The November 22, 2013, filing by Uni-Pixel (NASDAQ:UNXL) of an SEC investigation was the singular most significant negative event in what has been a controversial 2013 so far. The news created volatility and investor anxiety, while raising questions about the credibility of the Company and its claims. From what was disclosed in the SEC filing, the scope of the investigation is "concerning the Company's agreements related to its InTouch Sensors." Broadly speaking, there are three such agreements of significance - two capacity/price agreements with PC OEM and Intel (NASDAQ:INTC), and one manufacturing agreement with Kodak (NYSE:KODK). A subsequent release by Uni-Pixel on November 25, 2013, noted that the Company has, "executed preferred price and capacity license agreements with its PC OEM and ecosystem partners. The company has not disclosed detailed terms of these agreements to the public because they contain specific confidentiality provisions and non-disclosure obligations."
The existence of such agreements has never been in doubt, and the Company's clarification release provides further reassurance on price and capacity related milestones existing within the agreements.
An SEC investigation does not have an end date, and can run over many weeks if not longer. The investigation casts a cloud, which will take time to clear. A bright side to this investigation is that once the Company passes the SEC scrutiny without any damaging disclosures, it provides a natural lift to the Company as many of the dubious arguments about fraud are thrown to the wind. In addition, as a result of the ongoing investigation the Company will now be more inclined to announce achievements as they occur and be more reluctant to disclosing expectations, which have often been misconstrued or misrepresented. Perhaps a more strengthened and prudent investor relations effort may result within the Company from this investigation.
FOCUS ON OPERATIONS
As the SEC investigation winds its way, it is more helpful to refocus on Operations and Production. Eventually, this is where the tire meets the road.
On November 07, 2013, Uni-Pixel announced its first Purchase Order (PO) with a Fortune 100 PC/OEM customer, widely believed to be Dell (NASDAQ:DELL) though not yet disclosed by the Company, thus culminating its journey from a technology development company to a production company. The significance of the first PO resides in the fact that there is finally a customer validation of both Uni-Pixel's manufacturing process and its ability to commercialize its product.
What is expected to make Uni-Pixel stand out, and has drawn us, is its additive manufacturing process. Uni-Pixel is one of the rare metal mesh touch sensor companies that can truly do additive print patterning at ~6 micron width, which leads to a sharply lower cost curve compared to the incumbent ITO products, and materially lower than other competing metal mesh products. The performance level is believed to be at par with metal mesh products, and better in some respects than ITO products.
Additive printing in a small-volume, lab-like environment, is different from scaling and printing in a high-volume, factory-like environment. There was always a question that loomed during 2013. Will Uni-Pixel, despite a promising technology, be able to deliver a stable manufacturing process that can scale and deliver commercial production to the market?
In close cooperation and scrutiny of its preferred price/capacity licensee PC OEM/Dell (henceforth mostly referred to as Dell), and manufacturing partner Kodak, Uni-Pixel's additive manufacturing process and supply chain have been through sufficient review, vetting and validation to the point that the Company has now received POs from customers. The production risk from an unproven technology that existed throughout the year has been materially diminished.
The initial order from PC OEM (Dell) and the two additional orders from non-preferred pricing customers are of small volume, with expectations for a ramp in 2014. Symbolically, the initial orders are expected to generate little commercial revenues in Q4 2013.
Through the updates announced thus far, it is fairly clear that the Company has been making meaningful progress and achieving key capacity milestones as it marches towards the 1 million capacity mark.
MOST PRODUCTION RELATED ISSUES RAISED HAVE BEEN NON-ISSUES
Uni-Pixel has been a volatile stock with well-entrenched viewpoints. There is strong appeal to the potential of the business based on the additive technology and the earnings power associated with a successful execution. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about this emerging technology company, with lack of prior success, execution risk, and the highly competitive and price-sensitive nature of the market being some paramount ones. But over time, Uni-Pixel has also encountered misleading published arguments that have been dismissed, but have succeeded in planting doubt and uncertainty about the technology and production.
Many of the doubts have proven to be nothing else but a chimera. Some of the published arguments have been: broken traces; visible mesh unsuited for touch applications; InTouch cannot be manufactured; can't print, can't plate; unviable production process that can never be executed, and no purchase orders. These sensational concerns have been refuted over time by the Company's execution of the business plan.
