Member Info for fatherelmer

Robinhood, my understanding is that HAYD don't actually make Graphene, only functionalise it. They are also a Partner / Customer of VRS (there is an RNS about collaboration / partnership and NR has mentioned they are a customer).

These were options, rather than core holding, that were cashed in. You'll also see they were at below the high price of the time.

True enough, however, I stand by what I said until there is a common, mandatory, test there will be a lot of differing opinions / claims. I also believe VRS have gone some way to proving their quality by having undergone the Verified Graphene Producer scheme, but until we can see who else has tried and succeeded / failed, the issue over who has what standard of Graphene will not go away - after all aren't there lot's of academic papers (eg by University of Singapore) that said lot's of companies claim to produce Graphene but upon testing few were found to actually do so.

There is also an argument, that can be made, that as different types of Graphene, have different properties dependant very much upon how they are used (functionalised) that even such tests will not demonstrate very much and that tests upon the functionalised product are actually more important (than layers and lateral size) as the users will only be happy if their needs are met / exceeded. Ultimately all that the Verified Producer Programme does is demonstrate that you produce what you say you do (which is a good thing as it removes one major area of risk) it does not, however, talk about the benefits you will / may get from functionalising the product (only testing by the users can do this - or sharing of testing already done by others).

Tinopener, as for bold opinions and not winning friends, I'm just saying it as I perceive it, doesn't mean I am any more right / wrong than anyone else.

Tinopener, no one (not even VRS) have ISO approval as the standards and characterisation methods have yet to be fully documented, and then standards testing bodies approved.

Having said all that VRS are probably closest due having had some level of confirmatory testing done by the NPL (who have published some initial British standards) as part of the Verified Producer Programme run by the Graphene Council. Until there are a single, common, set of standards, and some form of legal / regulatory requirement for testing / proof, its still the wild west and easy to belittle all claims.

Two more from me to complete the picture....

Talga Resources - basically a Graphite miner with negligible sales (ca. £4k) and a huge loss of ca. £6m

Finally DirectaPlus (DCTA) a pure play Graphene company with ca. £1.8m of sales (mainly textiles related) at a loss of ca. £3.5m

So as you can see Graphene is still very much a developing industry, in the (very) early stages of commercialisation and very much pre-profit. Therefore anyone expecting anything different, or using traditional valuation approaches, is an idiot.

As for the so called 'prophets' they would have much more credibility if they did an industry wide comparison, and review, rather than just attacking individual entities, but then that would be serious research and journalism, something I doubt they understand, let alone are capable of.

Final one from me re the competition - XG Sciences (XGS) - which in the 9 months to 30th September 2019 had sales of ca. £1m and a loss of ca. £6m, from reading the reports this comes mainly from Graphenes above FLG as they are still working out how to manufacture FLG, so again a (slightly) different market to VRS.

Another outfit that is beloved on the other board is Nanoexplore (GRA.V) which posts very impressive sales numbers - ca. £30m - however they too are loss making (ca. £3m) and if you read the detail you'll see that they were actually taken over by a Graphite miner in 2015 and have then subsequently been on a major acquisition spree buying up 3 composite manufacturing companies and its these that actually provide all their sales. They also make a very big thing about mainly / initially targeting the Carbon Black Market which is very different to what VRS are focusing upon.

Theanalyser, if you believe the other board then First Graphene (FGR) is the leader of the pack yet in their last set of accounts their sales were only ca £12k and they made a loss of ca £4m (figures to 30th June 2019).

Tinopener, I just meant that Chris is careful with the cash and so to make such an investment in inventory must be for good reason (and probably with a high degree of quick expected payback).

I do agree that proof of production capability is required - but a 700% increase in Finished Goods would seem a strange way of proving it IMHO, and would also go against Chris Leigh's (CFO) reputed parsimonious nature. Therefore, I would posit that this was more likely in anticipation of sales, though admittedly the subsequent Interims weren't exactly helpful here....

The numpties (and especially one individual) on the other Board seem to be in the Kevin Costner 'Field of Dreams' build it and they will come mentality rather than appreciating that this is a developing area where NO-ONE is selling anything in any large quantities. They also seem to forget that VRS will only receive orders when the collaboration partners (in most cases though not all) receive orders from their customers eg AECOM need to get an order for arches before VRS will get one for Polygrene - the one obvious exception (to me at least) at the moment is potentially the Oil & Gas company in the US, though again even this may require an end customer order.

They also made great play - with thanks to the doomsters at Shorter Central (aka *************) - that VRS only sold ca £27k of Graphene in FY to 31/03/19 what they ignored was the self same accounts showing some inter-company transactions and also a significant build up in Finished Goods inventory (from ca £34k to ca £220k) which to me suggests that this is anticipation of future orders and also that the sales figure may not include inter-group transactions (we know for instance that AAC were used to produce the AECOM Masterbatch and have also made graphene enhanced sample products for other customers).

My final thought on the Sales figure relates to another point that gets brought up - which is apparently low R&D expenses - perhaps as part of the various collaborations, in order for VRS to gain access to / some level of ownership of any resulting IP, they 'invest' in the collaboration by providing the Graphene without being 'paid' for it (I'm not an accountant so I don't know how this would show in the books, perhaps it's already there as the R&D expenses) and so the Sales figure is artificially low???

I see over at the other board (aka shorters paradise) they are now having a pop at the role AAC Cyroma play within the group - I'm pretty sure that at the time of the AECOM masterbatch sales it was said that AAC were used to mix / provide the actual product sold to AECOM...….therefore quite a clear role (in addition to also having the capability to produce finished products, and let's not forget also their established links with various sectors including Automotive). These points, of course, are conveniently ignored / 'forgotten'.

One other thought about tyres - when the sale of Graphene to a European tyre manufacturer (guessed as Continental) was announced in 2018 a large part of the benefit was around significant improvements to the manufacturing process (perhaps even more so than the tyres themselves) and so I wonder if this past experience will help in the US??

Very strange RNS, especially given that it was deemed material by the Nomad - this must be to do with the info about the Tyre company and other sectors rather than the US office as we've always known, from when it was first announced with Patrick, that it consisted of Serviced Office space and pay as you go lab facilities (re Read RNS, and re listen to podcasts, from the time).

Indeed good to see, now if we can also get that independent report, talked of in the earlier RNS, saying that the plant is now in production (and thus TSTRs guarantor obligations are fulfilled) that would be good.
Some updates in regards production volumes and purity levels would be good too!

You have to remember that the $160m is not entirely new money as ca. $75m is going to replace existing Bank Debt and $60m is for working capital purposes (of which they already have similar, if not so large, facilities). It is also a total to go up to and so the entire sum may not (ever) be borrowed / drawn down.
Having said all of that potentially $25m is additional funding though some of this could be used to 'repay' the equity investors who also have 'loans' to SPMP, the company hasn't made it entirely clear what the 'new' money is for.

Given the news today - which implies that there is now an operational 'production' plant - will TSTR finally get the third tranche payment for the roaster IP (ie $2m) and if so what will they do with it??

If, and when, they get the (re)financing sorted I assume this will result in all of the current mezzanine loans, and rolled up interest, being repaid. In which case TSTR will be due quite a tidy sum - I wonder what will happen to it???

Truthfactory, you are right of course, I guess it's just frustration that it has taken so long - as I think like L1onheart, I have probably been in here since about 2010 buying first at 0.94 and so it's a long way to break even, let alone any gain.