Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Graycell Advisors  

View Graycell Advisors' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Pfenex Inc. Shifts Focus In-House To Develop Biosimilar To Betaseron [View article]
    In the world of Biotech, you raise the money when you can, not when you need it. As author mentioned, offering was oversubscribed. The Company added 13% more (310K) to their initial number of 2.3 million shares, while letting the Selling Stockholders increase their sales by 25% (690K) from previous 2.7 million to satisfy higher demand.

    New coverage to come, greater appetite from institutions for the offering, and stronger bargaining position for future partnerships since a strong cash balance diminishes urgency to partner quickly in order to move programs forward. Also note, the IPO was done at $6, and that's a different story, only 9-months ago.
    Apr 24, 2015. 11:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Viewpoint For Small Cap Performance In Q2 2015 [View article]
    @eh
    With a steadily growing economy, earnings will take care of themselves. Of course, one needs to keep in mind the macro risks, particularly in our case here of currency appreciation, to determine sector exposure. The key factor here is a shift in the monetary policy. This is not simply another rate increase or decrease, but a change of direction. That's why Fed's monetary policy assumes much more weight globally and in the US stock market valuation. It is our anticipation, that we will continue to make new highs in the earlier part of this quarter simply because monetary policy shift is being pushed out to third quarter.
    Apr 23, 2015. 05:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Pfenex Inc. Shifts Focus In-House To Develop Biosimilar To Betaseron [View article]
    Thanks for providing the context with regards to IPO. You're right. I just wanted to let some of your readers, who would not be as informed as you on Pfenex, understand the extent of the potential dilution from the offering. The company has a new slate of underwriters, besides Blair, from the IPO. More coverage would help for the company does have a key positioning in the Biosimilar world.
    Your update did arrest the slide over the past few days.
    Apr 23, 2015. 11:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Pfenex Inc. Shifts Focus In-House To Develop Biosimilar To Betaseron [View article]
    Helpful update. Thanks.

    Just to clarify this statement further:
    "Since PFNX only has 20.5 million shares outstanding, an offer to sell 5 million shares (plus an underwriter option for 750 thousand shares) is a large offering for a small stock."

    Only 3 million (2.25+0.75) new shares are expected to be issued, if the underwriter option for 0.75 million shares is exercised in full. The Selling Stockholders shares of ~2.7 million are not new shares. They will not increase the shares outstanding, but only the float. The share dilution is expected to be less than 15% at the most (3 / 20.5). Cash balance goes up correspondingly based on the pricing by ~30%.

    Does anyone has an indication of when the secondary is expected to price?
    Apr 22, 2015. 01:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Criteo Continues To Build A Pivotal Positioning In Automated Ad Targeting [View article]
    @grok42,
    Regarding market growth and implications for CRTO, you have to make sure the overall digital advertising market is growing healthily, which it is as you pointed out from the MS report. I would characterize the shift as a mega trend. When the overarching trend is so powerful, companies at the leading edge will benefit tremendously – Google, FB, etc. Now, smaller niche players will benefit even more because of their pure play nature.

    As you point out, the 2 issues are Privacy and related Regulatory Action, and Fraud.

    Privacy laws are valued, and rigorously implemented particularly across North America and Europe. The Digital Advertising Alliance represents the industry in the US, and all displayed ads have the blue arrow on the top-right. If you haven’t clicked on the arrow, do that sometime to see the privacy laws and your rights. Similar organization in Europe is referred to as EDAA, and so on. In a way, there is more information that is revealed on social sites than what is saved by Criteo. The key personal information which is a unique identifier for you, is mostly an email address. That email address you may use to login to New York Times, Yahoo, CNN, etc. You may not even login specifically, but your browser provides the unique identity to the publisher site you are visiting. Along the way, you may also visit Amazon, Nike, Dick’s Sports browsing at some products. Lets say a sneaker at Reebok site. When you go to Yahoo Finance or Weather channel, you will see the same product you viewed at Reebok, advertised on the content sites with an offer. Yahoo Finance provided the identity of the visitor, which was matched to your visit to Reebok for the sneaker, and an ad with a customized offer or a reminder is displayed.

