Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by RAMA, Nov 30, 2012.
The current stock price of their featured company is a buck twenty. Lots of growth potential there!
This is a hype page for a company called "Nano Labs Corps". Fifteen minutes worth of research reveals that this company is actually the former Colorado Ceramic Tile Inc, a relatively unsuccessful small business that installed, among other things, high-end ceramic bathroom tiles. The company went out of business in March and reorganized itself into "Nano Lab Corps" with about $20 thousand in asset and at the time about $240 thousand in liabilities. According to their most recent SEC filings, the company presently has no assets to speak of and is about $180 thousand in debt.
Calorado Ceramic Tile Inc. had six employees. Nanolab Corps has two: Bernardo Camacho Chavarria and a Mexican chemist named Victor Manuel Castaño. It's unclear whether or not either of them are actually equipped to make any sort of revolutionary gains in the field of nanotechnology (Castaño certainly has the background for it), but considering the hype page and the character of their press releases, it seems evident that they've given up trying to get attention from regular investors and are now trolling the sci-tech mailing lists trying to get money from highly excitable types like yourself.
Calm down, RAMA.
That is all.
It's probably a meth lab.
I doubt it. Meth labs generate profit.
But what if you moved the meth inside ceramic tiles!
NanoMeth! It's all in front of you like a wheelbarrow, son.
That is all.
It's an investment page for a very real growing industry, and yes of course it's hyping the industry, all the major players, the large companies they point out, and technoindustrialists would all be banking on the nanotechnology industry's growth. However, this isnt the first page I've linked to describing the revenues of the industry, or the expansion of it.
An out of date page?? That's all?
Run a google search on the US government reports on nanotech, the National Science Foundation, etc and you'll see where that page is wrong...one serious indicator of development is the funding for R&D, that number is well above the revenue figure and was growing at 25% till 2008 before the WW recession. It is still over 18%. Total research dollars since 2000" $65 billion. Over $15 billion a year.
Estimates of corportate research: www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/dsti_stp_nano201215.pdf
The total VALUE of products incorporating nanotech is actually much higher than the revenue total. Here are some snippets:
National Science Foundation
A market assessement of nanotech sector by BCC research, a market forecasting company:
While the definitions and metrics of the growing industry are debated, they conservatively set the value of the market at $15.7 billion in 2010, though other sources value it over $1 trillion already.
More market research: Nanophotonics market worth $37.6 billion by 2014.
For other nanotech related info:
No it isn't, RAMA. It's not even a real investment page. It's an elaborate advertisement for a specific company that doesn't actually do anything.
Company. Singular. The entire web page is devoted to hyping CTLE by alluding to a purported boom in the nanotech industry as if CTLE will have anything whatsoever to do with that industry (so far it hasn't, and nothing on this page or on their own website gives any reason to believe they WILL).
Good, because this page does NEITHER of those things and is, in fact, an advertisement.
Which doesn't change the two fundamental objections raised in the article: 1) that various things are described under the umbrella of "nanotechnology" that are really just rebranding of other fields for hype purposes (e.g. materials science or biomedical research) and 2) that the projections include the value of things that are otherwise totally unrelated to nanotechnology -- prescription drug costs, in this example -- as if they are part of the industry as well.
In other words, it's a bit like looking at the auto industry and then including magazines (because they have ads for cars and car parts) television (because it has car commercials) movies (because there are often cars in them) ships (because they sometimes transport cars), roads (because cars drive on them) and every fast food restaurant in America (because they have drive-thru windows).
Since even a cursory examination of the data behind those claims reveals them for what they are, the only reason people continue to do this is with the intention of attracting easy investment capital from gullible dolts who don't know the first thing about smart investing.
This is exactly the sort of thing that goes on alot with IT startups, who are able to dazzle would-be investors with a lot of hype and buzzwords that mostly mask the fact that they don't have a viable business model, don't have a steady cash flow and generally don't know what the fuck they're doing. "We're an online retailer, just like Amazon! You should totally invest in us because Amazon makes billions of dollars doing retail online!" When they burn through all that initial capital and then seek further investment from experienced investors like Cisco Systems or Microsoft, they're left twisting in the wind and end up in bankruptcy.
