Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
From what I've read, Samsung didn't buy out QDV, they bought the IP, and it wasn't the batch IP they wanted but rather the QD LED IP.
QD Vision was bought out by Samsung for 65M they have batch.
Considering that Dow seems to be at the same point as QMC in the commercialization game, one might argue that QMC has apparently had nothing but abject failure with QMC's technology.
Given Dow's apparent abject failure with Nanoco technology, maybe you're asking the wrong question?
How can Dow or whatever company it is help QMC ? Just asking.
Amen brother!
You're right, it's nothing new, but it's what the market wants right now and in large volumes.
Your understanding of how a PL QD display works is only partially correct. You have the big picture right but you're wrong about how it comes together.
In a LCD display, the TFT film along with the color filters are part of the liquid crystal module (LCM) that makes the pixels/sub pixels and controls their brightness. It is completely separate from the QD film.
The QD film sits behind the LCM, and it's sole purpose is to create the "white" light that feeds into the LCM by converting some of the blue light from the blue LEDs in the backlight to red and green light. That's the QD film that QMC is almost certainly working on as it is currently the only commercial product.
In any case, there is no reason for QMC to be working with anyone on TFT film.
http://www.nanosysinc.com/dot-color-archive/2011/10/18/quantum-dots-unleash-high-color-gamut-performance-in-led-backlit-displays
If QMC's 5 film partners are not producer of TFT films for Display, Biomedical Science, Lighting and Solar Energy companies, then what are their films used in?
QMC's film makers must have tested their TFT in display panels for over 5,000 hours to ensure consistence and durability without degradation under any environmental conditions before selling to their customers.
News of QMA and QMC is everywhere, talking about Quantum Materials Corp in China.
FACT! THE CFO and CEO, plus presumably, the board of directors DID IT! !! and they do not file the whole contracts in order to keep 'shareholders' in the dark. ;(
QTMM would be worth .20 cents without a P/E ratio applied.
That article said:
[ghosting] is mostly associated with the Quantum Dot Technology.
The argument of "then why hasn't Dow sold any dots if they can make so many and they are so good" is the same for QMC.
So what would Dow want with QMC? Dow has dots they claim are great and they claim to be able to meet industry needs. That's the conversation i'm interested in
5) Can't make commercially viable dots with Nanoco tech?
Despite "operating a large-scale manufacturing facility in Cheonan, South Korea and able to produce cadmium-free quantum dots to meet customers' commercial requirements," I don't think there is any evidence that Dow has sold any to date? Why else would that be if not because the price is too high using Nanoco tech?
http://www.dowelectronicmaterials.com/products/display_materials/trevista-quantum-dots.htm
My take is that Nanoco's tech isn't scalable since Dow tried for years to get the plant on line for commercial volumes.
Just sayin' what?
Carson and Posners have been long investors who I believe will support Squires... I just don't see a hostile take over as plausible at this time.
Insiders own closer to 40%
Anybody remember Nanosys Rec2020 performance? Is it 100% for cadmium and how much for cadmium-free/Hyperion?
Hyperion Quantum Dots match the color performance of the industry’s best cadmium-based quantum dot materials with over 90% BT.2020 color gamut coverage.
An officer or director has to report all changes in equity ownership no matter what % they own.
With respect to taking shares in lieu of pay, it can be a lot worse than simply never selling the shares and basically working for free. You have to pay cash tax on the value of the shares at the time they were issued.
Another fact is that he's been taking shares for years as salary, those shares show in his accumulated ownership since he's over 5% owner, if I'm not mistaken. This means he loses many years of work and cashes out $250,000 for 10 years of work. I could be wrong on the laws on shares for salary and reporting. Someone please correct me, if so.
Maybe the stock needs a bit of "Posner Effect." According to their last filing, they sold about 2.3M shares during a 46 day period in mid-2015, and the price went from $0.17 to $0.20 then back down to just shy of $0.19. They sold on 32 different days and the first day was the lowest price of any of the sales.
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001455256
I’m wondering if Dow even had a product to sell, and if so, when did they really have it? If you read the NANO LSE Prospectus, it’s clear that they didn’t know how to make a commercially viable product when they signed the deal. Despite the PRs, I’m guessing that it was Dow that ended the exclusive relationship. Maybe NANO couldn’t deliver on their promise to optimize the process to a point where it was profitable and Dow decided the only way to make money selling QDs was under a lower royalty structure. Or maybe they lost faith in NANO solving the problem and they decided to solve it themselves and didn’t want to share the solution with NANO? All pure speculation on my part.
From the Prospectus:
In order to satisfy this expected increase in demand for the Group’s CFQD quantum dots, in the immediate term for application within LCD televisions, Dow is currently building a large-scale heavy metal-free quantum dot manufacturing facility in Choenan, South Korea. The Directors believe that the decision by Dow to commence production of this facility supports the Directors’ belief in the Group’s patented molecular seeding process and the capability for the Group’s technology to be produced in a uniform, high quality, efficient manner on a commercial scale and ultimately at yields which will make it commercially viable.
