• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Investing in nanotechnology companies


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 AgentNyder

  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Australia

Posted 28 August 2003 - 11:39 PM


From issue 6 of Technology Focus:

The field of nanotechnology is emerging as a major driver of technological change. It will make an increasingly important contribution to world economic growth over the next 25 years. A measure of its perceived importance can be gained by the commitments to nanoscale research in the US, Japan and, more recently, the UK.

I think this is a really great opportunity, and barring some external event, it could be a very financially lucrative to hold stocks in such companies. Also you would be directly supporting the very technologies that we want to see materialise for our future.

Anyway, so I did research on one company called pSivida Limited which is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

This is it's description:

pSivida Limited (PSD) (formerly the Sumich Group Limited) is primarily research and develop and commercialise Biosilicon, (nano-structured porous silicon). The 2 main product development areas are in drug delivery and orthopaedics.

I checked the chart (sorry I can't link it) and it's share price has tripled since August last year so it seems to be a strong growth company.

It may be a good time to look around at other nanotechnology stocks around the world if this is going to be the next big industrial revolution as it has so been predicted.. [sfty]

#2 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 29 August 2003 - 10:10 AM

Ssssssssssshhhhhhhh!

Keep it to yourself man! :)

#3 AgentNyder

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Australia

Posted 31 August 2003 - 02:10 AM

Ssssssssssshhhhhhhh!

Keep it to yourself man! :)


[lol]

I have to at least share info with my fellow immortalists. :)

If anyone hasn't come across this article yet;

The Nanomaterials Market Is Starting To Climb The Growth Curve

Small Times, Aug. 28, 2003

Aug. 28, 2003 – In the past few years, nanomaterials have become integral components of products as diverse as sunscreens, electrically conductive coatings, and strong, lightweight plastic composites. Now nanomaterials are vying for new markets in electronics, food packaging, industrial processing and other areas. Leading the charge in these applications are a multitude of companies that range from small startups to the chemical and plastics giants.
Nanotechnology is now a $385 million-per-year business in the United States, a figure that is expected to reach $3.5 billion by 2008 and $20 billion by 2013, notes a report by Consulting Resources Corp. (CRC), a Lexington, Mass. market research firm. For the years 2008 and beyond, the "increasingly significant" markets for nanomaterials, which typically range in size from 1 to 100 nanometers, will be in biomaterials, catalysts, diagnostics and electronics, the CRC study predicts.


Full article: http://www.smalltime...ocument_id=6523

And a list of Nanotechnology companies (American based I think):

Nanotechnologies Inc.
Nanoledge SA
Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc.
Rosseter Holdings Ltd.
Applied Sciences Inc.
Chengyin Technology Co. Ltd.
Hybrid Plastics
NanoMaterials Technology
AMR Technologies Inc.
Hyperion Catalysis

I think the person who finds the next 'Microsoft' for nanotechnology will obviously be a big winner. Imagine if you had brought into Microsoft shares in the early 80's today you would have a fortune. There is always risk, but what if....

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 31 August 2003 - 01:14 PM

I have never invested in company stock but I am considering it now. If a person wanted to find the next "Microsoft" I think nano/bio would be a good place to look. It is an emerging field... the best place to look for large growth. Thanks for posting the article AgentNyder

#5 AgentNyder

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 September 2003 - 02:20 AM

Your welcome, Mind :)

Some cautionary advice: http://www.you.com.au/news/1047.htm

Excerpt

Nanotechnology May be Over-Hyped


Nanotechnology will require sustained investment over at least the next decade, as well as more commercial applications, if it is to deliver on its initial promise.
Nanotechnology, which is the design and manufacture of extremely small electronic circuits and mechanical devices built at the molecular level of matter, has been touted as an emerging sector for some time now, but a white paper published on Thursday has said that the technology is over-hyped and a long way from delivering on its full potential.


#6 AgentNyder

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 September 2003 - 02:23 AM

World Nano-Economics Congress: http://www.iirusa.com/nano/

Nanotechnology companies in Australia: http://www.nanotechn...rea=browse&id=3

#7 JonesGuy

  • Guest
  • 1,183 posts
  • 8

Posted 02 September 2003 - 05:28 PM

This is one reason why I've been encouraging people to acquire and save great amounts of money. The most productive use of your money (other than investing in yourself) will be investing in IPO's of companies. That way, your dollar will be going directly into advancing a technology that you determine will be useful someday.

It's a rough analogy, but suppose you invest $40,000 into a company (at the IPO level, not on the secondary market). That would be the same as you devoting an entire year (assuming you make $40k a year) of your life into advancing that technology. That's nothing to sneeze at. That $40k could then be used to hire someone who's more of an expert than you are, in that field. Suddenly, pumping gas and slinging pizzas is work done advancing nanotechnolgy/biotechnology/computing/space development, etc.

Clearly, it's a rough analogy. But for some reason, people will spend countless hours on the internet surfing about a topic that they're interested in. But ask them to risk a dollar? No way.

I've said it before, but the two main ways we can speed the technology required is to either work on the technology ourselves, or to invest our money into the development of that technology.

As well, there will be more and more life-extending products available as our understanding develops. However, these products will not be produced if no one is purchasing them. Plasma TV's would not have been invented if no one bought TV's.

#8 AgentNyder

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 September 2003 - 10:38 AM

Some very good points, QJones.

