Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 19/6/2017 07:59

Good post

An opinion based on direct knowledge of the industry and materials involved.

[dr andrewd] 19/6/2017 00:23

I think I see things differently to those with concerns on here.

I have held senior positions in technology companies for a number of years. I have seen exclusive deals resulting in the technology being blocked. I have seen NDAs signed with every market player, both Tier1 and OEM, a very positives response from all, but the when the product doesn't fit with long term direction, it doesn't make it.

In these cases the technology was disruptive and there were risks involved to adopt it.

There are many things however that I like about the VRS offering which allay similar concerns:
1. There are many companies working in this space, so if someone wanted to block all competition, they would have to identify any companies with potential and sign a lot of exclusive deals. I don't see that as being practical, and unless there was serious cash on the table, given the number of potential customers, I can't see it being sensible for VRS.
2. In the case of structural composites, the technology does not completely replace an existing product, it enhances it. With the right graphene, you add a couple of percent to an existing product and you have significantly improved material properties. The only question then is which companies have graphene that is proven to improve strength along with other properties. Nanene appears to be the best one out there based on published performance data and academic papers.
3. For many other applications, I have similar thoughts to 2, ie. addition of graphene makes things like batteries, paints, plastics... have better properties. Therefore a manufacturer can improve their existing product by adding graphene, it does not wipe out the investment in their existing product.
4. There is a genuine requirement for the improvements that graphene can provide, for example:
- better batteries will make EVs a practical reality
- stronger structural composites will result in lighter more efficient aircraft and cars
- cost effective printed electronics will enable the Internet of things so for example your fridge will know what is about to go out of date and what needs to be ordered on your next shop.
VRS appears to be one of the leaders in products that can improve structural composites 'Nanene' which is independently validated, and printable graphene which can be printed at high rates.

Whilst progress to announce contracts etc may appear slow, I am not surprised as I expect that potential customers will need to make samples with their preferred resin systems to prove material properties are correct, then make samples of their own products and test them. I would hope that contracts will be signed over the next 6 months, so that production can increase and the graphene part of the business can go into significant profit.

In terms of the number of customers to work with, to me, you don't want to have all your eggs in one basket. For Nanene for example, VRS are selling basically one product in the same form to lots of customers, they are not developing complex bespoke products for each customer. The customer will be taking the graphene to develop and improve their own product, so in principle VRS should be able to support many customers using their extensive knowledge and expertise with little overhead.

All in my opinion

[superg1] 18/6/2017 13:43

Just checking as your posts seem to swing around at times. Same here BTW. It's different it you are just doing 30k or 50k in and out trading, you can do that, but when it comes to larger holdings it's often pointless as on balance you are not going to get it right. If the odds were most would get it right then we'd all be traders, but he fact is it doesn't happen and we are working against a corrupt market.

In a casino the casino will always win as the averages are stacked in their favour, over time they will always win. On the AIM its a casino working with marked cards and loaded dice, some will get lucky but most will lose.

On the NDA front I know you mentioned NDAs mean not mentioning the other. I don't see them as that but restrictive agreements so that confidential information between two parties can be shared. EG I have something and it may well see improvements/enhancements by using graphene but I don't want you nicking my idea or giving anyone else the info and vice versa.

During such an agreement I find out what you want and how/if will work together. If a gain is to be made and the interested party wants it then we move forward with an MOU, JV or collaboration.

EG I assume CT, Absolute and other current collaborations started out as NDAs. In the collaborations trials are probably ongoing in particular areas.

What I learned with with graphene is to try not to imagine what some are doing because there are many aspects and ideas that many of us haven't thought of. Single ideas that have seen some AIM shares fly. Here we have a myriad of possibilities, so I'll hang in there and se what happens.

The market hasn't taken the slightest interest in graphene stocks as yet, just the odd fund and a small section of PIs. No graphene stock is going mad with high volume. I look at some hype stocks and to release full value they could need 100's of millions. For VRS vast funds are not needed, yet some like XG have wasted near $50 million.

[luckyorange] 18/6/2017 12:32

Nice post KLF.

Would be interesting to know how Thomas Swan is progressing and just a guess that they would be VRS main competitor. They did say that they could produce 16 tonnes of graphene a year.

They did put a lump of money into Trinity College Dublin for research but last years accounts don't show a significant improvement in the bottom line.

However they are a chemical company and the investment in Trinity has given them the IP to produce other non-graphene 2D products.

Great company with plenty of cash on the balance sheet but would really like to know how their price per kilo of graphene compares with that of VRS.

[theklf] 17/6/2017 21:14

I'm a long term buy and hold investor sg1. I don't think I'm clever enough to 'time the market'.
I continue to think the stock is hugely undervalued but when one is presented with a narrative of a 'target rich environment' then one must ask questions as to why there is not delivery on those targets in a 'linear' manner. (I have raised questions intermittently whether the prevailing share price is going up or down)
I would imagine those are the sorts of questions owners of the company would want answers to.