LAMINATION YIELD IS A NON-ISSUE
Nonetheless, new concerns were recently raised concerning the lamination and production yields of Uni-Pixel's technology in an article dated November 07, 2013. This concern appeared highly contradictory coming on the same day when the PO was announced. It would be normal for Dell, a Fortune 100 company, to issue a PO after an engineering review, as well as testing feedback from its seasoned supply chain. Suggesting a major lamination issue exists would be highly dismissive of the engineering expertise of Dell and its supply chain in discovering such problems, prior to issuing a PO. There's not much in the technical world of computing hardware that Dell or Asian manufacturers will be unable to verify.
One of the advantages of PET films is the superior lamination characteristics compared to glass-based lamination. Uni-Pixel is using a PET film as well, while ITO sensors use mostly PET but Glass as well based on form factor. Why would the lamination and integration process for metal mesh on film be a totally different world of science, compared to lamination of ITO on film? The process is defined and very well understood. All it needs is customization and tuning, not new science. This part of the process can cost time, but should never be a show-stopper by itself. Interestingly, the touch sensor product data sheet on Uni-Pixel's website, cites Improved Module Yields as one of the key benefits of its metal mesh.
On the third-quarter earnings call later the same day, Uni-Pixel dismissed the module integration yield numbers being floated as "not true," and further clarified "the lamination and the bonding to our technology is as good as ITO films or better."
Now that is what one would normally expect.
TOUCH SUPPLY IS A NON-ISSUE, BUT TOUCH AS A COST ISSUE REMAINS
The same article from last month highlighted a PC World story, which quotes an Intel executive mentioning that Touch is no longer a supply issue. The author then reasons that in early 2013, for Intel "... paying for new capacity or even new, but unproven technologies, such as metal mesh, probably sounded like a good idea." But now in the author's interpretation, Intel believes it's a mistake.
We agree, that Touch as a Supply issue is gone.
Intel made that point.
But overall, Touch as a Cost issue remains.
Intel realizes as much. In fact, in the same reference article the reporter is able to interpret the situation correctly and writes that "if touch screens become cheaper and more pervasive, they stand a chance of becoming ubiquitous."
Intel has seen Uni-Pixel as part of the solution to successfully shift down the cost of touch sensors, and consequently agreed to build up Uni-Pixel's capacity through a preferred price/capacity license. Intel's strategy is fairly typical of its objective. It wishes for the notebook and mobile computing markets to flourish. As the ecosystem thrives, so do the sales of semiconductors. To that extent, Intel invests in companies that promote its strategy, and it did view Uni-Pixel's technology favorably.
The first $5 million paid for a preferred price capacity license may be considered as risk money behind an unproven but promising technology. But, the next $5 million to be paid once capacity reaches 1 million square feet and meets certain quality standards will be paid only for a proven technology. It will confirm Intel's continued interest in low-cost touch solutions, and provide further verification of Uni-Pixel's ability to produce in high-volumes.
The November 7 article also raised concern about price pressures in the touch panel market. This is a valid observation and a very worthwhile discussion to have. The touch panel market is highly price sensitive, and segments are in a current state of oversupply.
With regards to such pricing pressures in the market, Uni-Pixel noted on the third quarter earnings call that for larger form factors (~+13"), which continues to be the core market, Uni-Pixel still feels confident at a pricing of ~$20/square foot, while smaller form factors have seen pricing come down "from 20% to 30%."
Price erosion is a "given" in the industry. It is not a phenomena that affects only touch sensors, but the entire component supply chain including touch controllers and display manufacturers. Recently, the steepness of the decline has been noteworthy, as touch panel conditions went from under-to-over supply in certain form factors. There has been industry chatter indicating that touch panel module pricing for some form factors is down by up to 30% in the past few months. To the extent that Uni-Pixel participates in the small form market, it will have to adapt to the existing dynamics.
Part of the reason for this oversupply is that Touch so far has not penetrated as rapidly as anticipated for a variety of reasons, including lack of a touch Software ecosystem for notebook/desktop computing, leaving manufacturers stranded with additional capacity brought online for anticipated stronger demand. Nonetheless, Touch is a growing phenomena and will become ubiquitous with time and better touch computing software.
