Member Info for ddubya

Unless our CFQD are out there already (which I doubt they armed in volume) I very much agree BTB. Nothing concrete in the public domain to indicate anything other than another set of lacklustre results and more uncertainty, at least for the immediate future. The analysts would cut us more slack if numbers are poor but orders were in though. Max. Nice to see you lifting BTBs spirits but I suspect he is well grounded and still believes in NANO just not over optimism.

I suspect there is truth in what you say BTB. However, with sales of less than £200k in H1 last year, anything other than a multiple of that figure for H2 will not convince anyone of recent ramping up of production. ME will know he could be vulnerable in such circumstances and if NANO is indeed selling more, I feel sure he will be working hard toward reporting sales that are sufficient to at least keep the dream alive to H1, by which point the saving grace will be more visibility on the CFQD display pipeline and news on what nano-particles means for the business.

That's how I feel too Bc, not that it is necessarily a major concern but at a time when Runcorn production could be increasing for existing CFQD customers and pre production of nano-particles is weeks/months off, I feel sure most risk professionals would say change increases risk. PI have limited or no visibility of the key considerations, so it difficult to form a view.

If NANO were content to remain small scale, I could see sense in the combined role but find it is less understandable, If we are delivering to a number of new CFQD customers from Runcorn, as we are led to believe.

Mr Tenner appears to be a very competent individual. However, is it just me that thinks formalising a combined CFO and COO role is an unusual move for a business purported to be ramping up production? Explanations might include that the business has got production so well sorted it no longer needs an Operations Manager, or perhaps more likely is Runcorn Operations is something the Americans now manage?

My view is that the appointment reflects a change in strategy, which has not yet been made clear but may not be a bad thing.

I agree with all of that TH2. We hoped for the best but knew what could happen

Given that 24 week results demonstrated significantly improved muscle health, it would be good if SUMM would explain why there is so clearly no long term benefit to the DMD boys at 48 weeks. Was there a reversal in the muscle health at some point between 24 and 48 weeks? Could DMD boys be in a strange place where muscle health has improved but for other reasons the effect of the illness is not alleviated? It looks like the former but without knowing the full facts I do wonder if there could remain a more limited application for Ezutromid?

Agreed - good news would be the medicine that makes everyone forget the more difficult times.

Always good to have an award but think it was posted here (maybe elsewhere) when made in May?

I would not describe it as lies either Gonebroke, since there will likely be some basis of fact behind each comment, even if none has come to fruition. However, to be satisfied each statement was considered true when made, we also need to believe that some unforeseen event(s) intervened to prevent it from coming true. Statistics suggest NANO has a low success rate in forward statements, although I also suspect certain commercial interests will be doing their best to thwart NANOs progress and that could be a factor?

In March, I listened in to the H1 results conference. When the FD announced that product sales had totalled just £200k there was an audible and sharp intake of breath from the analysts and others present in the room, followed by a short silence. Clearly the result was disappointing and unexpected to a range of interested parties, I suspect because they had understood Display production was ramping up in Q1 and that might suggest an earlier bulge in sales.

The year end sales figures could be rather more meaty but if we are going to get close to Edison's forecast we need something in the spectacular category and that will rely upon news from Wah Hong and or Dow being good.

I sympathise with you Basscadet having also been on the wrong end a good number of times.

I very much hope that proves to be the case NigWit and to provide any LTH Holders that remain with a high average a decent return, or at least a significantly reduced loss.

When we invest, we do so hoping the Board are honest souls, deserving of our trust and money.

We can inform ourselves of adverse indicators are via Google searches publicity and Dow Jones checks but they provide information post event/action and so are not especially to the average investment decision. Getting in front of the Directors might help, as does financial DD but I cannot think of any due diligence that can reliably inform the average investor on integrity or honesty.

If you are willing to share your preferred method of research NigWit, I shall be an attentive listener.

For the most part, NANO value is derived from the Tech, which is notoriously difficult to assess. I shall not accept the invitation to sell but neither do ai see the need to be Uber positive on all aspects, including Display, which will great, if it happens. I share JPlay’s concern that a number of statements made over several years have not been delivered to, which speaks for itself and erodes trust/confidence. However, I also hope the nano-particle deal will have potential to create the profitable base from which R&D will bring about more success.

I still hold out some hope that Display will come good Basscadet but if it does not, we need to know what the nano-particle deal means in terms of income stream. And that will depend upon whether we act as manufacturer of choice using the American partners patents, or have engaged NANOs.

However, reasonable expectations are set when a Director tells investors that "products are expected" or "On their way to the shelves." What did they mean if it were not setting the scene for commercialisation, and what purpose do they serve if not to create a positive outlook?

Executives are seldom taken to task because true intentions are exceptionally difficult to prove, without information they alone are privy to. Of course, that does not mean that Executives never make misleading statements, simply that few would wish to risk the time and life changing money attempting to prove it, unless of course they had convincing proof of their own.

We are a bit off topic and I am sure most of the board is not especially interested but I say the long term is certainly an important focus. However, to include the current position, which can change very quickly, is surely part of the management role too?

I cannot believe you really mean that?

I am not discounting the long term future of Display BC but the "immediate" prospects in the absence of news.

We would of course like to hear that take up of CFQD by OEM has been prolific but there is no firm evidence of this and there must be reasons, which could include cost of the QD themselves, or cost of configuring the set up to a specific display type. NANO itself has alluded to this as being an unexpectedly time consuming process.

I agree that as the cadmium ban nears the manufacturers will have limited choice and the outlook should be more bright.

I am very much with you in terms of longevity of CFQD NigWit and the wider impact they shall have but my comment is specific to NANO's "immediate" prospects.

The imports, exports and also recruitment could equally be attributable to nano-particles, or shipment of test materials, which have been the subject of similar Government publications in recent years. I shall be very happy if we can rely upon Display but we cannot know this from what is currently in the public domain.

I am going to say that shareholders have good cause to feel frustrated with NANO but also that news over the next three months or so will determine whether NANO has a big future in Display, or immediate prospects are to be determined solely by the nano-particle deal. The second half of the year was the (further revised) target for release of CFQD in the Display market. I would like to believe we are on the cusp of success but if we see no action before end October, I suspect Display will be a lost cause.

Quite possible the absence of heavy metals in NANO QD (and possibly nano-particles also) will help the cause when it comes to winning the recycling argument on cars