Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Nanogeddon, A purchase order of sufficient size is one possibility for a pick up in the SP, but another possibility would be other companies using Nanoco's IP without permission coming to some sort of agreement with Nanoco with a sizeable financial sum attached to the agreement. However we are still only just over two weeks from the Samsung agreement and I suspect it will take time for these other companies to come to the conclusion that the financial risks of not coming to a deal with Nanoco are much worse than just seeking a mutually beneficial accord now. By the way is your user name a reference to the fact that you think Nanoco should get on with it.?
HH, I do understand your frustration. In truth I am a bit torn. I want the company to tell us more information, but I don't just want pie in the sky promises. We have had too much of that from Nanoco already. As for investing his own money, I don't think we know whether he, as the CEO, has the legal right at any particular moment to deal in his companies shares or not. He and the Finance director may know more than even other directors. It's times like this that really test my patience as an investor . I guess I am not alone, but I (we) have little choice other than either sell or wait,
HH, I'm not sure I agree with you. Coming out fast with a half-backed statement about what they think MIGHT happen soon could backfire. Despite desperately wanting positiive news, I thing BT needs to wait until they have something concrete to announce, be that a few firm purchase orders, an agreement for some 'non-offending' company agreeing to pay back or future royalties for use of our patents or some other surprise news. It's just that the information released can't just be hopes and expectations. I think that would just spook the market further.
It fact everyone here who was and is still invested in Nanoco has lost money in the last few weeks. We desperately need some positive news from the board, but perhaps they are almost as unsure as us about how things like QD display orders/royalties etc and the new material orders will pan out. I am guessing that we might not get any news until the update due at the end of March (I think). I hope I'm wrong though as it would be great if we could get some good news before then.
The net asset value is in my view totally meaningless and impossible to identify. For example what are Nanoco's main assets? Probably its patents and also Runcorn. So are the patents actually worth anything? Who knows? No one can quantify their value at the moment. It is all conjecture. And what about Runcorn? If we get orders for QDs/New materials Runcorn could be worth an enormous sum, or if it just sits there unused, it is valueless indeed it is a constant drain on resources. And depending on the size of orders etc Runcorn could be anywhere in between these two extremes. In my view we can only properly value Nanoco once we know whether it gets orders to produce products and if it get royalties from others using our patents to produce products. People hope we get both, but for now we have no definitive proof of either. Nanoco Board need to provide investors with better information as soon as possible, but they hide behind the need for 'confidentiality etc to justify telling investors nothing. A bit like they did in the Samsung litigation case!
GigaWitt, can you stop implying we are all just after a quick buck. Many of us have been here longer than you and we haven't seen much (or some cases any) gain at all. If we were just here out of greed we would have been long gone. So people (after quite a few years) are disappointed and getting a bit impatient. That's understandable in my view not an indication they are greedy. I think (hope at least) we all understand investments need time to come to fruition, but all of us (even you) have timescales that are acceptible to us and timescales that aren't. So understandably some people want to sell or are undecided because they are concerned about whether the 'organic business' will produce results any time soon (or in the timescales that suits their financial needs.) Nanoco has had a long time to produce gains for its investors and whether it will turn out to be a poor or great or just average investment is still to be seen. I have decided to stay invested. Only time will tell whether this is a wise decision or not.
I saw this sentence 'The Apple Watch Ultra will get a bigger 2.13” microLED panel in 2024' on https://www.phonearena.com/news/The-Apple-Watch-in-2024-Bigger-displays-Apple-Watch-X-and-mciroLED-Apple-Watch-Ultra_id145459. I have no idea whether Apple might at some time in the future use Nanoco products for display, and if so when but maybe I can hope!
I am all for freedom of speech, but ideally I would like the speech to be about Nanoco, not this or that member(s) of this board. I guess one of the problems is although we some idea of what Nanoco's next steps will be, we lack details and timings, so useful discussion is limited. This is a problem with many companies but it is especially difficult when the company currently has no significant customers/products and its first significant product may be be in production soon or at worst (God, I hope not) might never materialize.