The present price decline in the touch panel market is a result of mostly oversupply conditions and not solely due to technology innovations that permanently compress costs. Due to the significant cost structure in place with the existing technologies and manufacturing capacity, rapid price erosion unaccompanied by rapid cost decline cannot be a long-term occurrence, for it risks wiping out the industry. Supply in these over-supplied form factors has already begun the natural correction process, as businesses exit or reduce factory output to correct the imbalance over the next several months.
Is this price erosion worrisome?
It is worrisome to the extent it is unanticipated.
Any rapid price erosion over a prolonged period is even more of a threat to heavy-capex ITO players as the Capex differential between their infrastructure and Uni-Pixel's low capex has been estimated by the Company to be ~10x. The industry has learned to manage normal price erosion, which requires constant technological innovation to deliver cost efficiencies or the vendor is priced out of the market.
In a highly price-sensitive market in which pricing pressures exist, where would you rather be?
The answer is straight-forward.
With the low cost provider!
BEING A LOW COST PROVIDER WITH HIGH YIELDS
Uni-Pixel has been unequivocal about being the low-cost manufacturer of touch screens. The low cost status is possible to achieve through a combination of, first, its Additive print patterning technology, and second, delivering strong yields. The efficiency of the production process is critical in a price sensitive marketplace.
Since yields are a critical part of the Solution, it will be helpful to qualitatively review the production yield situation. The costs are fairly well identified, with PET film being the highest cost raw material - a benefit of using copper metal mesh and Additive technology. During the manufacturing process, the yields have a major impact on a fully loaded sensor cost, which will also reflect capex spending for capacity build out. The yields are also important for it is operationally efficient and easier to invest in and manage 2 lines than 4 lines, for same volume.
It appears the Company is sufficiently comfortable with production yields relative to the capacity it has achieved, for it consistently maintains its low-cost manufacturer status. The baseline yields must be encouraging for the Company to reiterate its low-cost position. Continuous process improvements can push yields higher, which improves margin potential and provides further pricing power. But the baseline has to be high enough to warrant such conviction.
Recent comment by Uni-Pixel's CEO Reed Killion on the Q3 earnings call with regards to a production yield question was, "I will be happy when we're close to 100%." This was not a flippant comment. Mr. Killion sounded serious, and the Company sees a path through continuous process improvements to reach a fairly high level. You don't make a comment like this if your baseline yields are stuck at 30% or 40% - at that point even 60% should make you ecstatic.
The Company's two key steps in the manufacturing process are Printing and Plating. Uni-Pixel has mentioned in the past that for a million square feet it will presently require 1 printer with 10 platers in a single thread mode or 5 platers in a dual thread mode. So in a way, Plating is a slower-speed gating factor. Contamination kills yields. This is the most basic rule in the electronics and semiconductor industries. One of the key reasons for high yields in Uni-Pixel's manufacturing process is the ability to diminish contamination possibilities due to fewer steps and greater automation. It should be recalled that Atmel (NASDAQ:ATML), an absolutely top-class engineering powerhouse, encountered such issues at its Colorado Springs facility. It was not because of Atmel's inexperience. Most likely it was because of the less automated, multi-step production process that existed for their licensed metal mesh technology. Atmel's engineering expertise and six-sigma credentials allowed them to overcome those issues through process improvements over time. Similar contamination possibilities are minimized in Uni-Pixel's process. No wonder the "Start Clean, Stay Clean" mantra of Mr. Killion.
The Company over the past ~4 months has discouraged specific discussions on yields. Its recent caution was perhaps triggered by a combination of its progress to production, customer negotiations, competitive interest, ongoing litigation, and perhaps even due to the wildfire of aspersions. Not divulging manufacturing details of a specialized and critical process is fairly typical in the industry.
The additive process combined with a high yield leads to an inescapable conclusion. When actual manufacturing ramps higher, Uni-Pixel's low cost base will allow it to have plenty of room for gross margin even after pricing pressures and the split with Kodak.
ARE METAL MESH SUPPLIERS IN PANIC FROM PRICE PRESSURE?
Atmel's XSense product is a close metal mesh competitor to Uni-Pixel's InTouch. As a result of delays in the launch of the XSense volume production line in Colorado Springs, we believe Atmel is now ahead in the execution of its plan by about 2 to 3 months, compared to Uni-Pixel. It is quite instructive to observe how a well-respected peer views the market dynamics, since it provides another data point to reconfirm the market opportunity for Uni-Pixel.
