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.
You might want to check the dates you marked in your sticky Solar, I know not much is happening here but now you are 30 days into the future.
The problem with the pr was it screamed "we've got nothing right now." There was no reason for the PR except that people wanted something. All the info in it was already out. By issuing that PR when they did, it tells me that nothing is coming in the near future.
For the first time ever I almost 100% agree with you Trevor. I'm here because of the risk vs reward. This could soar if we succeed. What I and some others object to, but it's good to see you acknowledge, is that some here not only down play but completely ignore the risk. This is an 11 cent stock and realistically not likely to succeed, but if it does succeed the payoff could be big. It's the nonsense that this is a sure thing and safer than the Dow that rankles some. It's good to see you acknowledge the risk too.
QTMM isn't like any other OTC stock. QTMM is like owning a vast mutual fund as we sell equally to many different industries. Owning this stock is safer than owning the Dow stocks.
At least I've heard those things here.
And besides, SS is running QTMM China.
From Texas.
You cannot make that assumption about the selling of samples as they are in entirely different situations.Samples sent to a display maker are sent in the hope of acquiring a large future contract. Any business is willing to do or give more away in the hope for a large piece of the pie. This deal looks to be extremely small, so they are not going to give away anything. This is probably more of a cover our costs and we will look into it deal than a real business arrangement judging by how it was PR'd.
This is a 12 cent stock. (Period)
Give up with the ridiculous Nasdaq talk. Without a massive reverse split, it is an impossibility this year.
Maybe I'm wrong, but to be the "clear industry leader". wouldn't you have had to have sold product to someone??
Calling QTMM the industry leader is like calling Mr Big's Computer Shop on the corner the computer industry leader because they claim to have the best products. So what if Apple sells billions of times as much, Mr Big's is the industry leader because they say they are.
If they scream it they might hurt the ears of their customers who are busy in their lobby buying their product.
Meanwhile, in Star Park, the lobby sits empty since we have no customers.
Are you referring to the pending deal to supply power to the middle east with Saudi Arabia? I read here it will be announced when Ramadan is over.
So are you saying that venture capital from the kind and benevolent Chinese is good but that venture capital like Nanoco took from those evil British capitalists is bad?
Could you post any confirmation that Samsung ever said anything about the quality of Nanoco's product? As I recall from that time, and a quick search confirms, Nanoco thought they had a deal with Samsung which was a main reason Dow built their plant in South Korea, but they were unable to come to financial terms so Samsung decided to make them in house with patents from Nanosys. Samsung didn't seem to have any problem with the product, but they didn't want to pay Dow's price
You just proved my point. LG is marketing those phones to consumers, so the tagline may have an influence when consumers buy. We are not selling a consumer product. You honestly think the purchasing manager at XYZ corp is going to order product from us because of an ad he saw?? We have any number of NDAs out there and can't get any sales, but an ad for another company will attract interest to us?? It is a long process to test and make a sale of products like this, a tag line in an ad won't be fooling anyone.
Why would the tag line disappear?? This is not a consumer product where people can be tricked by a name. This is a product being sold in large amounts to a few huge companies. Somehow I doubt they are influenced by a name in an ad.
How is it a positive sign?? He didn't purchase the shares, he has the option to purchase them at 13 cents over the next three years. For all our sakes I hope he exercises those options.
You are taking one line from one person who still liked the OLED best, and he was referring to a display set up by Nanosys who would be expected to rig the test as much as possible. Read the links included in the article for the 2016 Value Electronics TV Shootout, which has experts rate the best tvs every year.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/value-electronics/tv-shootout/4K/Ultra_HD/hdr/OLED/LCD/LG/Sony/Samsung/ce-week/kingsman/ultra-hd-bluray-players/Panasonic/hdd-attends-value-electronics-2016-ultra-hd-tv-shootout-at-ce-week/33016
https://www.valueelectronics.com/uploads/VE_2016_TV_Shootout_results.pdf
The Samsung set lost out to the OLED in every single of the nine categories. Even in bright lit viewing, which should be the strength for the Samsung and the weakest point for the LG, the LG won 8.3 to 8.1. At night the OLED blew out the Samsung 9.4 to 7.6 The Sony was rated close to the OLED, but Samsung seems to have done much worse this year.