I just thought I'd chart PSD since I couldn't figure out how to do it before, so here you'll get some insight on ONE Nanotechnology based company over the past year. Of course this is just one company there must be lots on the NYSE.

http://charts.comsec...038:33:38PM.gif

#9 80srich

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 September 2003 - 02:09 PM

I thought once nano technology peaks the currency system is going to collapse though? ;) What could you by that your replicator cant make at home

#10 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 17 September 2003 - 06:02 PM

The thing about nanotechnology is that it doesn't exist yet. Stain-free pants are not nanotechnology. The problem is that the word got coopted by huge groups of *micro*scientists and others working on better MEMS and such. The type of "nanotechnology" 95% of "nanotechnologists" are focusing on operates on the billion-or-larger atoms scale, which is small, but misses the point of bottom-up molecular manufacturing. So of course "nanotechnology" isn't delivering on its "promises". The word is polluted. It will be another 5 (yes, five!) to fifteen years before true nanotechnology (now called "molecular manufacturing" to avoid confusion) comes into existence, and it would be a result of that small 5% of nanotechnologists acutally working on real nanotechnology. At the moment, it looks like there's a decent chance China will get there first.

#11 80srich

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 September 2003 - 08:00 PM

True nano tech wont come out till the first assembler. When that hits world goes crazy. If it doesnt hit kiss goodbye super longevity. 5 years seems very optimistic where do you get that source? Zyvex the main american company i know of working towards this goal sets a ten year expectancy. Is china doing better ? I hear about their massive investments. Maybe its time for a language course...

#12 JonesGuy

  • Guest
  • 1,183 posts
  • 8

Posted 18 September 2003 - 01:33 AM

I would point out that putting your money into an IPO has a much greater effect for boosting the company than supporting the secondary market. A successful IPO (initial public offering) essentially doubles the resources of a company (assuming it is sold for the appropriate price). Supporting the secondary market does very little.

It's like if you gave me $100,000 to buy my restaurant, but I used the money to expand it. VS. You gave my father $100,000 to buy his investment of my restaurant. As a manager, I get no benefit out of the money you give my father.

If you're lucky, you can make money selling your IPO and redirecting the money to something useful. Have I pounded the importance of money to death yet?

#13 80srich

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 September 2003 - 05:00 PM

What kind of returns do you get on an IPO? Sorry finance isnt my specialty, my family has always dealt in property rather than shares.

#14 JonesGuy

  • Guest
  • 1,183 posts
  • 8

Posted 20 September 2003 - 09:03 PM

What is an IPO?

An initial public offering (IPO) is basically a company's first sale of stock to the public. Typically, an IPO involves the stock from a young and oftentimes little-known, if not obscure, company. But occasionally, well-known and well-established firms do "go public." For example, last November, Rupert Murdoch's Australia-based media company News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) sold 18.6% of Fox Entertainment (NYSE: FOX) -- which owns, among other things, the FOX broadcast network, one of the top movie studios, and local TV stations -- to the public, raising $2.81 billion. Another well-known company planning to go public soon is none other than investment banking firm Goldman Sachs.

Now don't confuse a follow-on offering or a secondary offering with an IPO. A follow-on offering occurs when a company that's already public -- meaning it has already done an IPO -- sells more shares to the public. Think of the pregnant woman analogy. A woman can't have a firstborn more than once, but she can give birth multiple times. A secondary offering, on the other hand, involves selling shares belonging to existing shareholders.

Why do companies go public?

To raise money. Recently, it seems that just about every company with a "dot-com" in its name has been "cashing in" on investors' seemingly insatiable appetite for Internet company IPOs. The most extreme case of Internet mania of late involved online community theglobe.com (Nasdaq: TGLO), which shot up nearly 11 times its IPO price of $9 in its first day of trading, finishing the day up $54 1/2, or 600%, to $63 1/2. Not bad for a business run by two 24-year-olds who started out with $15,000 raised from family and friends. Immediately following the IPO, the stock traded mostly in the $30 to $45 range.

If you're a cynic, you might say that a company opts to go public because it expects to reap little profit -- making it cheaper to have shareholders than to owe fixed interest payments -- or that the company simply can't get funding from traditional lenders, meaning that it's in a high-risk business. If either is the case, as is true for many IPOs, you should avoid jumping on the IPO bandwagon at all costs.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for going public, such as increasing the company's financial base, liquidity, prestige, and ability to attract management and make acquisitions. Or, it could be that an established company is spinning off subsidiaries to "unlock hidden value," as in the case of Fox Entertainment -- News Corp. has long complained that its shares have been undervalued.

More info

#15 AgentNyder

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 September 2003 - 02:01 AM

When I say 'nanotechnology companies' I'm not sure how many companies are actually solely working with nanotech. Already established companies like IBM are branching off into nanotech but I don't think it's their main growth area - YET.

Who knows but this will require some hefty research into the current (and projected) industry out there. It is probably safest to diversify your portfolio of shares if you are serious about investing in this area as well.

Also, I'm sure there are quite a few managed funds around that specialise in this sort of thing.

#16 chubtoad

  • Life Member
  • 976 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 21 September 2003 - 02:12 AM

I talked to a guy I know who is working on a project involving carbon nanotubes at northwestern today. He was very optimistic about the near future of nanotechnology and said that they are making new things all the time.

#17 A941

  • Guest
  • 1,027 posts
  • 51
  • Location:Austria

Posted 21 September 2003 - 02:27 AM

Interessting!

But is there a possibility for everybody to help develope nanotech/ Biotech, like folding home or similar projects?
I think it would be a nice idea to create something like a Personal- Compact-Laboratory (PCL) and to connect such an unit with a normal Personal Computer, an d do research at home. ;)

#18 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 September 2003 - 08:43 PM

Anyways...

May do something since its modding viral prots. Prototype: 2007.

Nanomotor to Power Bloodstream Robots

#19 imminstmorals

  • Guest
  • 68 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 October 2003 - 12:10 PM

this is not fair i aint got moni lol




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users