We should be due an update on some KPI's soon. 1. New 'logos' - this is customers transferring >100 Tb and more like 2 Pb, not just ones trying it and moving on. 2. Notional reoccurring revenue 3. Retention rate in past 12 months.
If this update when it comes is positive then I think the direction of travel is set.
Every single buy has a corresponding sell and every single sell has a corresponding buy. That is all you need to remember. The reports of buys and sells is only one side of the transaction and it's reported by only one side of the transaction. It's not accurate and doesn't pretend to be. I'm sure many of us can attest to making a transaction at a specific price and time and it is listed as the opposite of what you did.....therefore the other side of the transaction is the one being posted, not both.
buys and sells reporting in high volume scenarios are invalid. The MM's only report one half of the transaction and are also making money on each one. The SP is the only true indicator of whether people are buying or selling and at the moment people are selling no matter what you want to believe.
Buys v sells. This is an inaccurate measure and shouldn't be relied upon as clearly your argument would be correct if the share price was rising, but instead it's falling. The only true measures are the direction of travel of the share price supported by trading volume. Looking the reporting of buys and sells before arguing my point.
In all seriousness, Tim Yeo is in this for himself. He's not interested in shareholders only making sure whatever happens he makes money. IF the shareholders happen to make money, so does he. But he can also make money at Shareholders expense. There have been some recent evidence of shareholders wielding the power (Gamestore US, RMS and HUR in UK). Perhaps it's time there was a concerted effort to drive scrutiny into what's really going on and potentially creating a movement towards an EGM and a vote to oust Yeo. Peel are the ones who can assist if it is in their best interests too. They might be happy but I suspect where Yeo is involved they too have concerns.
Apologies if posted before but there's a good YouTube video featuring JCB's work on IC Hydrogen engines which I have long considered a better solution than electric cars to the problems of pollution from hydrocarbon powered IC engines. In particular the comments on the inflationary impact of batteries on cost and weight.
I'm not sure that's the driection Nanoco are taking. From a 2019 results presentation page 10 https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/nanoco-results-presentation-2019.pdf they list the 'Advantages of IRQD's' as follows: ?Direct integration with silicon CMOS technology ? For near-infrared (NIR) applications, QDs allow for increased quantum efficiency over silicon devices at longer wavelengths (~950nm), generating more sensitive, lower power sensors ? Tuneable QDs allow for absorption in the short-wave infrared (SWIR) region (1100 – 2000nm), unlike silicon which is transparent past 1100nm – an inexpensive alternative to current indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) technology
In bullet three this suggests we are producing QD's that aren't InGaAs based.
A good article and underpins (potentially) some of the recent narrative coming from Nanoco.
It's nice to read phrases like "SWIR VCSELs should be based on indium phosphide (InP)" and "will have to be based on InGaAs material or use quantum dots" and “In both cases, the technology is still emerging, manufacturing yields are low, and availability of components is limited. This will lead to higher component costs for both the emitter and the receiver”
However our dots don't use InP as it also has carcinogenic potential so this is a positive Nanoco need to be pushing. Nanosys I believe use InP. InP I can see as a potential issue more in the use of personal devices than display/auto.
"The Yole team concludes that, as a result, only Apple - whose phones now sell for more than $1000 - could afford such a profound technology shift."
Well let's hope STMicro are working with Apple on this but it sounds like Automotive LIDAR is another avenue with potential.
My views on InP are from memory so please feel free to pick it apart.
RE: Dukemount Capital rallies as shareholders vote against unwanted loan facility28 Jul 2021 07:47
lobo87 yes but that was because the suggested funding there was "highly dilutive" which is expressly why Nano didn't go down the equity route even though in our case it would be 'dilutive' rather than "highly dilutive". The funding was for £6.5m and the mcap is currently £1.6m so it would be a wipe out for existing shares holders.
Also worth noting that the Dukemount shares rally wasn't sustained and it has since dropped to below the price at the time of the vote likely because investors are running for the hills in the face of a maverick management team/BoD.
What are the alternatives? Dilution? A loan with interest? Bonds?
In my view this is a mechanism with pros and cons. Its a non-dilutive loan with interest payable at the back end rather than monthly with a kicker on a successful litigation outcome. If we can't repay the loan at the time, and assuming the IP is still robust then we can explore other funding options to pay the liability. I'm just glad it wasn't bonds as that seems to open up a huge can of worms where the bond holders manipulate matters to suit such as parallel shorting which does no one any favours.
IF we win the action then this is all moot I hope but at least our cash runway is extended and the company is able to focus on the new relationships and commercialisation.
I read this earlier but thanks for posting the link.
Seems to me that the company consider themselves to be clearly communicating the terms of the loan and they certainly don't want to embellish on any ambiguity re the 105% bonus. I'm taking it as an additional sum and I'm ok with that in light of the confidence in success with the trial. If we win 'big' ; do I care if the 'lenders' double the returns of the loan that underpins the company and removes the opportunity for shorters to exploit perceived weakness? A. NO.
But if the trial fails, which cannot be discounted, then commercialisation of one or more of the product streams remains possible. Maybe.