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.
Not without a share holder vote. I know we have a solid ownership from people on this board. Two years ago, we had 1/3 of the company. I led the effort to count our shares. We voiced our opinion about the previous boards desire to issue preferred shares. With Steve Squires’s support (shares), we had the voting strength to ensure the previous board didn’t dilute our voting power via preferred shares.
I would say that we’d make a solid front to a reverse split occurring without solid sustainable revenue.
Did you find anything in the plans that show the building where Amtronics/QMC will set up shop?
Based on the plan below, I disagree. The sign for the Tech City seems to be placed at the entrance to the north of the facility and you can see it to the west of the building under construction. I think the H shaped building you refer will be in lot just west of this construction based on my review of surrounding terrain and sign placement.
I think someone mentioned the updated photos on Google the other day, but don't recall anyone posting the image of the building status. See below photo. Looks like all 3 floors support structure is nearly complete. They can make the November date based on my experience in construction. I'm assuming this is the correct building and not another building under construction on the Tech City site.
Photo found using Google Maps dated July 2019
Concept of three story building.
Thanks. I searched for Nanosys and others, but since it was in the image I missed it. Otherwise, I would have noted it.
Agreed, that noting this makes the reference to QMC less notable although they were still being used for sampling configurations for ink trials along with Nanosys.
Again, can't disagree that as a possibility.
I just like that a well known entity was sampling QMC's dots for use. Every use hopefully moves QMC closer to commercial success, assuming the qdots meet the required specifications.
Clearly you don't know me and have never met me!
lol!
Seriously, enjoy your weekend!
That could be the case, but I recall in a PR, Q, or shareholder update, QMC stating their materials were all customized. Do they really have a catalog on the website? I just see different types of nano particles without very specific specifications.
Thanks for hint. You did agree with me and gave your opinion of where the realm of possibility lies for continued collaboration. I can't disagree. Am I'm hopefully more develops, yes, but we all should be if we have money invested here.
I can be hopeful, yet still face reality and probabilities.
Again. What in my first 3 posts insinuate anything other than a patent referenced QMC and Kateeva's development of qdot product.
The closest thing to an insinuation that I said in my first 3 posts was below when I used "worked" instead of saying "sold." Then Kurt decided to have a verbal sparring match over sematics. No big deal. Take it like you want. Doesn't change my life one way or the other.
Again, semantics!
Have a great holiday weekend!
But don't we all buy stock based on potential. Your interpretation of my posts is contrary to this.
I simply posted links to the fact the Kateeva has taken that patent to the next level.
The potential I see is that QMC could still be supplying Kateeva with materials for development.
This potential then therefore could lead to potential for commercial sales at some point.
So, if I try to be helpful to others on this board by posting additional info that I find related to Kateeva and quantum dots and it's interpreted by you to mean more, I'm now misleading?
You should find something better to do then try to spar with me over linguistics.
How about you go back a read my first 3 posts again?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149754248
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149754673
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149754763
Stop quoting from subsequent banter with you because all those since have clearly been disagreements with you and have opinions littered throughout by you and I.
QMC has stated multiple times that samples are customized to the end user or application. How do you customize without working together?
Semantics is all your doing. Call it what you want, argue what you will, but in the world of business where I work, it's called working together, a purchase, or whatever your want to call it.
For example, my company supplies a purchase specification to a supplier. The supplier reviews it and provides a quote. They may take exception to certain requirements and work with use to close the gap. During that period, I'm "working with" the supplier to the mutual benefit of both companies so we get our product and they manage to sell us something we can use.
Check my edited wording. I took note of your comment and changed my word from "working" to "worked." I didn't mean to imply they were still working together, but they very well could be.
I posted nothing but a patent that references using QMC's qdots by Kateeva and recent articles related to Kateeva's applications of qdots. If you interpret that as misleading, your view point is skewed.
I'll ask my question again, why choose QMC's quantum dots for use in their patent application examples? There are dozens of quantum dot suppliers out there for sample quantities. Some of which have better commercial success by far than QMC. Why not Nanosys or Nanoco or Sigma Aldrich, etc?
Just because QMC hasn't come out to say were working with Kateeva, doesn't me they aren't. It doesn't mean they still are either, but before today, did you know they supplied Kateeva with anything?
You've been here for a long time and know that I try to be fairly balanced. I get excited as an investor of QMC from time to time and might air toward the optimistic side, but for the most part, I try to present logic and facts, do I not?
Of course we don’t know if they are still working with Kateeva. But what we do know is that qdots are custom designed; therefore, they “worked” with QMC at some point. There’s a chance they are still working, but, of course, NDAs would prevent QMC from telling us that themselves.
You can either take the info or leave it. I’m only posting the ties that I found. Current business relationship are clearly not known to us.
To note, why didn't Kateeva buy from Sigma Aldrich? Sigma Aldrich clearly sells quantum dots (link below) and Kateeva ordered other materials from them.