However, in order for Dow to be able to manufacture commercial quantities of the Group’s CFQD quantum dots for application within LCD televisions at yields which make production commercially viable, further development will be required to be undertaken by the Group, specifically in the short term to optimise the production process and to maximise efficiencies by minimising the amount of product which ultimately has to be discarded.
This refinement and optimisation process is an inherent, expected and normal part of developing new technologies and bringing them to market and is currently, and will continue to be, on-going. To this end, development work is currently being undertaken at the Group’s production facility in Runcorn and will continue once Dow’s facility in South Korea is operational, supported in the short to medium term through the planned recruitment of the additional production staff discussed further in paragraph 6 (Reasons for the move to the Main Market and Use of Proceeds) of this Part VI below, several of whom it is anticipated will work closely with Dow in order to address specific issues arising in connection with the commercialisation of the production process for the display industry.
Rather than being the final step in the commercialisation process, the decision by Dow to commence construction of its large-scale production facility in South Korea is therefore simply the next in a number of anticipated steps towards the large-scale commercialisation of the Group’s technology within the electronic display industry, which is being driven initially through LG’s first generation of LCD televisions containing the Group’s CFQD quantum dots which were unveiled at the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and which are expected to be available to consumers during 2015.
Another possibility is that it's DowDuPont. I could see them not issuing a PR when any of the pure-play companies might.
Did you actually read the article?
For one thing, it's not "Fuji" which conjures up thoughts of any number of giant companies. It's "Fuji Pigment Co. Ltd." I don't know anything about them, but their website it total amateur hour.
You may not think that Fuji will succeed in their project, but...
Care to share how you came up with 600,000? Is it from your double-super-top secret Nanoco source?
What does "financial partner" mean exactly?
Crunchbase is an interesting website with all sorts of information on private financings. For example look up Nanosys or QD Vision there and scroll down to the Funding Rounds and Investors sections. You can also look up Samsung Ventures and see 147 investments they have made. Freschfield isn't on the list nor do they show up in Crunch base period. I'm sure that crunchbase is complete, however if they had the dozen or so partners they listed, wouldn't you think there would be something? www.crunchbase.com
Either would be quite a trick for a company that doesn't even have a real office.
If Freschfield can make polycarbonate inherently resistant to UV light, that in and of itself would be a huge source of income.
If Freschfield has created quantum dot solar cells that are worth production, that as well would be a huge source of income.
I remember that one of their "partners" was Samsung Ventures yet there is no mention of them on Samsung Ventures website where they list their portfolio. FWIW, Nanosys is there. http://www.samsungventure.co.kr/
The current Freschfield partners were listed on their website. Look into some of those partners.
So now that you have more posts available, let's hear about your special insights into NANO.
Really, I only count 12.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Profile.aspx?user=577666
My daily posting limit is up, can't post anymore. Have a nice day.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place? What's the problem now?
What exactly are you suggesting you knew about NANO "before it happened," and how did you come to know it such that you couldn't talk about it?
Do we know how much of QMA that QMC actually owns? Not the profit % but the ownership %?
---
Edit - nevermind, I see it in the last 10-Q: 25%.
I think I was wrong about what I originally wrote (the quote below). Since QMC owns >20%, I think they will have to use the equity method and their portion of any QMA income/loss will show up on the P&L (below the line) even if there is no dividend paid. If that's correct, we'll be able to see it in the financials when something starts happening in China.
If and when QMA pays a dividend, it will probably show up below the line as other income or something like that.
My original comment wasn't clear. I was simply trying to say that I didn't think it was a consolidation situation.
I believe you are partly correct. I think there will be balance sheet items related to the JV if/when there is a profit/loss. If I remember my GAAP right the amount recorded on the b/s is based on the amount originally invested ($0 in this case?) and adjusted to reflect profits, losses, and dividends. I don't think the asset value of the JV is part of the calculation.
I don't think that's accurate. From what they have disclosed, QMC owns a minority interest in QMA in a structure where they receive 50% of the DISTRIBUTIONS - not profit. The two could be VERY different. QMA could make profits and reinvest them for years before they ever pay a dividend that flows to QMC. Who knows?
QMA's numbers - revenue, expenses, profits, assets, etc. - won't show up in QMC's financials. If and when QMA pays a dividend, it will probably show up below the line as other income or something like that.
I'm not saying this is bad for QMC. It's just the way it is.
QMC will earn 50% of QMA'S profit.
I don’t think that is how it would work. QMC shareholders don't directly own any of QMA (or any other assets of QMC). If QMA were to IPO in HK, QMC would continue to hold the shares. No shares would go to QMC shareholders.
Kurt, QMA is registered in Hong Kong. If QMA does an IPO someday then most likely QMC shareholders would get a distribution of proportional shares but the shares would be on the Hong Kong stock exchange, and not subject to the US SEC.
QMA doesn't have to do anything for the SEC.