Kind of surprised by how poor Samsung fared in the TV test. I remember that the LG OLED won last year but I seem to recall it was close. This year the oled set blew away the Samsung and Sony actually came in second.
"Can't remember if it was you or DMS1 who repeatedly demands to not bring up the ability to scale debate"
I've barely said a word one way or the other on the matter, but I will say I think you give it way too much emphasis. All things being equal anyone would prefer to be able to produce more for less, but to date all things do not appear to be equal. Nanosys, more than any other qdot firm, has found a market for their product. I don't care if we can produce one dot, one gram of dots, a kg of dots or a ton of dots, what to date we have not been able to produce is someone willing to pay for those dots. We've claimed to be able to mass produce for years, why does Nanosys have multiple large companies buying from them and we have gotten little besides sending out free samples.
The market and myself are waiting the answer to that. Until we get that answer, the stock price will sit here or continue to fall and it's not because of manipulation or the laughable thought there are paid bashers on a board of a stock that does about $25,000 in total volume a day. Until QTMM can prove they have a market for their product, we will continue to languish down here no matter how many re posts a day we get of old pr's and nda's.
Did I ever say I would be pissed in any circumstances??
All I stated was they must be planning some sort of reverse split if they intend to get on the Nasdaq this year. You are basically agreeing with me by stating what if they do it after they get to $1.I'm not completely negative towards a split, I'm just stating there is no way they get on the Nasdaq this year without one. If I had to guess, I'd say they really have no intention of going on the exchange this year. I just don't think it's realistic for a 12 cent stock to be planning to get on the Nasdaq without a massive reverse split, and I don't believe either one of us wants that.
It's hard to imagine any move to the Nasdaq this year without a reverse split, as we would need to go up 2500% to qualify. I know some diehards will claim that's easy to achieve with tonnage, but those same numbers have been given out here for 5 years and we've seen what happened and no sane company plans for their stock price to increase that much. Realistically, the stock price would already have been moving if the sales needed to move the stock that much were in the pipeline. If the company is serious about the Nasdaq, then a split is coming. I'd rather forgo the exchange and the split but we will see.
Maybe.... They didn't mention QTMM either because they were talking about companies involved in q dot solar cell research, not Q dot providers.
Another strong indicator is the R&D budget QTMM has had for years. Solterra barely exists.
They will put any name they can in those reports to try to get your money.
You are incredible,
Sri wrote that piece. If someone who worked for Nanoco wrote an article about quantum dots and didn't mention qtmm, would that send you running for the exits??
Great point. Amazing that a company like Samsung got fooled into buying from Nanosys when they could have bought from us. Luckily for Nanosys, Samsung must not sell many TV's because the chemists must already be working 24/7 on those beakers to keep up.
BigE is right, we need confirmation from the market that we have a product that someone is willing to buy. We know that QTMM can make dots. We don't know if they can make dots that anyone is actually willing to pay for. They can announce another 100 NDA's and samples being sent out but until they announce that we have a piece of a product on the market, we are not going far.
LG's quantum displays are not really Qdot display but its their equivalent, better color and lighting than a regular LCD. Again, they've not been able to use OLEDs in all their higher end phones because OLED lines are expensive to build and LG does not sell enough phones for it to be worthwhile. I wonder if they will switch to OLEDs now since they will have the oled capacity since they are building it for Apple.
LG has had quantum dot displays in their phones for a couple years. The G4 is probably their best selling phone with a Qdot display. LG has not had the capacity to build small form factor OLEDs like Samsung has so they have stuck with LCDs and Qdot displays for their phones. That will probably be changing soon as both they and Japan display are building plants to supply oleds to Apple for the iphone.