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?term=quantum+dots&interface=All&N=0&mode=match%20partialmax&lang=en®ion=US&focus=product
Clearly they worked with some big names in the display sector. Kateeva is one of the leading OLED printing technology companies. Whether that business relationship continues, we'll have to see if anything develops further and is released to the public at some point. It's nice to see the connection.
Interesting tid bit. Kateeva bought qdots from QMC.
Coincidentally the same day the promo flag gets removed.
Looking at Kansas case, it looks like L2/SBI didn't supplement their briefing for argument to not have a jury trial. They missed the date to file a supplement to their briefing. I by no means have legal experience, but I would think you would want to update your argument for the court to explain why you don't want a jury trial when you lost the argument the first time.
06/10/2019 <******* Bench Notes *********>
PLF APPEARS BY BUSH, DEF APPEARS BY MODRCIN, PLF MOVES TO RERAISE MOTION TO STRIKE JURY -PLF MAY SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING BY 06/14/19; DEF RESPOND BY 06/28/19; PLF REPLY, IF ANY, BY 07/12/19; DISCOVERY CUT OFF 11/01/19; DISPO MOTIONS FILED BY 11/22/19(RPTR: RECORDING)(JUDGE: VANO)
http://www.jococourts.org/civroa.aspx?which=17CV06093
That's not a stock promotion, that's called an advertisement.
This is a stock promotion per the OTC.
To my knowledge, it was a single day update from a couple newsletters (email distribution lists). They pointed out the news that morning and were promoting a price spike similar to the 2-5 cent spike in March after news.
Not really sure how that qualifies as a promotion since most stocks go up on news, some more than others, but it clearly met the definition of promotion by the OTC and they flagged it.
Sounds like a possibility
Sucks for them. As you always say, there’s room in this market for multiple suppliers
Although I clearly missed your point, it’s not $7-10 million in just consulting services.
They are delivering the reactors, Schlenk line equipment, inline equipment, and other equipment. We don’t know the sale price for any of these deliverables.
They also have a consulting milestone for facility design, which I assume most of the design input has likely already been completed since building construction is beginning.
I assume the training is at a premium rate since it’s a trade secret they are teaching.
Consulting rates are likely more towards the standard rates that you referred.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315219002055/ex10-1.htm
I thought you were calculating based on how long it took to make revenue.
Lol! Funny perspective
About $0.50.
I suspect it’s the history of failed or missed projections on product development and sales over the years. Clearly there are still plenty here skeptical of the licensing deal actually becoming revenue, even when the company gives us status on a line of credit established to guarantee their milestone payments.
As more revenue is recognized on the books or they close additional deals, I think we’ll finally see a significant increase in valuation of the companies market value.
Under a licensing agreement, there would be little overhead associated with revenue. Therefore the revenue would nearly be all profit.
My evaluations have them hitting about $1.00 with as little as $13 million in revenue if you assume it’s 75% profit with a high market multiplier for future earnings potential.
Song and dance? 8k is not required per SEC filing requirements. They already shared the agreement and milestones are listed. They just gave an update on operational status.
QMC in its history has only put value into accounts receivable on a couple occasions. The last two were for $500k and $1 million. The PR marked the point were QMC now has that $1 million on the books as accounts receivable. If my accounting understanding is current, they met a milestone where they can now invoice and await payments, therefore credit to accounts receivable.
Then why can’t they provide evidence of the promotion?
I’m not the only one to request evidence and get the standard policy.
What, like the OTC is so regulated!
Did you notice that the OTC flagged QTMM for stock promotion? There’s a red bugle on the OTC website for QTMM quote.
I’m told that this is stopping some brokers from allowing purchases.
The OTC couldn’t provide evidence of said promotion to me when I inquired via email. They only restated their policy. I’m thinking someone at the OTC may be trying to manipulate the market, especially if some brokers aren’t allowing buy orders right now with the bugle present stating a stock promotion was on going.
Very odd that the promotion flagged showed up upon good press release by QMC.
I’m guessing order was placed. Now QMC invoices for the $1 million and terms are likely NET 30 days for payment to be received.
Do you know anything about the quantum dot sector?
Only one company, Nanosys, has product on market and they did that initially by licensing to Samsung. Nanosys has been in business for about 17 years. So 10 years to entry into market/revenue for QMC isn’t the worst in the qdot industry.
It was about 3 years ago when the qdot display market started commercial operations. About a year later the industry switched focus to wanting cadmium free. QMC has to shift with that market shift as they were working on cadmium based qdots.
So 3 years later QMC has revenue from its first licensing agreement. Potential new tech for qdot displayed (PRd) recently, and projection of $7-10 million in revenue this year.
There’s plenty of potential here in the next year, especially if they manage to bring a display to market while they get India facility up and running.
Yes, saw that flag the day of the PR. I emailed the OTC. They could provide me a source of the promotion. They simply reiterated their policy. I had asked for a link to the promotion.