Ive been chatting to Coby this week,
Topics included the consolidation, Borensteins irritating selling (ceasing to be substantial holder), escrow shares, Rice Uni patents, Intels MRam, key partners.
Cobys responses are in italics. I put in the highlights.
The selling on-market from some of the founding shareholders has certainly been frustrating for me. The company continues to make significant progress with its development and is moving closer to productisation, but downward pressure on the share price is not allowing this to be reflected.
As you are aware, there were a large amount of shares that came out of escrow in August last year (40% of total issued capital), with many of the founding shareholdings (now no longer involved with the company) then selling shares. This selling was driven by a tax event for some, and for others that have had a large part of their wealth tied up in the shares for around 4 years wanted to diversify their affairs. We have been very active in finding new investors to take up the stock that is coming onto the market. The pleasing aspect for me is that every share sold by the founding shareholders means that is one less share they can sell going forward, and we are also seeing our share register transitioning to shareholders that are long term shareholders that will support the company as it moves closer to productisation. We are currently undertaking numerous initiatives to cover for any additional selling down, including speaking with local institutional investors and family offices, as well as offshore investors and potential strategic investors. While we have no way of knowing whether additional stock will come onto the market post the escrow date, we are putting in place a number of strategies to be ready for this. I trust this has provided you with some comfort knowing that this issue is being discussed and dealt with at the board level. We look forward to your continued support.
In relation to Mr Hanoch suggested 'Reram was promising to be a leading technology' Has the board considered Intels recent adoption of FinFets embedded MRAM a concern? does it mean the industry has chosen a path that places greater obstacles for WBT and Reram?
ReRAM and MRAM are different technologies with different advantages and disadvantages. The key advantage of ReRAM is that itis much easier to produce. MRAM requires a complex and expensive process. MRAM is also currently limited to ~20nm and it seems like it will be extremely difficult to go below that, and if somehow it will be done, it will be even more expensive. MRAM has a higher endurance and that is why, despite the high cost, companies like Intel invest in it. We are already talking to customers and there are many market segments which focus on cheaper and simpler manufacturing processes where MRAM is simply not an option.
Regarding 'key strategic partner/early adopter' discussed in past video interviews, would any amendment be made to '..by end of 2018 or first qtr at the latest' or is that statement still on track?
We have many discussions going on with strategic partners and some are in more advanced stages than others. We still don’t know if/what we will be able to announce in the near future, as there are many parameters influencing this which are not under our control. I asked this because I didnt want this topic arising again in a few months...
is the 1st Jan 2020 for the 1st annual minimum royalty payment (revised Rice Uni patent) achievable depending on the response to the above questions?
This first payment is US$10K. It is not a large amount and is not dependent on any milestone. It is not a big amount so I don’t see any concern here. We definitely plan to be engaged with strategic partners before then.
in Conclusion, I like Coby. Im confident I will like him alot more pretty soon.
Expand
(20min delay)