    Think of Criteo as a Big Data Analysis company sitting in the middle with data feeds from Publishers and Advertisers. They do the sifting and matching, and then based on their analytics shoot out the most relevant ads for the moment. Of course, I’ve simplified the whole process. But you should get the idea.

    Based on the laws and industry norms, you can opt out and request, never to be shown a particular ad or even to never be tracked. That is sufficient for compliance. If you have heard of any sweeping privacy initiative, you can share with us. But even if you hear something like that, make sure it’s relevant to Criteo and not something general.

    I’ve posted two links below, to give you a better sense of a viewer's rights and high level of control. You can do your own research.

    http://bit.ly/1aDt0rn
    http://bit.ly/1aDt2Q0

    Fraud is a key issue as you rightly point out. Now think of what Criteo does. Criteo is an Ad Targeting company, which only grows if it Delivers Performance for its Ad Clients. As you research Criteo’s model further, you will begin to recognize that the Company’s success is highly correlated to its ability to generate top-line growth for its clients. During 2014, for every $1 of ad spent by its clients with Criteo, the clients were able to generate on average $17 of sales.

    Criteo minimizes fraud. The market is shifting towards more Targeting and Accountability. Criteo is right at the crossroads of these shifts.

    Regarding Ad Agencies bringing the capability in-house, one way is to get Criteo. They may want to do it cheap and not pay the valuation. Well, they will pay even more one day. Criteo takes away some of the value of an ad agency in a digital advertising world, as I had pointed out in the first report.

    Good luck and if there are issues, please flag them here. I’m sure someone more conversant than you or me will be able to assist further.
    Apr 6, 2015. 04:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Rubicon Project : Riding The Shift Towards Programmatic Advertising And Positioning Itself As A Vital Alternative [View article]
    OpenX is an awesome company, though private. If lack of access to public market funds becomes a constraint to their growth spending, they will soon approach for a public listing as well.
    Jan 12, 2015. 10:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Rubicon Project : Riding The Shift Towards Programmatic Advertising And Positioning Itself As A Vital Alternative [View article]
    @247Yak,
    It's not my comment based on a specific calculation or insight, but as I mentioned in the article, it's the company's opinion. Many of the AdTech companies refer to themselves as market leaders, but most have fairly small revenue base. Even if RUBI is the 2nd largest exchange, it's just a $120 million revenue business and not by any measure a dominant one at this point. This is the case with many of the young AdTech companies. The key thing is that the business models are strengthening and critical mass is being achieved. In case of Rubicon, growth rates are strong and they're approaching consistent profitability. As some of these companies find traction, they potentially become selective acquirers of other AdTech companies. Consolidation will remain a dominant theme in 2015, in what is a fragmented and crowded marketplace. One has to be fairly precise in determining the kind of AdTech market segment exposure that each of these companies provide. The trends are favorable for companies like Rubicon, and its pubic market status creates a pure play in the Exchange/Programmatic/RTB investing theme within AdTech.
    Jan 12, 2015. 10:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Prana: Right Drug, Wrong Dose [View article]
    I'm sure the Author would have preferred to not have such a sharp decline, and would have liked the drug to show some promise. But he did go by his convictions even if it was against the grain at the time. For that he deserves great credit today. Hopefully, PRAN still holds promise and will probe further.
    Mar 31, 2014. 10:18 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Peter Shin had not been responsible for day-to-day operations of UniPixel as its COO. Robert Rusenko was being considered the future COO, and was operationally the person managing day-to-day stuff. From what I had learnt from outside the company, Peter was more responsible for alliances with Asian partners, and was believed to be mostly operating out of California. I would suspect COO would be a fairly soon internal appointment, and it will be Rob Rusenko.

    I was attracted to the Additive Manufacturing part. That was verified. The question was can they do it in volume. When they scaled to 700,000 units by September, that was a major milestone, and thereafter an initial PO. It then came down to commercial production. The volume was to be small in Q4 for these initial orders, probably 1 to 2 days of volume production run. But why it didn't occur has to be clarified. Since the Company was able to bring the Printer and Platers online in Lufkin for same equipment capacity, it was a process that needed to be replicated in Rochester. One has to wonder if that is still as planned and would now be there in January 2014 instead of December 2013.

