Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[luckyorange] 15/5/2017 21:18

No I wasn't there but felt as if I was listening to the vox markets podcast, Neill said everything that you guys reported back plus I felt a little bit more because every week seems to move it on and fire him up just a little bit more.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 21:07

Just mooching about looking at the ADVFN free BB list and it seems to me considering the supposed number of subscribers and the amount of companies available that very few post in recent times.

The highly busy BBs of a year or two ago seem to have slipped into the ether.

Perhaps a sign that ADVFN will do the same as time goes on.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 18:15

Were you there Lucky as that is one line he did say.

Something like

"We are very busy so
let us get on with it"

Neill and Chris helped take one company from £18 mill to £75 mill revenue. They know what they are doing.

[luckyorange] 15/5/2017 17:49

There was a lot I was going to say but better not, except for this, NR has a very big interest in this company, has built it up (with help) from two blokes in a garage, has past experience of being a director, has worked in F1, has many many contacts and probably doesn't need the advice given on a bb (however well meaning).

Let him get on with it and see where it takes us, somewhere pretty good I suspect, just a little patience required for goodness sake!

[superg1] 15/5/2017 16:42

They got the understanding of the team right hence I suspect they were there.

A guy from Cantor Fitzgerald was there too.

I'm doing the middle ground as few understand the sector and there were some that didn't know a lot about VRS or graphene.

It is true that some have high costs but equally there may have been an assumption with high graphene prices achieved that it has high costs to produce it.

Obviously I'm talking about a continuous production process driven by demand not a few guys costing £30k each per year with sales of grams.

[phoenixs] 15/5/2017 15:59

I am trying to think of who that person could be, Contrariwise. I was present and would be very surprised if Contrariwise was present. I recall that there may have been a total of 16 people present of whom 3 were company directors, a couple were associated with the company and a couple of city boys. So not many remain. I think that Contrariwise is trying to pull a fast one.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 15:37

TheKLF

If you listen to other podcasts that's his trait and it's quite enjoyable compared to the robotic obviously pre planned questions and answers. It makes it a bit more interesting and I love his punchline of "The answer is graphene"

He gets that from learning that graphed can go into almost anything and improve things so whatever the problem is the answer is graphene.

By the IOF folks graphene iodide and other iodine graphene combinations are being played around with. Germ killing/barrier composites is one.

Targeted cancer cell drug delivery, graphene. Nerve rebuilding, graphene. Radiation shielding, gas and water barriers, bio sensor, chemical and health sensor, strength electrical, thermal, optical, armour etc etc etc the answer is graphene.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 15:28

Lucky

re the iii postern the comment saying graphene is expensive to produce.

The poster puts that in as if it was said at the Cambridge day and declares that he was there.

It is completely untrue. niceandsimple has picked up on that post so no doubt assumes that was solid information stated by the VRS team.

It is completely untrue.

The poster recording that them announced he had sold a good chunk of his shares with profit and that it has drifted since.

That indicates he sold the share before Cambridge day perhaps in the mid 20's.

Eg he says

"I spent a couple of hours in Cambridge this morning meeting management and being shown around Cambridge Graphene centre."

"Graphene is a new product that is still looking for applications. At present it is too expensive to replace existing technologies in current products, instead it will be used in new higher value added products. Unfortunately, that means the company may face a long path to commercial success as it takes time to develop the new applications."

He is trying to infer that was said on the day and leaves the company with a very limited market.

re his selling, he says

"I will admit that I have sold down a large chunk of my holding at a good profit as the share price has come down.I fully intend to buy back in if and when some of the great prospects start to be fulfilled, but a profit is a profit. The share price is currently drifting down, who knows how low it will go."


So sold must of his holding it seems and then posts a point which is untrue as an attendee at Cambridge.

Either he is mistaken or is making it up to put off investors while he waits to get back in lower and posts negatively for that purpose.

I get profit taking, I get warning about high risk investments, I don't agree with posting false information.

Let's hope the said poster made a mistake and was not intentionally trying to mislead investors.

That's why I say DYOR. If I was on III I'd correct him. As I think III are a bunch of lying toerags (long story which I can back up) I won't go there.

