Seeking Alpha

Richard X Roe

View as an RSS Feed
View Richard X Roe's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • UniPixel delays InTouch sensor production to Q2, shares -5.4% AH [View news story]
    Buysider2: The technologies are different, but the final products - the touch sensors - address the exact same niche and are direct competitors. The only way I can be wrong on this point is if either Kingsbury or UniPixel (or Heraeus, for that matter) is not making touch sensors, which of course, is not far from the truth, as UniPixel's actual business is perpetuating a Techno Pozni, not making touch sensors. So either Mr. Veronda lied or UniPixel is a scam. You pick!

    My point is also that Mr.Veronda is lying about the actual delay. The initial expectation was for volume production in July-August 2013. Then it got delayed, and delayed, and delayed again. Kodak, or at least Kodak's flexo experts because there are no Kodak plating experts, know very well that UniPixel's process simply cannot be commercialized in volume. The same Board members who were present at the annual shareholder meeting in April 2013 when the "projection" was made and when the stock options were granted are now making the same "projection."
    Jan 9 04:56 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel's Declining Production Capability And Inconsequential Purchase Orders [View article]
    ouijaman1: The new Kodak's ticker is KODK. You are looking at the ticker of a bankrupt company.
    Jan 8 09:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    LindonT: According to UniPixel's wesbite, UniBoss no longer exists. The Copperhead process is the one currently used by UniPixel. Can you point me to the patent that describes the Copperhead process?

    The original patent, filed in 2011, covered two DIFFERENT ways of making the sensors - embossing vs flexo. UniPixel claimed to use embossing initially (until 2012), but is now using flexo. Flexo and embossing cannot mix for obvious reasons, as explained in the patent. The fact that a patent has not been published doesn't mean that it hasn't been filed.

    The HP Omni 10 with XSense exhibits a clearly visible moire pattern . You can deny it all you want, but anyone who looks carefully can see it. Luckily for HP, since only a few thousand of these devices will be sold, there won't be too many complaints.

    No need to write an article about Atmel and Carclo. Atmel's XSense revenues are zero and will remain close to zero in the foreseeable future. Carclo's revenues come entirely from amortization of deferred revenue from an earlier fee from Atmel. That is why Carclo is hovering near its 3-year low.
    Jan 4 06:27 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    LindonT: You should read the patent more carefully. A flexographic process, by definition, cannot do any embossing, because the "dots" in the flexible plate can only deposit ink - they are mechanically too weak to emboss (that is, make any actual impression on the substrate). It does matter, because if you don't understand the manufacturing process (as described by the company), you can't really estimate yields and costs before it is too late. So, now that you have learned something about UniPixel's manufacturing process, maybe you should learn something about Atmel/Carclo's manufacturing process too? Then you will understand why Atmel has failed to generate any meaningful touch sensor revenues despite shipping commercially since mid 2012 - you can't blame that on Mr. Killion.
    Jan 4 01:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    LindonT: That patent covers two alternatives - one is embossing, the other one is simply "transferring ink to the substrate." Regardless, the patent's filing date is April 2011. As I pointed out to you, UniPixel was emphasizing embossing as late as December 2011.

    However, the more recent presentation, authored July 31, 2012 shows that UniPixel was no longer using any embossing - it had switched to a flexographic process for "transferring ink to the substrate".

    UniPixel has a new website - take a look at it - the embossing picture is now gone. The website shows the pictures of UniPixel's equipment: a Mark Andy flexographic printer and a Chemcut plating line.
    Jan 4 11:04 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel's Declining Production Capability And Inconsequential Purchase Orders [View article]
    Lucky: The new CEO better bring in from outside some new product that can be manufactured in volume and sold profitably. Because Uniboss/InTouch production capacity has shrunk to zero, just like it happened with the TMOS, FPR, Skyfiber, fashion, and Diamond Guard films in the past.
    Jan 3 01:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Graycell: What amount of revenue would you consider material, based on UniPixel's "interest and meetings with partners and potential customers?" After all, hasn't UniPixel's stated capacity been in excess of 700,000 sqft/month since September, equivalent to over $40 million in quarterly revenues at capacity? By the way, customs records show that UniPixel received its "automated" testing equipment from China in early November - the equipment listed in the manifest is a joke, suggesting that UniPixel still can't produce even one sensor. I acknowledge the "discrepancy" with the press release, but the 10Q may indeed be correct that UniPixel does "not expect to sell the finished products to OEMs in 2013," even in immaterial quantities.

    UniPixel's process relies on both printing and plating, and since plating is not additive and generates enormous waste, UniPixel's production process overall cannot be called additive. Printing is not a new process unique to UniPixel either, as Gutenberg invented the printing process more than 500 years ago, and roll-to-roll gravure printing, but not flexo printing, has been able to do 5-micron features for many years.

    The final proof is already here. It was completed in 2011, and then again in 2012, and then again in April 2013 and since, as UniPixel has consistently failed to produce and ship any touch sensors, contrary to promises. And we know how those volume orders for FPR and DiamondGuard announced by the company in the past turned out, don't we?
    Dec 16 04:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Greenfire87: And when did the short interest take a huge jump, exactly? Anyway, apparently none of this matters, as you simply follow what "Mukticat" tells you to do.

    As far as stupidity is concerned, I do prefer to be in a business that is not commoditized and suffering from declining margins and revenues. Intel caused an oversupply of touch modules, after it wasted millions to stimulate capacity that nobody needed - that seems rather stupid. And, of course, the ultimate stupidity is to give any money to a proven scam, like UniPixel. The stupid notebooks are not flying off any shelves - that is why you see them sitting on the shelves, while the customers buy non-touch notebooks and take those off the shelves. This year, only 10% of notebooks shipped were touch enabled, and next year it is not looking much better.

