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.
Ditto, many thanks for the explanation.
Excellent
Hi Solar E, what is this. Funding for another reactor?
so what's the significance here -dates back to Jan 2014?
I reference Nanoco's performance based on a spectra Nanosys showed at the 2015 QD Forum (the video is on youtube). They took a spectra from the LG TV using Nanoco's dots (assume they were using their best dots in a demo). The spectra was awful compared to the Samsung spectra and the other TV using Nanosys dots. Yes, obviously Nanosys isn't going to show something that makes themselves look bad, but that spectra, coupled with the fact that huge companies like AUO, TCL, Hisense are all going with them makes me think they probably DO have the best dots. I don't think their Hyperion dots are out of favor. They said in their PR for it that they'd be sampled in Q3 of 2016 and be available for mass production Q1 next year. If those take off it really could be bad for everyone else in the industry because there is no threat of RoHS anymore...
-----------------
Okay, agree with you (my biggest worry is hyperion) but:-
1. This was in 2015 (now nearly 2017) and lots of scientists working hard
2. Hisense & TCL have always been happy with using cad dots, so using hyperion just an extension of that to suit the EU policy.
3. Edelman stated only a fortnight ago point blank Samsung would NOT be using ROHS compliant cad dots. So, is he guessing or lying? It was put in language that he is sure he knows something.
ok gotcha, but not irretrievable then...?
My other post just now may add to this (posted before I had seen yours)
Ps. Genuinely interested what keeps you here apart from the obvious risk/reward scenario.
Are the film makers the problem here you think? Not the dot makers who can all get a slice of pie if (or when?) the film makers can reduce the cost (i.e. no risk to the OEMs to sit tight for now).
Comment from Nanoco about 2 years ago made me think it was the downstream film maker business which was hard to get right. And causing the delays. Deposition alignment and consistency, anyways.
And also this from the Nanoco reply to the ROHS exemtion:-
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IX/Request_2013-2/20131106_Nonoco_Dow_Contribution_Ex_2013-2_Response_to_RoHS_Questionnaire.pdf
The bit I can't quite understand is this:-
The applicant suggests cadmium-based quantum dots reduce energy consumption of up to 20 % compared to rare-earth LED down-converters (conventional LCD TVs). Any such energy saving would be likely to apply to CFQD™ quantum dot down-converted LEDs. However, our understanding of the energy savings associated with LED down-conversion technology is that it originates from the LED backlight rather than the QD colour converters; LEDs are more efficient than previously used backlight sources such as fluorescent tubes. As such, there should be little difference in energy consumption between QD-LED-LCD displays and standard LED-LCD displays
--------------
Is this code for saying that the film makers for the cad free QDs need to improve? Or maybe a different point altogether...?
One negative scenario which springs to mind is that the film makers will never get this right, or just that there is so much competition in that industry there is constant advancement (and delay).
I will be happy to sit tight if this is a logical reason.
I do not want to have to contemplate that all QDs are just not up to the required level and OEMs will turn to something else instead.
Thoughts?
Ok so I hadn't read your other informative post just now.
Thanks and much appreciated for spending the time explaining your view.
You said:-
Nanoco's deal with Dow was a good sign, but I they haven't been able to back up any claims about their dots, and I think their performance is really holding them back. QMC has simply worked their way into being mentioned with these companies, even though there is no evidence to back that up besides their own claims. That's why I find this company so fascinating. They've built this reputation on "he said she said" without any industry acceptance.
---------------
OK, so was DOW a good sign? I never believed so. Nanoco HAS to have a DOW because their manufacturing capability is MASSIVELY expensive to install. It is neutral. QTMM does not have the same problem (does it?).
So DOW meant rather less to me, and I said so before (lo and behold) Nanoco do a split (or was it...?) to find a way through to gaining their own direct revenues. And yet, DOW are still committed it seems as they have previously signalled that this a big part of their future business streams.
You say Nanoco performance holds them back but they took £20m to work on scientific advances and the latest comment we have from Edelman is confidently stating they have the leading dots (and QTMM say they have moved forward on that score too, with leading dots). SO we have all three (including Nanosys) saying they have the leading dots..... But you think only Nanosys, due to...... sales? That would be sales for soon to be obsolete cad dots.
If Nanosys hyperion dots are out of favour then it is only QTMM or Nanoco... or nobody?
True. It's all about where the industry players positioned themselves for take-off. It was not wrong to make money from the cadmium dots. QDV did that ok.
Ok thanks for the informative post.
But you are invested right, so what's the positive spin in your view?
That's thrown you
I don't agree it set Nanoco back as their business model was to plan for Cad free
The obvious counter argument to that is that they have not established production sales yet either.
Why not?
Are Nanosys hyperion dots better performing, though they contain cadmium (but still ROHS compliant)?
Or it because some Telly makers think QTMM can supply QD more easily in volume, and therefore more cheaply? But for now, the tech development is behind....? And because the big manufacturing companies are waiting to see prices drop?
Lots of unanswered questions.
CES may tell us more, but my perspective is that new money is going into the supply side chain (for Nanoco that means Merck and Wah Hong) and that is a positive sign of things ahead for all companies.
It has gone a bit quiet here ..... any reasons?
Was that the first message all day!???
Depends on how much you can afford to risk. For me, I'm up to my nuts already.
possibly. they cannot sell what they don't have, or soon won't have. amazed that there is buying at such good levels
Ditto...
I almost forgot what it looked like. Happy weekend one and all!
Dig deep and keep buying folks, then we can hope to push the price up again. MKM going going gone!
Sorry I seem to have picked up the wrong message. I was thinking about trips from Thailand and Hawaiian shirts. But it seems to have prompted a rally. If I was not burned elsewhere I might even be topping up myself
At this rate we will be organising a trip to the local soup kitchen.