[spike_1] 15/5/2017 15:27

KLF - yes the interviewer was indeed very irksome!

[theklf] 15/5/2017 15:18

Goodness me that chap he is talking to just comes across as a cheerleading clown rather than a serious interviewer.

50-100 'transformational opportunities'

Assuming just a 1 in 10 follow through from such early stage pipeline you can easily see where the excitement comes from. Managing the relationships, qualifying the opportunities is going to be key. If I was in Ricketts position I would only be fielding and dealing with inquiries where there is Board level buy-in and named/resourced engineering commitments so you can push the opportunity along at Board to Board level as well as Engineer to Engineer level. I've had experience on the Board of a tech company and too often supposedly strong partnership commitments wither because they are just not qualified correctly from the start and then not managed properly through their lifecycle.

I'd be keen to know how they have seen early contacts go in terms of sales opportunity, qualification , deliverables and the meeting of those from both sides.

[rogerbridge] 15/5/2017 15:18

With all of the NDA's I feel sure that a percentage will come to fruition, but when is the question. The other companies in the group are providing the capital, I now look to see how much I can loose before investing, and there seems to be scant probability of loosing my investment.
If VRS had a consumer product to sell, the reps would go out and obtain orders. VRS can offer samples of Nanene and inks, but have to wait for their customer to take a product to market, unless it is an up and running item. Even then, the customer would probably want to re-launch the product with it's new benefits.

We are in the hands of others, we will have orders for samples, such as the ink for Nokia, but the timing of product launches is out of our hands. In 12 months time, or maybe sooner, we should be racing away.

[chumbo] 15/5/2017 14:14

Ok. Maybe one to mention if you bump into Tom Becker. Potentially lower opex if no consumable resins/sorbents needed.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 13:47

Chumbo

I had been thinking about that one myself and Oklahoma Oil and gas want recycling as Oklahoma is water short. The issue currently is the cost so it's not viable.

Such membranes will be way off but the interest to get to that stage will be current.

The Manchester breakthrough is a lab level advance so some way to go yet. VRS GNPS and the ink started out around 5 plus years ago. The R and D was done by Unis and when it was proven scalable and viable the spin outs came.

That's the trouble with AGM, it was sold to the market as a ready to go graphene production unit when the truth is scaled up it's not working.

So if anyone wants to know about sales or lack of them then AGM is agree example.

If VRS Nanene launch +3 years and they have no sales then there will be something to moan about.

Some go on about VRS not having a big enough team yet flip side AGM has far more chiefs than Indians selling nothing and pricing nothing. £18k worth of finished products as in the last results says it all.

[chumbo] 15/5/2017 12:42

Back briefly to the mention of VRS and IOF together. If you can desalinate seawater with a functionalised graphene membrane could you similarly pull iodine out of brine at say 30,000 bpd?

[jointer13] 15/5/2017 12:32

for anyone whos missed it.

its worth a listen.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 10:16

Put it this way for the IOF folks.

If IOF were in an NDA with SQM you'd all be shouting about the fear of a cheap T/O but would also be excited about the short term potential. The Sp would take off if that was announced.

VRS are with many companies, some equal in size to SQM, some 10 times the size and others 30-50 times the size of them.

It's safe to say I'm not interested in short term sales as said in previous posts I'd be happy with about 3 kgs over the next year or so if at good prices. My interest is the big companies as I know one or two decent deals/heads of terms is going to capture market attention and could depending on what the deals are transform the company.

It doesn't matter if it's a £4 bill company or one over £100 bill or £200 bill the reaction is more or less the same. They are in NDAs with 50-100 of them as quoted.

If that happens the city reacts and volumes we see on trading go through the roof. Funds in the right circs will happily go aggressive and support trends.

Hence I worry not about short term sales but look more towards the longer term prospects which if converted could be phenomenal for the company. Short terms large sales simply don't happen with large company NDAs. However some on the list are the aggressive type.

That ignores licensing deals of course.

In the podcast interview I thought one was fairly obvious who it was when he said about a large UK company that is known for bringing innovative products to market. They were on the NDA list and are partner to both Unis.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 10:05

The odd very large company has experience with graphene and has done trials with a number of uses mentioned they will have their own data.