Please BigE, facts and knowledge are worthless here.
This board is about dreams and conspiracies. Clearly no sane individual would ever sell 100,000 shares of this because if they know what they own then they will know we are heading straight up like we have been for 6 years.
Clearly there is a plot to hold us back.
There is no reason to think we are working with Samsung in this area,all evidence to date indicates that Samsung is working with Nanosys.
Realistically, that process is years away and I have a difficult time believing we are expending any resources in this area, as we don't have the resources to spend. Our R&D budget is in the thousands, others are spending tens of millions. QTMM should be, and probably is, concentrating on making sales in this generation of displays, not planning for the future when we don't have years to wait.
They mentioned Nanosys.
"[0039] Quantum dots that have non-zero Stokes' shift may be obtained from or through, e.g., Quantum Materials Corp. of San Marcos, TX or Nanosys, Inc. of Milpitas, CA, for example. "
It seems like they are just mentioning potential suppliers.
What attitude?? I've reread my post and detect no attitude in it whatsoever.
Evil posted that he googled the Nitto phrase and QTMM came up in one of the links and he wanted to know if we were involved. Since then 3 people have requested he post the link showing we were involved. All I did is to explain why it's all nonsense before someone here decides EVL's post deserves a sticky.
He told you where to find it and it's nonsense.
If you google this phrase like he told you, "Nitto Ultra-Thin Polarizer film", half way down the page you will see where Chess posted that message on the other board hoping we were involved. That's the connection, the message was posted on a QTMM message board and that's why QTMM shows up in a link when you search for those terms.
As usual you are missing the big picture. Nanosys has backed themselves into a corner because they have actual customers and sales, they may lose some. We don't have those worries, since we have no actual sales we can only go up.
They are unimportant, they use beakers.
The run had more to do with the China rumor confirmed from what looked to be a QTMM sponsored Twitter feed. With no follow up on the rumor and the fact that the company has little to do with that feed, that rumor begins to look more and more dicey, so the market resumes the longterm selloff. That selloff will probably continue until/if real news hits.
He's referring to our solar panels which are powering the entire middle east in some alternate reality
Sorry Solar, it's hard to be rosy here when to the right of the screen you see this everyday:
QTMM vs ETF alternatives
ETFs Today 3mths 1Yr YTD
QTMM -9.22% -25.92% -36.58% -37.73%
IJR -0.31% 15.70% -2.48% 7.75%
EES 0.06% 19.50% -6.58% 8.13%
SCHA -0.09% 16.53% -6.81% 5.81%
VIOO -0.23% 16.38% -2.36% 8.21%
VB -0.05% 16.45% -6.12% 6.02%
DWAS -0.53% 9.78% -14.08% -2.18%
SAA -1.02% 29.72% -53.49% 14.27%
And you realize a blind, deaf and dumb squirrel could have invested better than money put into QTMM over the past year, yet some here continue to sing Kumbaya.
The way this is going you will need that pan to get collections on the street if you take that 2nd mortgage.
The problem is you were saying what a steal the stock was when we fell to 40 cents.
And then 30 cents
Ditto for 20 cents
Now we are below 10 cents and still with no end to the fall in sight. There comes a point where you sound like the boy who cried wolf with your endless calls on this stock.
I'm still here because they have a chance for a big payday, but i freely admit that by far the most likely outcome is we end up with nada.
Thank goodness you posted that, I'm not sure that's ever been posted here.
BTW, we won the Frost & Sullivan award.
Based on its recent analysis of the advanced quantum dot ("QD") manufacturing market, Frost & Sullivan recognizes Quantum Materials Corporation ("QMC") with the 2012 North American Frost & Sullivan Award for Enabling Technology. QMC's technology, employing an innovative tetrapod quantum dot continuous-flow chemistry process addresses the major challenges—low production and corresponding high manufacturing cost—that have held back the wide-spread adoption of QD technology by major industries.