Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Thanks Crow2. I found the halide perovskites mentioned here (page 10): http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/system/files/uploads/financialdocs/nanoco-investor-day-nigel-pickett.pdf

Regarding your prescient note about the change in direction of the SP, I wonder if the looming ban on cadmium (7 months away) is having any effect on related company share prices, or on the marketing activities of Dow, Wah Hong etc. In more general terms, the whole market seems to be starting to adjust to a new era of higher borrowing costs, with several small firms in trouble - Nanoco seems to have lucked into a relatively enviable position in that regard?

'The Week' reports on a proof-of-concept research project which gave enhanced night vision to mice. The mice were injected with nanoparticles which convert the long wavelengths of infrared light into shorter ones, which the brain can register as green light, and with a protein which binds the nanoparticles to light-detecting cells in the retina. They hope to eventually provide temporary night vision for humans in the form of eye drops, as an alternative to heavy, battery-bound night vision goggles.

The nanocrystal factory article defines "cesium lead bromide perovskite" QDs as the base material. Perovskite is a calcium titanium oxide mineral. Trevista is a licensed version of Nanoco's patented display QD process, which is for a different material. Not sure if Crow2 was suggesting a potential rival technology, but if so, it's a bit of a stretch. In any case, Trevista has so far contributed virtually nothing to profits, apart from a few milestone payments, so any competition might actually be construed as an encouraging sign!

I think the material for LIDAR and similar applications is radically different again - possibly based on silicon.

The short term recovery in profitability has returned the SP to the level it was before the disappointing half year figures, but it is still down 16.4% on a year ago. One reason for this (among many other factors) may be that, far from the laughable idea that the split is somehow akin to a money making M&A activity, the exact opposite is true: demerging involves duplicating virtually every aspect of the business: properties, IT systems, legal representation, compliance, etc. I believe the split was driven by major shareholders rather than business imperatives. The market seems to be wondering if they have underestimated the risks and costs, and/or overestimated the benefits. There are many aspects to this, but building a whole new compliance team for a different regulatory environment is perhaps a good example of the type of risk and cost which may cause market worries. The distinct lack of news on the split, or any proper timescale, allows speculation that it still may not go ahead - it is in danger of becoming like Brexit: an unnecessary distraction from core activities, with a seemingly open-ended schedule, dubious benefits, and a dispiriting, braking effect on everything.

Still you jamesroo, still you. Your Hanson and White comparison remains bizarre and inappropriate, and your strange personal attacks have been uninspired and disappointing: "ba ba black sheet" doesn't really work, please try harder. Revenue obviously was down at half year, so it's pleasing to see it recover, although the SP is still well down on a year ago when the split was announced. The profitability question has eased somewhat, and the Pru did remarkably well in the second half in Asia against a difficult background - there is scope for further rises, I think, since long term forecasts will probably be revised slightly upwards in the light of this improved short term performance. The on/off trade war with China, however, remains an issue for markets as long as Trump retains some power, and probably after him too, as the relationship seems to be undergoing significant changes. The growth part of the Pru will be under Hong Kong, and thus ultimately Chinese, regulation, after the split. No news on the timing of the demerger means that uncertainty continues as a potential drag on the SP.

The report seems to focus on silicon QDs for sensors.

The Company Profiles section contains a useful list of players, and poses some teasing questions.

What silly ass umptions you make. Didn't you like my fun fact then?

Or silly both, since there will be two different businesses with different growth prospects, geographical tensions, and regulatory environments. Probably different dividend policies too, logically.

The Prudential split cannot be sensibly compared to a hostile corporate raid. No-one one involved is likely to end up as a character in a Hollywood movie about greedy, disreputable asset strippers. Unfortunately.

Fun fact - the father of Gordon White's grand-daughter is the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2019/02/01/2-ftse-100-stocks-im-buying-before-the-market-comes-to-its-senses/

Rupert Hargreaves shares somewhat inane reasons to be cheerful. Fails to mention that other commentators have cited the split as a reason for caution, or to notice that earnings per share were 10% down at half year. Ignorance is bliss?

