No Bella Luna & LA Times Misses the NanoMark

By the way . . . before I blog, did you see the COOL article on nanotechnology in the June 2006 National Geographic?

I wish they gave prizes for telling people when NOT to do an IPO . . . I've called two of these significant ones months in advance.

First Nanosys; now Luna - (LUNA)

Not only did LUNA come out at less than 50% of the top of its initial projected range at only $6, but the collection of underwriters could only sell 3.5 million shares instead of the 4 million projected. Since Friday's open it's traded relatively miniscule volume between $5.70 and 6.10.

(Forget for the moment, that LUNA, which we consider small tech, would have been the poster child for nanotechnology had it been/if it becomes a hugely successful IPO. On the other hand, because only part of the firm focuses on nano, the NanoHypesters can say "it wasn't even a nanotech IPO . . . who cares?" talk about having your cake and eating it too . . a real no lose situation.)

Let's translate this.

They thought they might have buyers for $52 million of the stuff with enough demand beyond that to kick it up a notch on opening. Instead, they could barely muster (we know this because of the weak, early trading in the $6 range) $21 million. Listen to the clear message. Who would take $21 million after expecting $40-50 million? Why not wait for a better opportunity to raise the $40 million?

Someone who REALLY needs the moolah to survive. . . . that's who.

IF the underwriters did half their job right, expect really strong fundamental news from Luna within 150 days and good support above $5 per share for the same. IF either of these fails to materialize, the current shareholders could be left holding the proverbial bag.

On a completely different subject I was awakened to anger by the LA Times writer who penned a bunch of eerie misconceptions and half truths masquerading as "reporting" on the problems nanotech may pose for the environment, health and public safety. Subjects we have more than touched on here.

Here's the whole sorry tale with my letters to my friend who sent me the article:

Nanotechnology may revolutionize our lives. The first generation of engineered products has reached consumers, and with them come hard questions about safety.

By Charles Piller
Times Staff Writer

June 1 2006

Magic Nano was billed as a miraculous solution for household drudgery, able to repel dirt and moisture from bathroom surfaces through the wonders of nanotechnology.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-nano1jun01,1,4298006.story

Then I wrote back:

A-

WOW ! thanks - while the article is IMPORTANT in that it shows the state of
Nanotech PR in the US (pretty bad)- - it really saddens me that the
so-called legitimate press could produce something so shot full of errors
and prejudice. .

And then I got even more annoyed and wrote:

Yeah - the bottom line is that the scientific community, government agencies and industry are all SUPER CONSCIOUS of the potential real health and environmental issues surrounding nanotech related products and manufacturing processes . . . there are some serious concerns about cosmetics . . . for example . . XYZ in macro form is safe and approved by the FDA . . . XYZ in nano form has been extensively tested on animals and let’s say is being rubbed into some peoples faces . . . every day - - will there be a problem in 30 years? - - -there could be .and this is where more and better testing may need to be implemented (ps - modern technology makes a test reliable without having to “wait” anything remotely like 30 years) . but that and the way it is tested and approved is NO different then for ANY new material . . . most nano will be imbedded - a consumer will never have contact with it in the same way you do not now have any regular contact with the inside of a silicon chip or car bumpers on chevy trucks which already have engineered nanoparticles in them. By the way - when problems have been found . . . (key issue is workers breathing in nanoparticles or having possibility of them blowing over them in some accident) they have been found to be MUCH less for example then problems handling gasoline, alcohol, aspirin, yada yada yada. - - you already breath billions of nanoparticles every day . . . probably every minute . . carbon from all from all those tires friction on every road in the world every second of the day is HUGE. . . some dust and smoke . . . airborne nanoparticles of soil and rocks . . . wow - I’ll save this email so I don’t have to vent again - - maybe I’ll blog it at www.blognano.com

and that's what I did.