The comment below was made by Atmel's CEO on the October 30, 2013, earnings call. Our edits for clarification are in parenthesis, and in bold for emphasis.
"Although near-term (Q4, 2013) revenue will be lower than expectations (due to a rescheduling in product ramp by a customer), customer interest and design activity continues to be very strong, and we are on track to bring our new capacity that will support over $100 million of XSense revenue in 2014. We are very optimistic in these strong growth prospects for XSense...The touch sensor market represents enormous opportunity for Atmel, and we expect substantial growth in our XSense business in 2014 and beyond..."
The confident remarks highlighting the metal mesh market and XSense do not suggest a business that is in turmoil and unable to adapt to pricing pressures. Incidentally, it was revealed last week that XSense was included in an HP Omni 10-inch tablet. Metal mesh touch sensors can compete even in small form factors, for they have a cost advantage. Uni-Pixel has a similar advantage, which is further enhanced by the Additive patterning process.
Even more recently, on November 19, 2013, Carclo Plc, partner of Atmel on the XSense product, released first-half financials. In the commentary by the Chairman, it was noted:
"CIT is now generating growing revenues from the supply of coated film to Atmel and its turnover (revenues) and profitability are set to expand rapidly as the XSense program ramps up in the next calendar year and beyond."
The recent update doesn't sound like a business staring at a black hole of losses and fading metal mesh opportunity.
Pricing pressures won't be the death knell of metal mesh.
Uni-Pixel has made measurable progress over the past six months. There are still execution challenges and concerns ahead as it targets being a high volume supplier. As we have noted in the past, there can still be many a slip between the cup and the lip. Some of our key concerns are highlighted below.
Production. It is our belief that manufacturing challenges will begin to recede after achieving three key milestones. Installing and validating sufficient capacity to arrive at a PO stage was the first such milestone, and it diminished the production risk. In our opinion, the next important hurdle is for Uni-Pixel to bring the capacity at Kodak's Rochester, New York, facility online using the 1 to 2 Printers and 4 platers being installed and calibrated. This should be a matter of time, since the Company was able to successfully bring its Lufkin operations online with 1 printer and 3 platers earlier. But it still needs to get there. Once Rochester capacity comes online with perhaps ~600,000 to 800,000 square feet/month, depending on plater throughput, then along with the ~600,000 capacity at Lufkin, the combined installed capacity will allow the Company to cross the 1 million square feet/month milestone. Assuming that the quality standards and review are satisfied concurrently, this can trigger a request to Intel for the remaining engineering payment of $5 million and revenue recognition of $10 million. The timing of such a request can be Q4/2013 to Q1/2014, depending on the review and protocols involved.
Thereafter, in our opinion the installation and validation of 1 million square feet/month capacity at a single production line within the Rochester facility will be the final key milestone. To us a single production line comprises 1 Printer and ~5 Platers (based on plater throughput). Once successful, we estimate sometime in Q1, 2014 itself, the high-volume capacity ramp will acquire its own momentum.
Demand. Uni-Pixel has yet to go through the entire production, integration and sales cycle whereby its product is then available on the shelves for end users. Since metal mesh is a new technology, one natural path can be for an OEM to launch the product in limited quantities. Once sales pattern and consumer acceptance data points are established and statistically within acceptable range, it will encourage volume orders. Perhaps, based on OEM/ODM comfort, an accelerated path may be adopted as well. This entire process has yet to occur.
Much of this process will transpire in the first quarter. One can naturally expect multiple initial Orders, which will have the potential to ramp into higher volume orders based on market feedback. It should be noted that as capacity comes online, it does not immediately convert into revenues. It's a step-by-step ramping process. As demand visibility improves, earnings will be driven based on the pace at which the commercial volume ramps.
Competition and Technology Evolution. Touch sensor market is intensely competitive and emerging technologies continue to be announced fairly frequently. Many new technologies are still early and not volume-ready yet. Presently, Uni-Pixel's patterned printing technology appears to be on the leading edge. It will be helpful to learn about Uni-Pixel's technology road map and how it intends to improve the technology specifications further and maintain its competitive edge with Additive technology in this dynamic market.
Perception. There are emerging technology companies with less progress and milestones than Uni-Pixel that are often valued much higher. Uni-Pixel remains in the grip of a negative perception, which is compounded by frequent misinterpretations and distortion of statements made by management. Some of this was avoidable. The recently disclosed SEC investigation has created further anxiety and fed into the negative perception.