My screen price has gone green!!!!!
Not new, nor about QTMM, but relevant all the same.
He does mention working with Wah Hong to attain the right "quality".
Has anyone compared Wah Hong -v- Nitto Denko?
http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/edison-tv/clip/executive-interview-nanoco#js
Shareholder's letter appears to have been written end of September
Hi Jamis,
It is all guesswork because none of us knows. But I am one of the few investors still running in the $0.45 competition!
I can only say that my impression, from reading Sri's letter, is that things will take a good while longer yet. I can see a reluctance for some manufacturers to get started fully when they know there are ways to improve the performance of the cad free dots.
It is the same sort of difficulty for Nanoco, that they seem to be still trying to perfect this, so not necessarily a criticism of QTMM, just a reality for the industry. A year and half ago I was refusing to invest in Nanoco on the basis of what I thought was the need for more lab progress. Things might well be close now for both companies, but how close?
Best wishes
JB
Sri is very clearly saying they still have not done it themselves yet - i.e. met all three criteria. The selected words are being taken out of context
Forgive me as I am feeling less optimistic now I am deep underwater.
Yes you could read it that way but also he then says (present tense) we have not met them all at the same time - i.e. does not say they have achieved this now.
What do you think he means by "Locking in a date on invention has been our challenge over the past year or so. "?
The way I read the whole thing is that QTMM can make better cadmium dots at scale more cheaply, but not when it comes to the cad free variety - which is where Nancoco surely must be the leader in the field - Edelman was plain about that - but as I see it cannot ramp up easily without cost and time.
At Runcorn they are now running at higher capacity / efficiency but have problems with expertise of labour and costly factories needed for scale. They can do 500kg/year out of Runcorn, and quite a bit more out of DOW but the ramp up there will be costly.
My best guess is that DOW are in line but to ramp up to higher capacity now but they want a better margin on the product. This is a squeeze which is taking time to resolve hence Nanoco ditched the exclusivity contract with DOW and took their chances to develop business of their own elsewhere - which has been successful for them so far in a short 6 months period- with Merck and Wah Hong now on board.
If QTMM can keep the core manufacturing capability "in house" with a high performing QD product (cad free) then this stock is a massive winner. Nanoco has to take a smaller cut of royalties from outsourced manufacturing capacity which is very expensive to build. Nanoco does have an advantage currently on that score though which is that WH appears to be paying for Runcorn resin now - I would be feeling much much better with my investment here as and when we get something similar agreed contractually with Nitto Denko and money coming in regularly from that source.
I wish I was buying at these levels for the first time but either way I still want more from the company to show this is has a real prospect of succeeding - the timelines from Sri do not appear that close IMO.
Not exactly because it is an admission of QTMM failures too:-
QUOTE:-
So, why haven’t we captured this opportunity yet? That’s because our products had not yet fully met all our, or our
customers, expectations for performance, quantum yield or other key parameters. We have achieved each of these
parameters individually but not all of them at the same time.
Inadequate = failure to meet expectations for performance, quantum yield and/or other key parameters
No but increasingly I come to think if there is anything to sell. 0.8c tells me something
Quote:
In the past few weeks, I have learned from our customers and partners that this window of opportunity is wide open since
existing solutions in the market are either inadequate, expensive, and/or made with heavy metals such as cadmium,
which they don’t wish to use anymore.
------------------
Inadequate = QTMM (according to Sri)
Expensive = DOW (Samsung won't play ball)
Cadmium = Nanosys (yes, but innovating)
Gut feel says Nanoysys cleans up with the hyperion dots.
He is underselling. My fear is what is he underselling? I was not overjoyed reading that.....
Don't worry -there is hope - when you are 75% down you give up caring!
Nanoco, Nanosys, QTMM or whoever would still need to supply this sort of company with QD's, right?
How are we doing according to the quarterly targets? Looks ambitious!
Why do you think Nanosys is pursuing the litigation as if Edelman is right there is only $1m damages to be won.
Re Nanosys . I hear you. There was a link I posted a few weeks ago with a Twitter (?) comment about their cad free capability. Cad lite maybe? Confused as there is so much conflicting info
Hi DD
True about Nanosys production too but big question mark over the cad lite product. Rohs compliant it may be but Edelman was unequivocal that Samsung will NOT touch anything but 100% cad free. And Hansol don't have the capacity. This leaves one of two scenarios :-
1. The capacity gap to reach c.5m cad free units in 2017 will be filled from Nanoco or QTMM or both
2. The projections are totally wrong.
As for the requirements of the OEM's they are aggressive in requiring continual improvements in optical performance and in terms of scaling production whilst reducing costs. I am not sure that Nanoco can do that effectively longer term but we hope QTMM solves that problem. The short term supply needs can probably be achieved by Merck factory plus DOW and a 24/7 operation at Runcorn.
BUT colour filter tech will require many more dots. This could be quite close so again the issue arises of who can supply this demand. Looks very good for both companies IMO but I believe that Nanoco probably has the best performing dots at this point.
And if you believe Edelman Nanosys are ruining themselves financially with pointless litigation, but do not do Cad free, which only leaves Samsung with their inadequate supply from Hansol (and who else?), and LG to use capacity from DOW.
What will TCL and Hisense do if (when?) they switch to Cad free?
Who are the credible suppliers (apart from Hansol) if not Nanoco and QTMM?
Part of the issue, it seems to me, is that for every telly-maker there is a different suppy chain so endless rounds of sampling / testing which is not helped by constant improvements in the dots.
Believe him or not Edelman says they have the leading dots - he was very confident of that one.
Riding both horses on this.
Good well let's hope there is a pre-CES rally