Incase you don't get the analogy, it's this: "Our company has Nanotech in the name! Nanotech is a trillion dollar industry! You should totally invest in us because nanotech companies make trillions of dollars!"
You do realize this is a press release FROM Nanophotonics, right?
RAMA, do you really not understand the difference between advertisement and research? Or do you honestly believe the most interesting man in the world really drinks Dos Equis?
The investment page WAS and advertisement, I never said otherwise...however it collected info for the industry onto one page in promotion of it...I have backed up the numbers before and since so the claims are valid.
Yes, as I said, the total value of products is higher than the revenue, but the point is revenue is very high, and according to actual market research (of which I only named one or two companies in recent posts on the subject) still growing fast. As I also pointed out, while there is still debate in the industry and elsewhere abotu definitions and metrics, there already claims the industry is valued at $1 trillion. The $15-20 billion figure is conservative and does not include total value of all nano products, as is claimed in the op I answered. That number is much higher...from memory, I believe it was in the $60-70 billion range.
There is even a more optimistic assessment...$3.3 trillion business by 2018:
Global Information Inc along with Global Industry analysts, market research company
The significant drop in prices of a broad gamut of nanotechnology based products and materials such as nanoclays and silver-based nano-additives among others will especially help broaden their applications in wide spectrum of industries, thus boosting the market. Today, silver-based nano-additives find increased use in food, clothing and white goods applications. Growing penetration of nanotechnology based products in relatively niche application markets such as cosmetics, sporting goods, textiles, and environment protection also augurs well for the future of this market. Growing number of production facilities, and increasing collaboration among research institutes, universities and private sector players are also helping drive advancements in the industry. Most of the nanotechnology based products are gradually progressing from research laboratories to manufacturing process, which bodes well for the market.
In order to say nanotech will be a multi-trillion dollar industry in the near future, you require a definition of "nanotechnology" so broad as to be meaningless. The only reasons to push such an angle are to either attract investment dollars or push some other agenda, but clearly definitional precision is not a priority in either case.
Bringing nanotech materials development into the open, and with the likely success of carbon nanotubes, solar panel materials between now and the predicted 6th processing paradigm before 2020, the explosion of the industry even now means investment dollars for future nanotech, which will include rapid exponential development of assemblers and what people "normally" think of with nanotech. So we can't underestimate the importance of these reports.
The last market report I linked lists a definition and companies for nanotech.
The bolded part is a complete leap in logic and it totally falls apart.
Development of one kind of nano-scale technology does not imply we'll move right along to assemblers, self-replicating machines, atom-by-atom construction, etc. etc. This is a falsity implied by designating every industrial process performed at the nano scale as "nanotechnology," as if they are all equal and equally viable.
I'm sure there will be investment in the more "traditional" conceptions of nanotech, however there is no guarantee that they will succeed and result in practical products. It would be nice if they did, but that's the nature of technological progress: there are always a lot of dead ends before you hit on something that really works, and it isn't always what people predict it will be.
An advertisement is NOT an investment page; they are two different things.
And the fact that it collected positive-sounding information totally out of context and without citation or other factual support is the difference between commercial advertising and actual investment information.
But nowhere near a trillion dollars, not now nor in the near future, especially under any reasonable definition of "nanotechnology."
To be sure, it doesn't include the SPECULATIVE value of nano products that do not yet exist. Genuine market research doesn't attach value to things that haven't even been invented yet. You take that sort of case to a real investor and the first question he's going to ask is "Which of those nano products do you expect to be able to produce in the near future and how much do you plan to sell them to, and to whom, and in what quantity?" None of your market research even approaches that question; it's vague potentialities, which really just amounts to more hype.
FYI, technology research, like advertising, is NOT market research.
And what exactly are the revenues for manufacturers of THOSE products?
The drone business is going to grow much faster, IMHO. Especially if battery technology makes some significant milestones in the coming years. Electric quadcopter drones that can fly for 300 miles before needing fresh battery packs. You can bet police forces in every state in every nation is going to be buying these things. Meanwhile, gas powered drone use is ballooning even still (although you need a runway somewhere conveniently nearby to take off and land).
I want to see these things fly into tornadoes.
Separate names with a comma.