[superg1] 17/6/2017 19:47

The KLF

What changed of you compared to a previous post you made. You did mention post that talking to some local engineer isn't up too much and then he popped up in the majors back yard talking to them.

Is it your position that changes or your view to fit it, just asking?

EG

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.

[superg1] 17/6/2017 19:32

The difference between you and I the KLF is knowing many of the NDA names. I can then see what those names are doing in the graphene space, who they are partnered with and what they may have already done in the graphene sector with other graphene companies.

So based on that and knowing VRS have proven their graphene works and is cost effective on capex and opex then all the ingredients are there to capture the interest of such big names.

Then VRS are backed and supported by the major universities in graphene who are also shareholders.

To me the full menu is what makes VRS stand out from many others and they have a very capable team at the wheel to steer the ship in the right direction.

The question is whether the market wants graphene. If not the government wasted over £100 mill in Manchester and the students flocking to Manchester and Cambridge from around the world on graphene related studies are wasting their time.

However the hold up has been viable graphene.

I'm not guessing I heard the multi-layer doesn't work anywhere near the level of few layer and then there are various other factors to be met before it will work.

No matter how many times it gets posted even with the documents and scientific tests to prove it, posters point to a 'graphene producer'.

They are too lazy to read the papers and therefore they will never understand why VRS on graphene is a great investment from the point of view of the chance that majors may take an interest.

The simple
question should be this.

We know Aims love to big it up as does nay company. The world is looking for performance enhancement. So why aren't the companies it it detailing the full performance gains.

Take XG sciences 'the world lead' No details about performance and when I questioned them they wanted to chat about performance not point any papers. All papers listed on their site are by the founders and most are immaterial topics.

So I sent then papers showing their own product tested by others and the results were very poor at which point they didn't want to chat anymore. As shown in great detail XG are a busted flush but they did some damage to the graphene market in their BS which led some to believe graphene doesn't work. That after they wasted $47 million.

So now imho graphene is heading into a new era where the cowboys are starting to be found out, real graphene will work and big names are starting to look at real graphene.

As pointed out before many of those big names COLD CALLED VRS. Some in recent weeks and some of those names have been mentioned.

Big names don't do that without good reason.

[luckyorange] 17/6/2017 19:09

As an afterthought , have you spoken to NR yet ?

If indeed he does read BB posts then there is probably nothing worse than a nameless ex director of a company postulating on what they actually do as a company when he probably knows different.

If you are an investor or intend to be, talk to him!

[superg1] 17/6/2017 19:09

The KLF

I get your concerns that's why the company call NDAs worthless yet some AIMs try to make big noise about one major they are talking too.

The key in the blue sky side is that they have solutions to problems and it's about understanding what the problem is.

There is a big problem with heat management due to advancing technology, such of which didn't exist some years ago. The issue is the copper foam is disruptive, the Liverpool uni breakthrough was the increase in surface area which dissipates heat more effectively and may well be a class leading product, however introducing impacts other established suppliers. I don't like the heat management side they bought I don't get that but I like the copper foam.

That's what I was looking at before they bought 2D tech

So for the graphene. It's new and can enhance other existing materials. Carbon fibre is expensive but it made the breakthrough as it offered strength with light-weight so it seems highly likely graphene enhanced carbon fibre will be commonplace in the future. The beauty of graphene additives is that it's transformational but not disruptive, although a customer could add it and make their product more attractive.

Graphene can also feature in heat management and we all know the issue for smartphones with heat. The processor demand ups the heat levels, the battery gets hot and so on. It's a problem. The heat causes performance issues to develop. One answer to help for me is casings that dissipate heat.

The way VRS are progressing they may well get to the point of being able to offer a better product directly as in the case of AAC. Instead of just offering graphene to a customer to make their composite better VRS could offer the composite themselves.

They have the plastic side, they have a collaboration for PEEK/PAEK, they have ink for the electronics and other markets but they don't have carbon fibre.

I used to think dispersion would be an issue in the early days. I still don't know by what means they do it but obviously they have it cracked.

[luckyorange] 17/6/2017 18:08

Same with any company KLF, but if they don't have the tech and capability to produce a product to the same specs / standards it is, although not immaterial but time wasting and that is the risk/price you pay.

However, qualifying the pipeline is not that simple either, the potential customers are taking a risk too but know that you buy cheap buy twice.

VRS will get there NR is an experienced man and is probably looking for that Head of Sales, but I would suspect that NR prioritises which all good Managers and CEO's do.... don't they?

Don't underestimate the man and the team.

