notion of a penny-pinching manipulative predator. Whether they find a future use for Nanoco materials now seems a matter of chance and fortune rather than necessity, but at least we are on their radar (not!). We can also hope that Nanoco's performance and heightened visibility attracts others, perhaps?

I'd like to think jplay and Dr. Pickett would understand my comment was a joke, but for those finding it challenging, here's the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

" I feel sorry for Nigel the most. " Mike has landed several huge deals over the years. Nigel just plays with materials in his lab, writes patents and hobnobs with Nobel prize winners. What has he ever done for us?

down for a reason? Bad update imminent? Seem rather a bargain on historic results, generous dividend and steady dividend progression.

Also, if you're relying on history, this company has a long record of making up stories about future revenue which never materialised - so don't just give one side of their story to bamboozle newcomers, it's misleading. Remember the lucrative large foreign transfer just waiting to complete - that one was so good they even reprised it a few times. Actions speak louder than words.

Hi gjones. Focus is exploiting nanomaterials - initially quantum dots in displays, but that has had very limited success for a long time, including several false dawns. About 18 months ago a deal came out of the blue and the focus changed to secret "nanomaterials" (possibly for improving LIDAR receptors). The deal was abandoned by the customer recently, in the same sudden manner as it appeared, although it has generated revenue and interest. Focus now is presumably on marketing materials and process capability to find sustainable revenue from somewhere: superb IP, plenty of potential customers, but very, very slow commercial progress.

loss before tax £0.6m for year ended 31 March 2019 (previous year: profit of £1.5m)

Revenue up 48% to £118.2m, but:

- Cost of sales up 53% to £91.2m
- Administrative expenses up 47% to £26.9m (European administrative costs up 83%)

Chief executive Andrew Wass said the company had been focusing on improving gross margins during the year to prepare for its peak trading period in the second half

Thanks for the links. The skin cancer treatment sounds promising too, but regardless of their feelgood factor, these projects have been funded by the government since 2011, haven't yet been tested on humans, and are nowhere near completion. Let's hope Nanoco manage to sell something soon in order to survive long enough to complete them.

It should be noted that vivodots will not cure pancreatic cancer, and are unlikely to make much profit, if any. It is therefore difficult to see this as a real "breakthrough", particularly as the project has not yet successfully completed. Nevertheless, this is potentially valuable work which may eventually improve diagnosis and treatment in thousands of cases. I seem to recall that another European company was experimenting with using dots to not only latch on to specific cancerous cells, but attempting to then heat the attached dots, in order to destroy the cells. Hopefully, if the work on vivodots is successful, it could open up avenues for further research and development. Good luck to Dr Naasani and his team.

The share price was higher than this offer throughout most of 2017 and 2018. The boards feeble surrender without a fight suggests that they think the business is, quite suddenly, in extremely bad long-term shape, and worth much less than previously thought. Most investors were probably expecting some kind of return to normal after this extended outage caused by the politicians, but it is clear the BOD doesn't share that view and can no longer see any light at the end of the tunnel. Near term is obviously a mess, but surprising that the long term is seen as so bleak.

"Prudential will integrate HælthTech's OMNI cloud-computing technology into PRUWorks by Prudential, a digital ecosystem designed for Asia's small and medium-sized enterprises"
https://vietnamnews.vn/sports/519563/prudential-powers-up-pruworks-for-smes-with-h%C3%A6lthtech-technology.html#xwFbw5tFDtbOg7hG.97
"PRUWorks is a digital ecosystem designed for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Asia. It provides a number of insurance products, employee benefits and business services to SMEs.

After launching PRUWorks in Singapore last year, Prudential introduced the digital ecosystem in Indonesia this month, aiming to expand the platform in Southeast Asia."
https://www.verdict.co.uk/life-insurance-international/news/prudential-haelthtech-omni/

Glad you're having a nice break james. I'll try not to be jealous of your, literally, unbelievable trading talents, but it's so hard not feel inadequate in the presence of such a genius. I think you claimed that the shares will soar after the split: but why do you think that? The share price has declined somewhat since the split was announced, so what would you attribute that to? I'm surprised you think that Trump's trade war has no bearing at all on Pru's prospects, given that Chinese policy will affect the whole marketplace of Pru Asia, and Hong Kong regulators will be overseeing the company. Perhaps you could enlighten us lesser folk about your reasons for being so blase about it? Thanks, oh great one.

Gen 1 ends in December and is not being extended, so some small payments from it will fall into FY2020 (which starts in August). Edison therefore estimates that Nanoco has about a years worth of cash to work on finding other sources of revenue, which is not as desperate as the share price suggests, and probably a better position than Nanoco was in before the abandoned deal started. Edison also continues to claim that "development activity in quantum dots appears to be accelerating across a number of applications". Nevertheless, in financial terms, Nanoco are living on borrowed time, and their skill in securing paying customers seems nanoscopic.

It is clear there won't be any orders, the "minimum order quantity" has proved to be zero. With no real alternative revenue streams, after December the finances are in freefall, barring further deals.

"IP worth in the 80-120 region IMO but in the right hands. " This abrupt abandonment puts a big question mark over whether it is commercial at all - no one seems willing to pay for any of it. Presumably there were 'communication issues' with {Apple}, who seem to have figured out far too late what the real price of this material would be, and cut their losses? Are Nanoco overcharging, or are their products just not economically viable?