    The reasons for CEO's firing can be many. But the Company has to break its silence. At any other time, the departure could have been considered a positive. At this point, it raises questions. Till the Company discusses the state-of-affairs now, the situation remains in a flux and we are groping in the dark. And the tendency is then to assume the worst.

    A quick, bad update is better than none at all. If there is no update, then perhaps there isn't material deviation from the announced Plan. The Board would be receiving legal counsel, and the relevance of an update in case of material deviation would not be lost on them. Perhaps we see something this week. For the time being, the situation remains unclear.
    Jan 1, 2014. 05:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Richard,
    Whether the revenue expectation in 2013 line remains in 10-Q is most likely a question of being "material." The initial order revenues will be small in Q4. If removal of the line from the 10-Q is a concern, then the offset is the mention of a similar expectation of Q4 commercial revenues in the PR for Q3 results on the same date, "...we continue to expect the start of production revenue in the current quarter and ramping production revenue throughout 2014."

    You mention above Plating is not Additive, and the resulting toxic waste. Well, at least Printing is Additive. The Plating bath was never supposed to be Additive. Since Plating is not a new process unique to UniPixel, any byproduct issues have been around for years and are managed by the industry. It's not that ITO by-products are wine and fruitcakes or that other companies using Plating are all being investigated by the EPA.

    In a few weeks we will learn about the Company's ability to bring Kodak's Rochester facility online, further indicating whether it can successfully Print and Plate in volume. The final proof will be in the Volume Orders, which should be a Q1 event.
    Dec 16, 2013. 02:45 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Thanks for clarifying the Fifth point. Since that's quite "sensational" I wanted to quickly present my thought.
    There was a shipping delay that was announced. So on November 07 when the Q3-10-Q is filed, It makes sense to remove that line for 2013, which says "We expect to sell the finished products to OEMs in 2013." The symbolic revenues for Q4 are going to be very small.
    Dec 10, 2013. 04:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Richard,
    It’s a long post covering many things. So a long reply.
    The presentation makes for very interesting reading.
    I didn't say I can't read the 10Ks and 10Qs of the past.

    From Nov 2010 presentation, no slide talks about a Capacity Ramp Plan - meaning dates when they expect to have a certain # of printers and platers installed. Slide #17 cites advantages of roll-to-roll. There is a picture and they talk about sub-5 micron width and 500 ft/minute speed. The 500ft/min seems very high; so most likely they're not referring to Additive printing. One doesn't get a sense whether they're talking about the promise of R2R process, where they're planning to go or are they talking about the current state of affairs as existed in Nov 2010. It can be understood both ways. At no place I find any mention of how much equipment capacity was already installed. So the capacity you're talking about may be a right calculation, but the equipment was not even there - at least I don't find a reference to any existing ability to produce. I even looked up a 10-K quickly for 2011 and didn't find any reference for equipment installed to produce such fine line films.

    Furthermore, the 5 micron reference in 2010 can't be an existing state of affairs in Nov 2010, because they were at 20 micron lines in 2011. Overall, I find the presentation fairly vague and the company's market strategy at that time quite diluted as they plan on going after so many different opportunities. I'm surprised money could be raised solely on this presentation. At the same time, we're missing the soundbytes and Q&A that would have accompanied the presentation, which would put some of the slides in context.

    Perhaps UNXL learnt their lesson, and have focused on a single touch sensor opportunity since 2012.

    Slide #28 clearly shows use of proceeds at $3.5 million Capex out of $15 million with the rest for Note repayment and working capital. So if they used $2 million for equipment as you say, instead of $3.5 milion, that doesn't appear alarming. The total $15 million was never allocated for equipment capex.

    You wrote “by July 2011, UniPixel had installed and calibrated equipment capable of making 10,000,000 sq ft of touch sensors (assuming two-ply sensors and two 8-hour shifts), according to its earnings calls.”