[theklf] 17/6/2017 17:27

Guys I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but as I've mentioned before I have been on the Board of a tech company and it really is important we don't fly off into flights of fancy on the basis of 'Apple this' or 'McLaren that' etc. The Company I was on the Board of had 'contacts'/NDAs with several major companies (multi-billion US companies in fact) and it all came to didley squat in the end. It is very important to qualify the sales pipeline and also to realise these people are not your friends. Oftentimes the pally-pally early contact gives way to legal threats and attempts to close you down having extracted vital information on key people/IP etc

It should be really concerning to anybody who understands how business works that we are hearing about '130 potential customers' for the copper foam. What good does that do us ? We should have a Head of Sales who qualifies the sales pipeline so we only have a few real customers rather than split our resource taking pointless enquiries from people who may actually just be scouting for pricing/tech information on behalf of suppliers/customers/competitors etc

[luckyorange] 17/6/2017 16:29

Wonder if Dyson have gtech on their radar, must have?

gtech moving ahead.

[luckyorange] 17/6/2017 10:45

Esteban Morras ... DAS-Nano SL

Alejandro v. Martinez.... AIN advanced materials

Bojan Boskovic.... Cambridge Nanomaterials Technology Ltd

Triana Garcia de la Pena.... Best Nanotech Solutions

Maria Llorente.... Bionanoplus

Pritesh Hiralal... Zinergy UK

Aritz Goni....Zabala innovation consulting

Maria J Rodriguez.... CENER

Just the list from the tweet, I expect Aritz was a seller and the rest interested parties in some aspects?

[superg1] 17/6/2017 09:08

We talk graphene all the time.

We know copper foam is being trialled by 130 customers. I have it as slow burn as it would be displacing existing heat sink supply routes.

They started to supply at least one major as in news. I haven't tracked that much so if and don't expect big things for the recent year end, but equally have no idea.

What we do know is that a good name recently NDA'd re those for an application which is in just about every product they do and I know that company are looking to a new market well beyond anything they have done before which would require heat management.

[superg1] 17/6/2017 08:58

As I learned on one or two share many moons ago it's better to be oblivious.

On one (not a share you may think of) I knew exactly what was supposed to be happening right from the heart of it and you wouldn't believe what was being said. I stuck to the rules on that. None of it happened so I did my own work post the junk and started to exchange info of my findings which then unbeknown to me some thought I was spreading inside info. That's because what I found was right and did happen.

Hence I prefer to dig in and do my own research. You won't necessarily find all the answers in one place. But to get answers don't ask questions or if you do ask questions think ahead and ask questions which are not relevant at the time and subject to inside info at the time you are asking them.

Hence simple thinks like scaling up I know the module size to scale up and how much it would cost and what the yield would be, rough costs per gram etc.

That's why I bang on about AGM, they talk 1.5 tonnes but I doubt looking at detail due to the need to go slow to get the quality that they could do much beyond kgs.

VRS could go to 1 tonne plus capacities plus no problem at low capex and opex. In fact with the £10 mill or so AGM have wasted on salaries VRS would have considerable world lead on that.

However until, the market is buying large scale high quality graphene in bulk then there is no need to waste money scaling up. It can be done in about 4 weeks so there is no need to act.

The larger sales we see worldwide are to do with many layer graphene which in time will probably end up classified as nano graphite. XG sciences sold much of their M grade which is junk and the end users now know that.

Nano = anything under 100 nm which is 300 layers of graphene. When scientists created graphene is was down to being able to get to one layer. 100's of layers and been around for some time.

The comment by Professor Ferrari at Cambridge said it all. The find in 2004 re graphene opened up the door to a new era of science because now they think about what could happen re the 2000 or so other materials which they could break down to nano scale and see what properties appear. EG Boron Nitride is one.

The largest scale nano material by far is silver. A long time ago they discovered at nano scale it kills bacteria. BTW Samsung introduced washing machines with silver nano to sterilise your clothes. So use one of those to keep the vampires aka nomads at bay.

[shavian] 17/6/2017 06:48

Good find Lucky. There's a lot going on in battery tech right now, just like in graphene. These two worlds come together for us in VRS 's link with WMG. We have not heard much about that of late. For those interested in battery tech, there's an interesting ETF as a diversified way into the sector. The Global X Lithium ETF (LIT) has renamed itself Lithium & Battery Tech ETF. It covers many of the big names in batteries as well as the established lithium miners. NAI. DYOR as usual.

[jointer13] 17/6/2017 06:13

"Interesting comment before the end 'they all want to be first'"

very similar to neills comment.

"all wanting them now"

[luckyorange] 16/6/2017 22:45

Radio interview from 22 minutes



Interesting comment before the end 'they all want to be first'

[chumbo] 16/6/2017 20:54

At least you know that you know nothing. That's a start.....

[festario] 16/6/2017 19:42

Wish I knew anything, about anything.

[sandbag] 16/6/2017 19:25

Wish I knew what you knew! ;-)

[superg1] 16/6/2017 18:47

Wish I could join you.

[rogerbridge] 16/6/2017 17:02

Looks like another busy day of meeting for N.R. (on Twitter.)

[festario] 16/6/2017 16:19

.... I joined you, in a 10k 'top up'

[festario] 16/6/2017 16:00

An extra 100k shares is more than just a top up Sandbag!