Member Info for fatherelmer

Under the original Lanstead deal VRS require a VWAP of ca 59p, over the next 16 months, to break even (ie get £6m) to get the projected amount £6.9m) as per the Monte Carlo simulation in the Annual Report, requires a VWAP of ca 75p, so the activity this month is a good start - long may it continue ????

https://www.graphene-info.com/cvd-graphene-prices-continue-drop-commercial-applications-start-enter-market#:~:text=It%20is%20great%20to%20see%20the%20price%20drop,decrease%20since%202015%20ranges%20from%2012%25%20to%2038%25.

Shuggy62, I got it from Companies House filings in relation to the recent share issues.

Whilst that doesn't seem like a lot of Graphene by weight (and it isn't) as you correctly point out, the bit you are missing is that this refers to CVD and so is actually a big deal (most people talk in much smaller production quantities) and also the value / price of CVD in the market is several orders of magnitude greater than that of GNPs, GO, rGO etc.

To quote BDO Versarien acquired the following in the acquisition......

"....the rights and obligations to the IP developed by Hanwha, and the related facilities and equipment...."

They also note that.....

."....the Hanwha technology has the capacity to produce c552 square metres of graphene per annum...."

Given that they have nearly doubled heir money in under a month - and have no sales restrictions on the bulk of their shares (7m) will they continue to hold or start to sell? FYI a sale of just over 1.5m would be notifiable - I guess we'll see

I see all the idiots who bang on about the Lanstead deal being a death spiral have now go suddenly quiet!

All I can say is that if this is a death spiral (which it isn't) then keep it coming!

For those who may be interested.....

http://engpat.kipris.or.kr/engpat/searchLogina.do?next=MainSearch#page1

Talking of Lanstead the other thing to note, that whilst the current sharing agreement has underperformed (due to the depressed VWAP) it was good to see that it was "not as bad" as perhaps it has been portrayed with ca 82% of the expected gross funding having been received to date, but then that doesn't really suit your agenda either.

You are deliberately(?) misrepresenting things - may analysis goes back to the October Holdings statement not the one from the original sharing agreement from March / April. Clearly, as per the October holdings statement Lanstead had sold ca 2m shares, however as per my post they have only sold another 79k since.

By the way I expect Lanstead to sell a total of ca 2-3m more shares by next April in line with their "normal" six monthly portfolio / debtedness rebalancing.

Also if you are going to bash / misrepresent it helps if you get the details right (to give yourself credibility) under the original Sharing Agreement Lanstead were issued 15.75m shares and under the latest one another 9.1875m so an overall total of 24.9375m

Some folks on the other board are getting confused and claiming that they have sold ca 1m shares - the reality is somewaht different when comparing today's RNS to the one in October, and allowing for all the shares they've been issued under the new sharing agreement (8,750,000 + 437,500 admin) you find that since October Lanstead only hold 75,189 fewer shares than they should otherwise, so whilst they have been selling a few it's pretty small beer (and no amount to get excited about).

Thanks

Hi Ratty, where / how do I see shares on Asset Match please?

Apologies - a couple of corrections to my above post (must use a calculator rather than rely upon quick mental arithmetic - doh!!).

In point #5 it should be 937,500 not 987,500.

In point #6 it should be 4.5m not 4.7m.

There is also an addendum to point #10 - the only time (during the 6 month period) that Lanstead do care about the share price is when they are selling to balance the books. Here they want to sell at a share price that is at least equal to, if not higher than, the average price paid under the sharing agreement. So this means at this point in time they are unlikely to want to drive the price down (again sorry doomongers).

Also a couple of additional points to those in my original post....

11. Lanstead sold 2,904,081 shares at this 6 month period end

12. In line with point #11 this means that they actually had to sell 91,581 shares more than they would've liked to balance the books (ie the share price realised upon sale was below that of the average price paid to VRS during the period).

1. Their model is now very clear - every 6 months they sell a quantity of shares equal to the amount of cash they have paid out in that period under the sharing agreement

2. That they sell these in a single block rather than drip feeding them into the market (sorry doomongers who suggest otherwise)

3. That a similar sized sale will occur in 6 months time (and again 6 months later, and 6 months after that)

4. That the sells indicate neither dissatisfaction nor lack of support, it is just their business model to 'balance the books'

5. That their 'profit' comes from the 750,000 that they were given in addition to the original 15m, and the balance of the unsold shares every 6 months (ca. 987,500 shares)

6. At the end of the 2 year sharing agreement they are likely to end up with 4.7m shares

7. That in the first 6 month period VRS received ca £1.1m under the agreement

8. That based upon the Annual Report VRS expect the average share price, throughout the 2 years of the sharing agreement, to be £0.612

9. This is no 'death spiral' as the total quotient of shares that will be sold is fixed (maximum of 6.75m)

10. On a monthly basis Lanstead don't care what the share price is and gain no benefit in it being higher or lower (the gain only comes at the end in respect of their residual holding where the higher the share price the better).

... 18th October 2018 to be precise.....

https://zenoot.com/advanced-insulation-invests-8m-in-new-gloucester-facility/

Basscadet, whilst I agree that it would be good to see a detailed (side by side) benefits comparison other things to consider could be:

- viral & anti-bacterial protection which standard masks don't have (you can get masks with silver in but I wouldn't class these as standard)
- comfort / fit (perhaps the adjustable ear loops make the VRS one fit better and thus negating the recent story)
- length of time they may be used for (perhaps the VRS one can last an entire shift rather than having to use multiple in the same period)
- in a similar vein to the above point with the washable / reusable nature of the VRS mask perhaps means that over the life of the mask 1 VRS one will take the place of (very) many other masks. So on this, and the previous point, you don't compare 1 mask at £10 (not that bulk buyers would pay this much anyway) with 1 mask at £1 but rather 1 at £10 with 100 at £1

Listing on ebay is cheaper, easier and quicker than doing so with Amazon.

Also see that the G-SCALE programme is scheduled for 18 months and that it is only just starting..... so unlikely to see any real results from it before early 2022!

....by the looks of this website there is also an FFP3 / KN99 mask in the offing (imminently).

https://www.ppedefends.com/

Note also the New Release link where #VRS are clearly the supplier.

As my shares are essentially worthless, and this is an entirely logical conclusion to the fastjet saga, I'm not going to vote either way, but will wish them good luck as a private entity in which I will maintain a small interest should they ever succeed / relist.