One would have expected that Uni-Pixel's progress, particularly leading to a PO, would be reflected favorably in the valuation. As the PO was announced, the short argument was immediately published on the same afternoon. Even though much of the argument, except the price erosion point, was off-base, the uncertainty about yields and price pressure led to confusion. On the earnings conference call, the Company continued its policy on not being specific about yield numbers but still provided sufficient qualitative clues to indicate that yields are trending as expected (low-cost manufacturer comment).
The stock price touched a high of $19.36 on the day of PO announcement and subsequent to the short argument and earnings call dropped as low as $13.25 the next day, an over $6 swing. From market data points, as discussed earlier, we know price pressures can be managed by metal-mesh providers. While on the production front the Company has achieved all key capacity milestones thus far, even though it doesn't get enough credit for this complex achievement.
For some reason, doubt and fear dominate over clarity of issues and achievements. To that extent we believe there is a credibility gap that exists, and that holds down the valuation. The gap can be bridged and the negative perception can be eroded by many different prudent measures that Uni-Pixel can undertake to rebuild investor confidence. But foremost, the Company needs to begin shipping product and reach the 1 million square feet/month total capacity level. To that extent, the Company is right in being highly focused on capacity and sales. Evidence of rising product sales is an initial step to begin shifting the adverse tide.
STRATEGICALLY… MULTIPLE LEVERS TO THE STORY
Business continues to show measurable progress, and POs have started to come in. There continues to be multiple strategic levers to the Uni-Pixel story.
Pricing Strategy. One has to believe that Uni-Pixel would not be expecting to compete forever in a world of ~$20 per sq foot pricing. To what degree the company will solely compete on price is a decision that is influenced by capacity on-hand. Presently as it builds up capacity, Uni-pixel will be pricing within the vicinity of ITO pricing and allowing the benefits of metal-mesh to compete with ITO. No different than how Atmel is rolling out XSense. As significant production capacity comes online (well above 1 mil units/ month), Uni-Pixel would possess the flexibility to slide down the price rapidly with rising volume. At some point later in 2014, Uni-Pixel will have to decide how much volume it wishes to drive through its factories by pushing down prices significantly. Would it go for a strategy of market share and significant volume gains through a faster transition to metal-mesh, and weakening or stalling of competition by driving prices down 30% to 50%? Or will Uni-Pixel take a more measured approach and keep itself benchmarked to being a few % points below ITO prices?
Note that at any given time Uni-Pixel needs a blended pricing point that is sufficiently low to sell its factory capacity. The Company will not have all the answers right now. It will have to calibrate its equilibrium price based on the market dynamics that exist and the strategy it decides to pursue. But one only controls the cards if the production process is low-cost.
Capacity Build out. Uni-Pixel expects to build out its capacity to ~10 million units by end of 2014. That would be ~10% of the total touch sensor market in various form factors as per the Company's assessment. The Company has not yet discussed in any detail on how it will fill up this capacity.
We suspect the Company has a good view of the prospects and interest, and realizes it can sell what it makes, underpinned by its low-cost production model. The indications of interest from both Dell and Intel may be suggestive of potential demand later in 2014. The Orders still have to be won competitively against these interest levels. Nonetheless, one has to observe why a company would gear up for ~3 million units/month in capacity (3 printers) in ~Q2, 2014 and consider Asian manufacturing presence if it doubts its ability to first sell even 1 million units/month as it achieves appropriate qualifications.
In a market that is highly price sensitive, the demand exists because of the price/performance value. In a recent press release, even Kodak referred to the demand when its CEO, Antonio M. Perez, said, "In light of the initial interest for this product, we believe this solution has the potential to shake up this large and growing market."
Asian Production. Production factories in Asia can be a strategic edge, particularly when combined or in cooperation with a module integrator. This will create greater vertical integration from Printing-to-Product (end-user), and can be the structural template that works well for metal mesh. It can enhance time-to-market, improve design change management, and preserve/improve margin by reducing Shipping & Handling related costs.
