The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
38-42 range is true value for Nano presently. Could be worth a punt to hold around there. Not so sure I'll be jumping in to turn over again immediately this time though. Seems a long time to tie up cash -better invested elsewhere. Dont see news on the horizon?
Didn't realise he'd added oil industry expert to the list of engineer, scientust, designer, business entrepreneur, olympian, journalist, tv presenter ..... etc etc etc. Actually feel sorry for the guy as I think posting was his major hobby/pastime but there's some issues there that need dealing with. Sincerly hope he gets the help he needs.
He left Nanonano - I did say we have no more factual information than that (and are unlikely to be enlightened it seems by management) but circumstances don't fit the positive. It was a speculative explanation and worth questioning (FWIW)
Reading between the lines FWIW I do think maybe he was excluded from the US partnership deal (he makes no mention of it) and felt aggrieved enough to leave quite reasonably IMO. If this is the case still reflects poorly on Nano's management / culture and the segments he was tasked with managing.
I'd say Paolo that Brian had a pretty good view of the market potential. I would also say he would want to take advantage of his incentive package and options, increase exponentially his experience, networking and reputation in his chosen career. Imminent penetration into a multi billion dollar industry with disruptive technology partnering some of the largest companies in the world (as some would lead us to believe). Guess he had a better offer - financial gain and stellar career advancement apparently are not priorities for him. I realise there's lots of questions we have no answers to but there are undoubtedly questions do you not believe? Not insignificant in my opinion.
From 27/04 ADVFN (he probably explains better than I) howl01: If Nano is on the cusp of commercialisation, why does the guy tasked with leading that commercialisation leave at this point? His whole reputation/credibility is based on historical successes and if what you are saying is true he has left just at the precise moment his role becomes essential and his success tangible and claimed. Can't be sure of the pushed or jumped but something not right.
Which is around the same kind of performance as Samsung around that time...
https://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/learning-center/white-papers/quantum-dot-technology
Taking some data out of a Nano patent last month concerning barrier film production (Filed Feb 17) their Red QD quoted as at PL 633 nm - FWHM 57 nm / QY 78%. The barrier film from a Korean supplier iComponents. Not sure that's of any use as 2 year old but a starting point!?
I agree Paolo - inevitable steady decline and it's not done yet. Too long a bridge gap. Gally's departure picked up on ADVFN but no mention here (apart from a post I made at the time which was censured again by some over eager moderator). Few more realistic posts lately without a NiGwit drama or a bit of back tracking by the over optimistic irrationals now? Either way not a bad thing. News to come hopefully and waiting for the bottom. Oh the hokey cokey...
Chinnock 2017 - At SID this year, the company showed a modified Hisense TV that contains the new Hyperion quantum dots embedded in a film produced by Hitachi Chemical. The “photo-enhanced” type of QD display has a spectral performance that is quite good with the green having a Full Width Half Max (FWHM) of 25 nm at 520 nm and less than 40 nm for the red at 644 nm. When coupled with the blue light at 450 nm with a FWHM of 20 nm, a display should be able to achieve 94% area coverage of the BT.2020 color gamut.
There is data out there Trouble. Think the most reliable sources are real world testing - think Chinnock/DSCC? wrote an article fairly recently testing real world product - spectra data and nits output. Think there's a YouTube site that does something similiar Quantum Apotheosis or something. Some of the data coming from companies themselves is a little dubious as often in isolation and lab conditions. Not going to help I'm the case of Nanoco as don't believe there's any products out there! Hey Ho
Noted ME's curt response when analyst brought up issue of anticipated gaming display. No elaboration telling. Would be good to see some hard data which others seem happy to publicise. 'Better' doesn't really cut it and I can't see how Nano can seriously make that claim when they know nothing of product development. Are they comparing current market available film - cutting it out of TV and testing? Hardly comparative. Still a long path to follow and expect some SP weakness basically so keeping cash ready until an opportune moment. (Looks healthier just now though!) GLA
Not sure where this 30nm FWHM figure has come from that appears to be under discussion. My 38-42 figure was referring to SP over the coming weeks given the apparent weakness in display. Would comment that FWHM improvement to my knowledge is really a function of how uniform the dots are in a given sample. Important, but within certain limits, secondary to QY which is a measure of brightness. It is QY as I understood which was being looked to improve upon for upcoming applications (8k LCD/QLEDOLED/Mini/Micro etc). Stability and fixing within a matrix also issues for development for Nano (film/resin/ink/PR etc). In this regard they appear to have failed to bring a workable product to market and have looked for outside support (of which I may know a little). This aspect has been something I have been critical of in the past - I don't believe they have been very successful in fostering end application relationships (Nanosys on the other hand seem to have done very well). All going to take time to resolve and probably why the themselves state 90% revenues from US partner over 2 years. I listened again to webcast on the way home in the car. I'm more positive than ever about prospects but prefer a more realistic discussion on prospects and risks. A sole revenue stream is a risk. Have been filtering a certain poster and must say the board seems healthier in that regard. I find ME very difficult to listen to now. Credibility zero for me.