The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Nanosys is not wiping the floor with us. They are not able to produce cad free at scale. They will be history soon.
Apple, Google and Amazon don't do pure research by the way. They buy most of it and commercialise.
The fact that nano still exist after 20 years is remarkable by the way. Not something to be mocked.
Yes, PPE, all in your opinion.
Have you ever thought about how difficult it is to bring a new material science into the market. The amount of effort, the research at so many levels. Samsung 10 years of research into Qdots before they even met up with Nano. The whole of Manchester Uni material science departments for the last 20 years doing pure research into this. Thousands of trials and reflections on the chemistry. And your final comment is that it's all a stitch up .. ! All a fraud. What a pathetic comment for the scientists who are trying to make a difference.
You're just playing with semantics. They will back the board publicly when the time comes to vote. If they were not going to back the board then Hamoodi would have 19% not 5%.
Capital letters don't smell of desperation. What are you talking about ffs.
Hamoodi's gamble is going nowhere and it's to do with the maths. He he and his supporters have 5.02% from a standing start. Nano have loam with around 13%, the directors with 4% and some major shareholder today declared support of 4%. So to begin with we have 5% versus 21%. It's over really.
And it's clear Pickett is leaving. One of the best minds in the business and his team out the door. Pretty dire for a research company.
A strange post Kooba ... yes I was bullish so what. What's sad about that. So going back to all of my posts hehe... what a weird thing to do.
And I don't berate anyone who questions the board. I just question people like you and ppe who squeeze out all discussion to follow your own agenda.
You are a strange character Kooba ... aggressive and calculating .. posting from dawn to dusk. Cutting out all discussion. A bit of a sad person. You and PPE destroyed the advfn thread and now are doing the same here. But your agenda is clear to see.
Tm58
Ha, yes they are out in force. Kooba, 2G2D (aka ppe) destroying this thread like they did on ADVFN. Now it's not even worth reading that thread so they've come across for attention and posting utter drivel. Saying the same thing in 20 different ways. And nanostory admitting it would be good if nano produced cadmium Qdots if it means making money. Appalling really and an insight into their mindset.
But they have no chance of removing the board. It's almost farcical really.
I'm glad you see the value of Pickett. Though as the most influential board member in the decision to accept the Samsung offer I don't understand your logic here.
Compound growth of 20% a year is just what it is.
As for firm commercial supply, as I've said either you believe the narrative or you don't. If you don't there's no point posting on these threads imo. Sell up and move on.
Saying the IP could be worth millions or nothing is meaningless. Samsung paid £70 million for QD vision's portfolio in 2016. That's some sort of benchmark.
The 2 million Apple investment cannot be used to value production facilities. Nanoco have invested some 20 million in its production facilities, so using your logic they should be valued at 20 million. You are breaking all accounting rules in a simplistic valuation.
Nanoco and Quantum science do not have complementary approaches. They have the same product is all. You are confusing the product with the science. They have a different corporate culture. They will go the way of most Qdot start-ups .. in other words nowhere.
The 2 million Apple investment can't be used to value the totality of Nano's production facilities across their range of expertise. That's deeply flawed logic.
Nano grew revenue 20% in 2022 with a further 20% predicted in 2023.
It's fine if you don't believe the story in sensors. I do. That's your call.
As for merging Quantum science with nano and getting rid of Pickett. It's so absurd it's not worth replying to.
So this didn't happen is that what you're saying?
https://compoundsemiconductor.net/article/111393/Nanoco_Signs_Five_Year__Quantum_Dot_Deal_With_STMicro
Where did you get the second hand value of £2 million from? How much does one of nano's reactors cost then?
Why is the IP hard to value? Haven't Samsung just paid 70 million for patents?
If there are no commercial contracts as you say, where does nano get its revenue from? Doesn't revenue entail a commercial agreement?
As for the suggestion that Quantum Science should now take over the scientific research at Nano is laughable. Have you asked them for a starter?
So the contracts with St micro are just fantasy ... is that what you're saying? So there are no development contracts at all really. It's just all a myth. There's no revenue either... Probably the manufacturing plant doesn't exist. Is that what you're saying that everything is a lie... it's a very strange claim indeed.
quantum science ... so how much money are they making? sold anything yet. commercialised to any degree. no good giving an example unless. they will probably go the same way as 95% of qdot start ups imo. you should probably be asking why dow didn't manage to commercialise or merck or any of the other big guns with deep pockets and excellent management. it's only samsung in the display area that has achieved it. partly through theft of the seeding process, but there is a lot of innovation involved, too.
removal of the nano board will not accelerate commercialisation. more than likely it will hinder it.
to say pickett is not a valuable asset is complete *******s. he's the closest to a noble prize winner in material science that we have. he's built a whole team and without masala and garvey et al nano is finished. and it's very likely they would walk imo.
nano is on the cusp of commercialisation after 20 years plus of pure science. it's pretty much the last man standing from the original pioneers. it's fully funded for the next 20 years and will still be around after quantum science has come and gone.
i certainly will not be voting to remove the board. the chances of that happening are close to zero anyway.
We had a negative enterprise value when the shares were at 190 ... again a negative value when they were 55p on the Apple hook up years before any commercial visibility.
I see a 60% return to shareholders within 8 months. Plus commercial orders for Apple, who's way head in their tech.
I'm buying a lot of these now. Only reason not to is that you don't believe the company.
Resurgence in display, too.
I wonder with the extra funds if Nano will revisit lighting, solar and horticulture.
I see IG have stopped long purchases in nano .. now for many months. When that's lifted we'll see the traders return imo.
Nice bowl forming on the chart.
So 60% return of capital to shareholders in 8 months time. Commercial orders by Xmas at the latest. Self-financing company in 2025 just with the sensor orders. Everyone knows it's Apple. What's interesting is the resurgence of display and cad free quantum dots. The recent tie up in China was a display initiative, when everyone thought they were finished. Anyway, you either believe the company and buy or you don't and you sell. There aren't many of the old qdot companies still in existence. Nano still there..