So why would that company appear with an NDA with VRS?

They are NDA's with VRS. Why bother when they have vast amounts of cash and are one of the most prominent companies in the world in their sector.

I can only guess but is it because they have seen VRS results on Nanene and it exceeds what they have done themselves. Is Nanene a threat to their business in that it offers equal or superior products to what they create themselves.

In fact that type of deal or threat if we can call it that is why the CEO wouldn't want too much dilution.

Such a company doesn't need VRS in theory so why the hell are they in an NDA, there must be something that triggered that, what it is I don't know, but I intend to have a good look through that company re it's graphene comments.

T/O rules require 75% of the vote. If you can create 25% security knowing what the vote is then it keeps such issues at arm's length.

In fact I discussed with the CEO to combat that they should consider making share options available which would allow then to execute and get the necessary percentage option to add along with backers to get over the 25% mark.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 09:55

Rid

My gaze is towards NTPT if that helps as it's quite clearly still live and NTPT have a number of customers with various products. NTPT are seen as an advanced carbon fibre company due to their thin layering technology.

The results of using VRS GNPs are clearly shown on the Mclaren website where Mclaren openly enthuse about the significant gains. Their lead technical guys are clearly blown away by the gains which is unseen in their industry, they seek fractional gains as that tends to be all that is available.

That was VRS GNPs supplied in a resin to NTPT and a product created for Mclaren

As for other sales, to unit and the like yes it can be done but that is small scale. For the big names there will probably be product A identified than tests wanted to show how it works for them in that product a successful outcome probably resulting in a deal to supply the GNPs or the goods as VRS in many cases with their factory and PEEK/PAEK set up can produce the product.

The one thing they are missing is their own carbon fibre ability.

Many of those big companies have no idea how to mix GNPs into their products and what it does.

[redchef] 15/5/2017 09:43

Promising signs of a breakthrough on the graph this morning

[ridicule] 15/5/2017 09:41

I agree with the comments of both compoundup and Superg (I was not advocating a price reduction to get sales. I was making the point that pricing flexibility should increase the chance of sales.) My point is quite simple, given the position VRS hold in the graphene market place and the level of interest they have, there should have been at least some orders secured so far this year and the fact there have not been is a point of conern to me.

[compoundup] 15/5/2017 09:31

ridicule - having attended the Cambridge event, I was convinced by NR's philosophy of sorting the enquiries that had a chance of leading to market more quickly from those that didn't.

While suitably impressed with the big name NDAs I felt that the sheer volume of enquiries that NR was having to deal with would make it difficult to know which deserved the most urgent attention, perhaps from relatively small origins, that might be overlooked if management allowed themselves to be star-struck by the attention of big industrial end-users.

A genuine enquiry not followed up can result be bad PR. So what if it's only for a modest amount of product to begin with. I hear and concur with the argument that there is going to be enough business to go around all capable suppliers of few layer graphene in the years to come. Nevertheless, enquiries from smaller entrepreneurial businesses that are more capable of more rapid decision making and investment than industrial leviathans need not to be lost among all the big noise.

In any case, early revenue must be a key objective. NR seems to be pretty cute with pricing so I am less worried about that.

[superg1] 15/5/2017 09:28

On the viable point, that is the whole point.

Depending on the size of the order and pricing VRS can decide if they want to take that deal on. If its worth millions on the cost per gram is £5 per under they they have to decide on capital outlay and how much of their production and time that would take.

They could take up front payments in the deal for the capital equipment.

EG

I discussed one deal that was ignored and this is where it demonstrates big company lack of understanding.

That company has high end goods highly suitable for GNPs but were interested in a mass market low end product of 50p to £2 per unit. So in that case the GNPs had to be pence.
What you do there is just laugh and put the phone down. If such company wanted to throw some graphite junk in and call it graphene then they could probably do that, but the issue is they are a quality based company. iT would not work and all they could do without standards is call it graphene related but there would be no performance improvement so it's pointless.

I'll pick out the aircraft seating numbers someone sent me and it makes interesting reading.