    Since you’ve found this somewhere, can you kindly post the link. I couldn’t find any reference to existing capacity in July 2011. In fact, the Q3-2011 10-Q just carries $1.2 million of Property & Equipment. Fairly small and not the amount one will expect to produce 10 mil sq ft you refer to above.

    ===========

    Coming to 2013, the 1.3 million capacity mark has varied but within a reasonable deviation - instead of end of 2013, it's Jan 2014. The Company has not Sold any sensors, but they have Produced them. POs have to get issued only after prototypes were Accepted. That’s the natural progression. But no one disagrees that it's time to see some Sales from the capacity in-place and we're much closer now than at any time before. The PC OEM partner wants this minimum volume capacity in place.

    ===========

    I disagree with your characterization of the Summer delay as being a deceptive tactic on part of UniPixel. The supposed issues which you highlight are dictated by PC OEM partner Dell. You've to take it up with Dell for delaying the product, changing the design, and the supposed date of Win 8.1 release.

    If you're suggesting that Uni-Pixel is misrepresenting the real reason for the delay and is using its key Dell relationship as a red herring in the misrepresentation, then the manner in which they’re doing it defies logic. Will an emerging technology company jeopardize a multi-million dollar cornerstone relationship in this unethical manner by dragging their anchor customer into an elaborate deception? If this was true, Dell would not be validating equipment, granting waivers, and issuing a PO to Uni-Pixel, but instead would be serving something else. After all, Dell has to realize that the PC OEM that Uni-Pixel refers to is “Dell.”

    ==============

    Regarding my reference to your "disappointment" for lack of POs, it was triggered by your multiple such comments. Here are 2 examples:

    "…Dell discarded the entire shipment by Uni-pixel and has no products using UniBoss, Intel has been promoting Uni-pixel's competitors, Synaptics is firmly entrenched with ITO, and Kodak is eyeing silver, not copper. Whether I have credibility or not is irrelevant. What matters is that Uni-pixel has not received even one purchase order despite being in pilot production since Q3 2010 (if we are to believe the press release)." Richard X Roe, , Aug 08, 2013 ; 12:22pm

    "…Uni-pixel's "technology" is inherently low-yield and high-cost in addition to being optically inferior compared to the current products on the market. Otherwise, Uni-pixel would have received at least one purchase order by now…" Richard X Roe, Aug 08, 2013 ; 08:33am

    ===============

    Regarding your comment that recent 10-Q states that UniPixel no longer expects to sell in 2013 or 2014, I had to re-read after your "sensational" remark. The only reference that I could find which remotely can make you say such a thing was the following on P18 of 10-Q:

    "LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
    We have historically financed our operations primarily through the issuance of equity and debt securities and by relying on other commercial financing. Until our products begin to earn enough revenue to support our operations, WHICH MAY NEVER HAPPEN, we will continue to be highly dependent on financing from third parties."

    Perhaps I missed the relevant lines. But if your remark is based on this boilerplate language that has been used since Q1, 2013, then you’re twisting things again.

    ===============

    I agree that the management team has to prove themselves. The opportunities they outlined in the past have not much to show commercially. This is their best chance to capitalize and they have done something special with developing their Additive process.
    Dec 10, 2013. 02:30 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Lindon,
    Since Kodak has been discussed so many times, I don't know if this is an error or just your re-crafting of the agreement. The details that have been announced are a % of the Gross Profit, after production costs. It's NOT % of Revenues.

    You've a right to be annoyed at UNXL infringement since you're a Carclo shareholder. What you believe to be under-handed tactics have disappointed you further. I can't comment too much on the lawsuit. But your concern about management reliability has been brought up by many throughout the year. That's a key argument for the Short side. So what you say about the Legal stuff may be true or not, and we will learn with time.