Full year results due 13th March

Couldn't find much on the Dyson website about the lightcycle lamps, but Dyson Japan put a nice ad on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoDF3REWI3g

Yes, that's informative. Here's another more basic definition in laymans terms, and in terms of commercial products: https://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/article/colour-temperature/

The Dyson smartlamp appears to be playing jazz with the concept: a variable system, which manages the colour temperature of an indoor bulb(s) to harmonise with the changing external lighting environment around it. Humans would probably find that rather groovy, you'd imagine, and may even be willing to pay for it.

The Dyson smartlamp is intriguing. Quite different from a mere "colour changing" light it actually seeks to control the more subtle concept of colour temperature, which by my uneducated understanding means creating the required ambience in a room. I suspect many people, like me, would be hard put to describe what colour temperature is, or why it is important, but this wiki article suggests it could well be important, and universally useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature#Lighting

Unclear if there is any significant role (or profit!) for Nanoco in this, but it's always nice to be included.

https://moneyweek.com/501668/share-tips-of-the-week-121/

"Here comes the story of the Hurricane"

Bob Dylan

There was an article in The Economist last week about protecting airfields from drones. The leading technology used infrared sensors, amongst other things. I wonder if Nanoco have anything to contribute to this business sector:
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/aerospace/unmanned-aerial-vehicles/indras-anti-drone-system-ready-to-protect-airports/

The reason for Nanoco's currently improved position came out of the blue. The wildly over-optimistic plugging of Nanoco prior to that was based on overexcited expectations of TV sales which never materialised and false claims about lighting, which has also failed to impress. Those who were around at the time know that the shares were never available at 18p, so implying that they were is misleading. I think the lowest they got was 23p? Picking out the extreme high and low points of a share as if they are representative of an average investor is meaningless twaddle anyway. Nanoco have held on to their rating impressively during this downturn in the market, so investors can feel hopeful, but the current good run is surely down to luck more than judgement because the reasons confidently and repeatedly given for anticipated success are completely different to the actual reason.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-sage-outlook/uks-sage-boosted-by-strong-first-quarter-subscription-growth-idUKKCN1PB0JM

New CEO Steve Hare off to a good start.

Hi Max. The offer for ARM was made on 18.7.16 and completed on 5.9.16 - it went through quickly because it was an agreed offer and most shareholders were happy about it because it offered them a large premium: share price was around £10 and the sale price was around £16.50. The government imposed unenforceable "rules" on Softbank which meant an increase in staffing, and management sold the deal as a way of quickly increasing investment. Unlike say, South Korea or the US, increased investment in UK companies always seems to involve loss of ownership. It is true that staffing in Cambridge has increased hugely, for now, and they are protected to some extent by their own "ecosystem", but it's not the same as state protection which seems to be the norm everywhere else.

For Nanoco investors, the story of Imagination Technologies is probably more relevant: huge potential but too reliant on a single customer (Apple) who blatantly poached their staff, developed rival technology, then ditched them. Long suffering Investors never saw the potential realised, and were lucky to minimise their losses with a reasonable exit price. Now under Chinese ownership.

Nige-W, it's highly amusing that you think ARM was bought by a Japanese bank! In fact, it was sold to SOFTBANK, and the price was around 24.3Bn. Allowing that sale was one of the worst things the current government has done, because sure enough, Softbank quietly sold part of the company to China this June, and now the Chinese have access to most of the IP developed here over decades, at a bargain price. From a world class technology company beating all-comers, ARM jobs are now under long term threat from ruthless cut price competitors backed by the Chinese government.

"External net outflows were 5.6 billion pounds in the first nine months for M&G"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-prudential-results/prudentials-life-insurance-new-business-profit-rises-17-percent-idUSKCN1NI2V7
Ouch! That probably explains the SP? Meanwhile, in China, interesting times:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-insurance/china-moves-closer-to-allowing-foreigners-to-control-insurance-ventures-sources-idUSKCN1NN0UW