Member Info for ddubya

Pretty sure it means that Miton micro cap trust sold its holding in NANO.

Agree. It is a bit like one of Newton’s laws - when some make money and others lose an equivalent sum. Hoping we are on the right side of this equation.

I wish for great shock and wealth to be heaped upon you Compass (and others too) .

If NANO had received an indicative bid(s) already, the smart thing to do might be to release an RNS today, saying the process has generated keen interest and they will provide a further update when they have considered their content. Might flush out any last minute bidder, or help to move any that are in the offing upward.

The CDiff drug is what initially attracted to SUMM in about 8 years ago, at which time it was likely to come to market before the failed DMD offering.

Still nursing a large long term loss but think we might be about to come good. Never pleasant to be diluted but we need the cash and the terms could have been a whole lot worse.

I did wonder that too NANO but you probably need to be selling something to be of strategic importance to national interest. Medical patches probably don’t cut it for a government so fixated on Brexit. Now if we had a contract with Flir for drone camera’s that might change the position. Then again, I wonder what the Chinese would do with NANO infra red QD?

You played a blinder there CATICHE - well done. You must have bought quite a few at 6p (as I did).

Break even for me is still in the 20’s but I still have hope of recovering a net profit and perhaps a decent one.

As you say the most viable offer (if we get one or more) is not based on price alone. Other factors might well be involved too.

Very sensible Bagpuss, although My strong suspicion is that a sale will transpire. A shame if so, because we probably will not realise anything like true value in return for our risk capital. If NANO had contacts to supply a few large companies for commercialised products the story could have played out in a very different way. I still have hope of keen interest from several parties though.

Well said Warren. You never hear Eskers criticising others of a different view, and he always seems to find the golden nuggets of information that I can’t. Eskers - Do you have a research background or just a keen privateer?

Thank you Eskers. I had not got round to translating that page so read your latest link. Anything might happen!

SUMM has been creative in the past when raising funds, obtaining grants and selling licenses to market their products on aGeographical basis.
That gets harder to do in the absence of commercial success but me t’s hope they can pull one more deal out of the bag now, perhaps from an NGO that supports new antibiotics. They are surely needed.

If Samsung's claims to be able to produce a synthetic replacement for OLED commercially is to be believed, then LG in particular (and others) will be keen to retain market positions by finding a lower cost and better quality upgrade that betters rivals.

If NANO truly has what it takes in that field (and it has yet to demonstrate it does) Samsung's announcement does NANO no harm at all and may even serve to increase bidding interest.

I am making the presumption that Apple is/was the partner (press strongly suggests so).

What still has me puzzled is Apple’s willingness to continue paying for development of the NANO particle to production readiness, as well as agreeing to write off NANO’s share of costs to Instal a new production facility in Runcorn. Remember that loan was due to to be repaid by deduction from sales.

It might just be that Apple was contractually committed to continue research and testing, and also there was no point in pursuing the loan, when no sales were expected?

However, NANO’s move to accept bids from all comers, only when the Runcorn site had all but reached production readiness might suggest a defensive move to resist a low ball offer?

I am probably wrong, but I sense fish and would not be at all surprised if Apple retains need for and an interest in nano-particles?

Very interesting Basscadet. An $11bn investment in a new plant by 2025 and manufacturing Indium based OLED. That seems quite a way off and a lot could happen between now and then. I know ME does not have the best record for setting targets, but 2025 is also behind his expectation for introducing a QD based and backlight free display.

Still, if NANO were involved, we would surely all e happy with a modest slice of that $11bn to secure patents. After all, preventing moisture absorption and oxidisation using a shell barrier are solutions, which ME claims NANO has already delivered.

If there are parties interested in bidding for NANO they are not likely to provide an indicative bid until close to the deadline, so absence of information at this stage is not surprising.

I suspect there must be at least one party, otherwise why open a bidding process at all - it would be ill advised and shout ‘fire sale’ if no one bids.

My guess is that Apple does have interest but does not want to pay the multiples that it has for previous acquisitions.

I suspect too that come mid December. the process will only be starting (if there is interest) and the the discussion that might bring value to the table will not play out for several weeks or months thereafter.

Interesting point re Apple investment BBD. They lost out to SoftBank with ARM of course, so it would be good to think they might be adopting a different approach with NANO? Wishful thinking perhaps.

The process we are engaged now should provide a useful indication of how the market perceives the value of NANO tech.

However, if the BoD could convince us as to the quality of our product, I would be happier to support a rights issue rather than see the value lost in a low value sale. I don’t see a rights issue as being at all likely mind.

The article below cites implementation of the China RoHS Conformity Assessment System, under which the amount of cadmium in certain manufactured and imported products (TV and monitors included) is restricted. This arrangement has been visible for some time but is this what lifted the share value 8% today, or something else?

https://www.sgs.com/en/news/2019/11/safeguards-15819-china-rohs-conformity-assessment-system-implements-officially

I read in Exponential Investor today that Apple is planning to replace the iPhone with a range of VR glasses. Hmmm...?

If NANO’s technology is really world leading (that is the question for me) then there is surely an excellent fit with many firms, e.g. Apple for display and sensor tech. Great potential to provide an edge to products, using CFQD.

That’s my dream too Balman, although the share price does not currently suggest that is in view. We need clarity on RoHS and orders first I suspect.