    When you say "poor quality of InTouch" compared to other competitors, is it your opinion or you've read/talked to some industry folks. The poor yields were being experienced in Colorado Springs, but Atmel overcame that issue. If you mean to say poor yields for UNXL, then the same continuous process improvements will apply here, and btw "poor" is a relative term in the absence of numbers. Moire pattern is amongst the early issues that needs to be resolved for a metal mesh touch sensor. Coming this far and still facing that issue appears unrealistic. Millions being spent to produce a Moire pattern metal-mesh doesn't sound savvy. Imagine the egg on Kodak's face, and even Dell for issuing a PO and not able to view the Moire pattern that you see. And I'm being understated with the "egg" expression. Btw, my reference to Moire here is in the context that it makes the device hard to use or unpleasant for the enduser. If Moire exists at a range outside typical viewing angles, then it should not be a serious concern.

    Your point would have had great relevance last year and perhaps early this year. But now we're well beyond that point. I do realize anything you or I say is just opinion till we have the product on the shelves to view.
    Dec 9, 2013. 05:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Richard,
    One has to wonder if in the year 2013/14 you're doubting that metal mesh opportunity exists, then what would you be saying in 2010 and July 2011 about metal mesh. What was the Company going to do with 32 million sq ft/month touch sensor capacity in 2010, and what were the participating investors thinking?

    If Uni-Pixel used a fraudulent investor presentation to raise money in 2010, don't you feel those investors would have something to say about it in Courts. It's not that they made out hand-over-fist. The rally really started late last year.

    Since Q4-2012 quarter, Uni-Pixel laid out a capacity schedule and has been largely meeting it. There has been a documented delay, but no derailment. I've not read what they presented in 2011 and 2010.

    What you talk about if true is a concern that keeps you on the Short side along with many others. You've found a pattern that you believe in. My viewpoint is over the past 12 months. I'm looking at capacity rollout milestones and I see some slippage but still on-track with what management discussed. I'm in no position to evaluate management's track record beyond the past 12 months.

    You've expressed your disappointment many times about UNXL's lack of POs. Now you're upset about zero revenues. Well, POs finally came, but this is just the start. Q1 should deliver more POs and meaningful revenues too.
    Dec 9, 2013. 05:04 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Real Time 1,
    Management - well, you've been in the same shoes running a public company. So you're entitled to your opinion. If you feel uncomfortable, then so it is. Lack of prior history of success is a concern. But you've to note that the pitfalls they experienced before are being avoided this time. They learnt from their mistakes. They control the product a lot more than in prior situation when Samsung was in complete control. As a public company CEO, you've to believe that a Company is also valued by the "Company" they keep. Won't you feel a bit comfortable doing business with an emerging technology company that is in business deals with Fortune 100 companies and some household brand names, like Kodak. This is an emerging technology situation, and we all have to see how we can find elements that diminish risk and add comfort. No such situation is perfect.

    I do find this comment quite thought-provoking - "I am very critical of insider sales stock when the company is not yet profitable or has even had a single unit of product hit the store shelves."

    I would say, it depends on industry-to-industry, but nonetheless a nice sentiment.

    JohnFenn's post that you highlight - this comment here,

    "My question is, does Unipixel's InBoss product have a "lot more to offer" then the other 10-12 mesh manufacturers that have already been incorporated into existing touch panels?"

    Yes, it does. The Cost. We will have to wait and see for ourselves what happens in Q1.

    The next comment "As an aside, when I asked a Kodak person, who is in a position to know about the Unipixel/ Kodak program, about how things are going, he just gave me a smirk and a chuckle and told me not to bother with any more questions as there was not much to report. I have known this person for many years and trust his input."

    You know, it's this friend vs the CEO of Kodak talking directly about the product. The CEO would definitely know how things are going before he puts things in writing and in public domain. The "friend" - we don't know what role he plays in Kodak team on UNXL project. Unless the friend is a CTO of Kodak, who is literally spearheading the project. And the CTO was not in Santa Clara at that conference during those days. Dr. Fenn is a coating expert, and his opinion is worth listening to. But these are all kind of soft arguments like - everyone else mentioned real devices, while UNXL didn't; even if UNXL has viable approach, they're late to the party, etc. He doesn't have reason to doubt his Kodak friend.. But this is not a clinching argument as you may somewhat agree.
    Dec 8, 2013. 11:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
100 Comments
219 Likes