Amerloque. I am no expert but I think it shows Hamodi is pretty bullish on Nanoco in the next couple of months. However I am loathe to suggest anyone is buying or selling because they have any insider information. People buy, sell, become bullish or pessimistic for reasons of their own. So even if Hamodi is optimistic , we have no evidence as to whether he is right to be so or not. If we are to trade in individual shares then we each have to make our own investment decisions.
The Board may have other insider information that could affect the SP such as ongoing negotiation of timing/size/probability of orders being placed or of discussions with other companies that could pay Nanoco for their past 'non-infingement' of patents. It they do have such info then they may not be allowed to trade at present.
'CFDs are best used for the stock market if used under around 10 weeks, an estimated point where CFD financing charge exceeds financing charge for stocks.'
From: https://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Expiry-date.html
But the question I'm asking myself is would Nanoco need to recommission the CFQD line and hire staff just for a few samples? I realise I don't really have much idea how much work is required to recommission Runcorn, Nor do I know whether prior to recommissioning Nanoco has retained a 'sample' production capacity for CFQDs. Also, interesting point for the future, if/when Nanoco are producing CFQD in any (even one) product does that make it easier to get an injuction against other infringers of our patents?
I clearly called the size of the settlement wrong, and I really need to take a break from this board as |I feel it is now fairly corrosive to my mood. Obviously one needs to reflect a little bit on investment mistakes (and successes) so one can learn and grow as an investor, but at the same time one one has to move on. So I didn't expect to be back on this board for a while. But while I ponder the pros and cons of my continued investment in Nanoco, there is one thing I would welcome other people's opinion on. That is the statment in the update "Runcorn CFQD facility re-commissioning alongside recruitment of additional production and production support personnel.". It was the "CFQD" part of this sentence which suprised me. I don't think Nanoco would have confused CFQDs with the new sensor materials. So is this just a sign of Nanoco having requests for some 'samples', or do people think there is an indication here that Nanoco is really expecting (significant/proper) orders for display materials?
Before I go for a few weeks/months break, I don't see how we can read some Samsung future business into this. Nanoco have yet to sell anything except a couple of patents in ten years. Of course there may now be future opportunities, but Nanoco has lost a lot of trust in even what they say being true, so why should we trust there is business in the offing which even they haven't indicated.
I, like most here I guess, am very disappointed, and can't work out yet why Nanoco/BT would accept such a poor deal. I feel sorry for all those here with very large positions that have lost a lot of money. I have lost some, but not as much as others here I know unless all those big holders sold out before this. As for whether the market reaction is a little overdone. I don't know we will see. I do know a hell of a lot now rides on what happens with the 'new materials'. Nanoco has always promised and yet totally failed to deliver anything for investors. BT and the Board should hang their head in shame. I wonder whether they feels it orf don't care because they are still getting (in the light of what happened)an excessive salary. Need a break from all this. Be back after a while GLA.
So what I am taking from all these recent posts is that we are probably entering the final lap, but we don't know how long the lap will take to run as it may or may not be a relay race involving several runners and baton changes. !
*know
HH they are probably out and about in Texas and don't yet no they are the Jury!
Intgeresting
"Samsung Will Compete With Apple With Its Own VR Headset"
https://www.gizmochina.com/2023/02/02/samsung-rival-apple-vr-headset/
AFrom a week ago
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/quantum-dot-market-2022-industry-size-share-trends-opportunities-growth-analysis-and-forecast-to-2030-2023-01-27 quote:
The Quantum dots market is expected to exceed more than US$ 32.0 billion by 2024 growing at around 60% CAGR for the forecast period.
Now how is that going to be reflected in the settlement if the majority of these Qdots are going to be produced using Nanoco tech?