    And, no, I have never touted "pen touch" - you are imagining things. You are also imagining that my story has changed - it hasn't. Anyway, why would you care what kids like, if you just follow what "Mukticat" tells you to do?
    Dec 14 03:10 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Greenfire87: This is all very interesting, but why were you out to begin with? Wasn't UniPixel the most undervalued scam even at $35, given that its CEO knew how to generate $3.8 billion in revenues at 50% gross margin with just $2 million capex in 2010?The real bottom will come only when the company is liquidated and the remaining cash distributed to shareholders which should happen by 2015 at the latest.

    Given ergonomics and battery life, touchscreens make absolutely no sense in notebooks even if given away for free, and convertibles (or "hybrid" notebook/tablets) are an abomination - they cost more than a tablet and a notebook combined, and make neither a good tablet nor a good notebook. Intel and Microsoft may persist in their stupidity, but the customers will resist. This will all become very clear next year, if it is not already.
    Dec 14 02:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uni-Pixel: Production Progress Is On The March [View article]
    Graycell: The so-called investors in 2010 were either clueless, on drugs, or in on the fraud, or all of the above. That includes a Tudor fund, since liquidated, and Merrill Lynch, which had to be rescued by BAC. The fact is, the presentation was filed as an 8K during the roadshow to raise $15 million (only $2 million of which ended up in mastering and production equipment, eventually). The slide shows production process that can do 32 million sq ft/month of touch sensors (assuming two-pla sensors and two 8-hour shifts) with a specific coater equipment from Taiwan pictured in the slide. Since the combined area of all the touch screens shipped in year 2010 was less than 65 million sq ft, this means that in two months, UniPixel could produce all the touch sensors in the world at a price to the OEM that was 1/3 of that of ITO at the time.

    Take a look yourself: Slides 16 and 17 here: http://1.usa.gov/WYFJvw

    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 Q4 2012, UniPixel has continued to intentionally mislead investors. The company has targeted 60,000 sqft/month by the end of April, 200,000 by the end of June, 700,000 by the end of September, and then achieving 1.3 million units monthly by December 2013 or January of 2014, depending on the mood of Mr. Killion. As of today, the company has NOT been able to produce even one functioning production-level sensor (its only attempted shipment of production-level product, 50 units in late April, was completely rejected, and UniPixel's CEO, of course, lied about the reason for the "delay," as documented in my article).

    What capacity rollout are you talking about, when UniPixel had 32,000,000 sqft/month touch screen capacity in 2010, which went to 10,000,000 sqft/month in July 2011, and is now zero sqft/month? Why can't you evaluate management's track record beyond the past 12 months? Can't you read the 8Ks, 10Qs, and listen to the earnings calls recordings?

    I have not expressed my disappointment many times about UNXL's lack of POs - you are mistaking me for someone else. I am very familiar with UniPixel's purchase orders. For example, the first purchase orders for UniPixel's finger-print resistant film came on October 1, 2009 - that was a best-in-class product, generating 50% gross margins, and supposed to revolutionize the touch market (according to UniPixel) - those orders resulted in zero product revenues. So, I am not upset with the zero product revenue either.

    Did you did read the latest 10Q filed by UniPixel? If you had, you would know that UniPixel no longer expects to sell finished products to OEMs in 2013 (or 2014, for that matter).
    Dec 9 06:31 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Uni-Pixel Might Be Worth The Risk [View article]
    LindonT: Great article! Samsung appears to be responding to the recent announcement by LG Innotek. It will be very interesting to see how Samsung's process does 3 microns - its current exclusive supplier does 10 micron silver mesh using embossing and printing (without any plating step!) - however, demand from Samsung has been weaker than expected, with metal mesh production lines running at just 20% utilization. At the end, it will all be about costs, and current ITO prices are very hard to beat.
    Dec 5 08:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Uni-Pixel Might Be Worth The Risk [View article]
    goodybob: According the transcript of the latest earnings call, the magic "very custom-made testing equipment" has not arrived yet but it is sitting at the equipment manufacturer for "testing!" Also, according to the same transcript, UniPixel is not producing or shipping anything yet.
    Nov 15 08:05 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Uni-Pixel Might Be Worth The Risk [View article]
    Redsentment: Yes, it was put to bet. It was established that yields on the front end (sensor level) are something quite different from yields on the back end (module level). So, Mr. Killion talked about 30% or 50% yields on the back end in September - these are horrific numbers, guaranteeing losses at the ODM.
    Nov 14 05:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Uni-Pixel Might Be Worth The Risk [View article]
    JBird61: You have the right not to engage. However, the fact is that yield on the back end is as low 30% (otherwise the CEO would not have mentioned it), and even if UniPixel is ever able to produce something useful, it can't sell it. ITO touch modules are now so cheap, that even if UniPixel gives away its sensor for free, the module will still be more expensive than what's on the market.
    Nov 14 04:45 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Uni-Pixel Might Be Worth The Risk [View article]
    According to UniPixel's management, the company has had production capacity of 60,000 units/month since April, 200,000 units/month since June, and 700,000 units/month since September, each unit worth about $20 in revenues. Yet, revenues were exactly zero in the September quarter, inventories were exactly zero at the end of September, and the company still isn't producing or shipping anything today. I wonder why that might be... Maybe there are some obstacles to production and shipments?
    Nov 14 04:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
806 Comments
184 Likes