Presently, many touch panel makers perform the ITO patterning on films as well, and then device integration. Since metal mesh simplifies the chain by supplying pre-patterned films, the touch panel makers loses the patterning margin. The Asian production presence can conceivably allow the module integrator to participate in a greater portion of the metal mesh chain economics beyond what is achievable just from device integration. This will also allow Uni-Pixel to compete even more effectively with other integrators that are developing their own metal-mesh offerings, like O-Film and its silver nano particle mesh. Due to the low capex footprint per million square feet, potentially Uni-Pixel can have dedicated factories as well for customers with a significant volume commitment. An Asian production presence appears as the natural path.
Kodak. Eastman Kodak appears committed to the relationship as it builds out and expands the facility in Rochester and commits and hires employees. Kodak has expertise in running films at high speed and volume at the expected quality level. It is also a company that can ill-afford to be involved in an engineering fiasco immediately after emerging from bankruptcy, particularly in a situation where it agreed to put its name on the product "powered by Kodak." It is providing the horsepower to the manufacturing effort, and allowing Uni-Pixel to cast a wider net in a shorter time. The structure of this relationship will be directed by both strategic and financial considerations. In addition, how this relationship evolves as opportunities in Asia and different business segments are undertaken remains to be seen. There is an expectation of a 50% split on gross margin on business run through factories operated by Kodak. In our estimate, the split has to be in favor of Uni-Pixel considering the unique value of the Additive technology that Uni-Pixel has developed along with bearing a much higher proportion of product and market risk. Further clarity on Kodak's financial and operational implications is required from Uni-Pixel, and will be very helpful particularly since Kodak is becoming a cornerstone of Uni-Pixel's business strategy.
Uni-Pixel's low-cost metal mesh production process can have tremendous leverage in a highly price sensitive and intensely competitive marketplace. The measurable progress on the production side generated an initial PO from the PC OEM, and two additional POs from Asian manufacturers - vital successes - and significantly diminished production risk.
After a delay of about 4 months from our original expectation, Uni-Pixel is now moving into position for a volume-driven 2014. The manufacturing success achieved thus far will be reflected in the valuation, as confidence and visibility grows in the Company's ability to build its order book, and recent confusion about yield and pricing dissipates. Going forward, we believe some of the key catalysts will be: additional capacity validation; order shipments; additional order announcements, both from existing and new relationships; and engineering fee payments by Dell and Intel over Q4, 2013 and Q1, 2014. Any one of these payments will indicate that the Company has successfully reached the even higher total capacity milestone (over 1 million units/month) to the satisfaction of its Tier-1 partners/customers. At the same time, the anticipated success has to be balanced with the resolution of the SEC investigation, whose fate presently remains unknown.
Uni-Pixel is a small cap stock and its emerging technology status creates inherent risk and acute volatility. The stock has been trading since June 2013, within a wide price range of $12 to $20. Earnings expectations for 2014 are in a wide range as well, revealing the controversial viewpoint of the Company. These viewpoints are firmly entrenched with the short position as of November 15, 2013 at 6.3 million shares - the largest ever in the stock, out of a total share count of ~12.2 million.
It is risky and perhaps even foolhardy to stick our neck out at a time when the market sentiment is highly negative, along with an ongoing SEC investigation. But we felt it was important to recognize where the issues exist, and not be swept away by a list of magnified non-issues. We believe that based on the metal mesh market opportunity created by a shift towards non-ITO materials, the Company's ability to do additive printing, the progress achieved thus far, the intellectual property, the earnings potential for 2014, and over $3.25 per share in cash, there is much more value to Uni-Pixel than the valuation it has received thus far. At a 52-week low closing price of $11.47, and a market cap of ~$140 million, the risk/reward ratio is favorable for a "Long" position. This assumes no damaging disclosures from the SEC investigation.
There are risks in this speculative play and legitimate concerns. But at least a number of production related concerns published this year are erroneous or misleading. Uni-Pixel has maintained its capacity schedule largely on-track, implementing an innovative technology. The story is still unfolding. The pendulum can be pushed only that far to one side before it swings the other way, its momentum this time underpinned by improving fundamentals, diminished production risk, shipments, ramping capacity and growing order book volume.
Disclaimer: If you decide to invest, do your own due diligence first. Do not use this opinion piece for your investment decision. The accuracy of information mentioned cannot be guaranteed, and do not rely on it for your investing. As our viewpoint evolves, we may add or exit at any time without notification. We undertake no obligation of informing the reader of our viewpoint in the future or updating this article. We don't have UNXL holding in our model portfolios, but had it in the past and may have in the future.
Disclosure: I am long UNXL. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.