Important New Nano-Book by Gasman

Nanomarkets' and our own (see special reports) Lawrence Gasman has produced an exceptional contribution to the literature of nanotech, Nanotechnology: Applications and Markets. Everyone interested in exactly how nanotech is going to impact products, markets, industries and businesses must study this concise and worthwhile read.

Lawrence has decades of experience analyzing the impact of, commercialization processes and "productization" of new technologies, and he is one of the most down-to-earth reporters on the goings on in real world manufacturing and basic industrial demands, as well as the far-out world of nanotechnology.

The book's real value lays in chapters on nanotech's likely and UNLIKELY impacts on industries as diverse as semiconductors, medical, computing, pharmaceuticals, communications, alternative energy, pollution control and advanced materials. From there, Lawrence leads executives (and investors) on an examination of specific industry-related opportunities and then the step-by-step tools on exactly how to conduct a nanotech audit in any particular company. His strategy will help businesses, large and small, identify both commercial opportunities and threats stemming from advances in nanotechnology.

I feel that scientists and engineers can also benefit from Nanotechnology: Applications and Markets simply because it orients any reader to a perspective where solutions to problems and products that are needed or useful become the key areas of interest. Clearly, a fruitful place for engineers to start . . . I think one that more and more scientists will find a beneficial focus.

All and all, this is one of the few books related to nano, that belongs on everyone's shelf. Buy a copy today! and visit our bookstore to get substantial discounts on all scientific, technical and business books related to small technologies.

Don't Screw Around for 75 Cents a Day! and That Sickening Sound You Hear is Illiquidity Calling

The pervasive illiquidity of most nanotech and small tech-related stocks has only just begun to negatively impact their stock prices and valuations - The scary part is yet to come . . . more on that below.

If you invest, speculate or trade in small tech stocks why are you screwing around for 75 cents ($274/yr) per day?! That's how much my Small Tech Prospector (basically the essence of GOLD MEMBERSHIP to Nanotechnology.com) costs - Since May 1st alone, subscribers who have followed our recommendations have made or saved MANY MULTIPLES OF THAT!!

While all the NanoHypesters were promoting this stock or that private company (that you can't even invest in) and telling you nanotech stocks were just beginning an endless rise to everlasting riches we were CLEARLY THERE (read it for yourself in the May 2, 2006 issue in the Archive hot-linked above) SAYING TO "SELL" and "Go Short."

How? Because we're actually a REAL, SERIOUS group of scientists AND stock market professionals with decades of experience trading speculative, illiquid stocks. Look, (not to brag, but I can't avoid the facts) I (not anyone else) wrote the FIRST and ONLY book on successful investing in nanotech and the small technologies. Not the guy who wrote the first book with the word "investors" in the title, not the guy who ripped off and dumbed down the essence of my book, Nanotech Fortunes, and certainly not the 2 guys with the big newsletter subscriberships.

I'm tired of hearing these pretenders' claims, but more tired of hearing investors giving them credit that belongs to me and my team. I'll put the track record of Nanotech Fortunes and The Small Tech Prospector up against anyone's in the space.

If you examine it, you'll agree: No one is even close.

Now, on the illiquidity. I like alot about the company and stock of PSDV and was looking to recommend it to Prospector subscribers last week on a bottoming pattern that emerged. The stock was thinly trading at $4.70. HOW IN THE WORLD COULD I RECOMMEND IT - AVERAGING 5,000 SHARES/DAY AND weakly bid at $4.45!! Folks would have paid $5.25 at least and the true market for the shares if they needed to sell would have been $4 at best . . . how can u make money with an immediate 20%+ loss??! You can't.

And this is just the beginning.

Prepare yourself for the disappearing of bids and the BAD SIDE of illiquidity moving ("moving" - no, SPIRALING) these stocks downward to prices the NanoHypesters can't imagine. "There is nothing left but the crying", from here. It won't last forever . . . just 6-30 months (it's all in my book, too)! Prospector subscribers will hopefully play the occaisional, significant bear market rallies & benefit from multiple shorting opportunities.

Then we'll be vigilent to be there when others are throwing in the towel to buy for the BULL MARKET that takes these stocks to truly overvalued levels.

But for now . . . You heard it here first: "Watch out below."

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.