4DS (ASX) Ann: Capital Raising Update

Originally posted by Flectional: ↑

best to look forward ( from the recent market update on the 17th Dec. )

a)

that is an NRE design contract (paid up front is standard for these and the fee is aligned to current industry practice

b)

- the platform vehicle aka 'universal platform'

c)

- the 'uncovering shortfalls' are either with the universal platform or with the area cells - it is not specified but a complete 'read' has not been achieved for wherever the 'shortfall' is evident

d) so that requires ....( which confirms c above)

- a specific macro platform vehicle designed for the area based characteristics ....which are yet to be completely characterised - aka unknown again supports nre agreement terms as listed

e)
- macro platform strategy = we think this is the best way forward - 'vital and necessary third phase' so lets hope it succeeds

f)

- PL5 'successful in that' we can tweak some 'processes' procedure to achieve some potential gains on PL6 /20nm - remember its all hypothesis driven

g)

- PL6 is the first attempt at 20nm process

h) - why no data released to market on PL5?

- games / aka we don't want to say yet - well if its good enough data to tweak PL6 it is 'material' information to the market ....that's why it is of concern -

I understand why they may be reluctant to release info but that is no justification for withholding imo

this is the info we can look forward with and it all hinges on 20nm being a success - scaling down +9 has inherent risks for qualified functionality at 20nm - some they have clearly tried to address and others remain an unknown due to the inherent characteristics of the material and the 'process' behaviour at 20nm relative to the variables seen at 60nm + new variables at 20nm
as you know 20nm 'processes' will present their own set of process variables because it is untried process tech at that node - those who think it is a simple scale exercise could not be further from the reality - thats why IMEC and 4DS are doing all they can to tweak process based on PL5 into 6 - to potentially minimize unknown variation

at this point previous Lots and outcomes mean very little so best to forget them -

Are there issues with the dory platform process and associated process flow? I'm sure there are as this is all prototyping process manufacturing
bring on 20nm and we all know one way or the other - PH seems to outline the pathway with a level of clarity mixed with uncertainty for outcomes into the future and as he is the only company rep doing this he is worth listening too imo

just my opinion -

Expand

@Flectional . Yes, little choice but to look forward, and I hope that sentiment shown in the share price and commentary has been heard by the BoD. PH has been the most open about ‘where next’ in terms of strategy and time frames, be it through a series of podcasts rather than via official announcements.

We hear from PH that it is possible to get a commercial transaction even before the design work is completed by Infineon. The question I have is, what is the likelihood of a buyer taking our tech on before we are able to ‘fully’ characterize our memory cells from PL6? How could they possibly know what it is capable of without that data. We can’t fully characterize until Infineon have designed and then built a custom control/access device I would have thought.

So realistically, are we really still in for a two or three year development runway from here?

The commentary on HC, with the all guess work that has been expressed is proof of the information vacuum that we operate in. We spend our time constantly picking over the wording of official announcements which trigger more questions than they answer because of the way they are written.

I am keen to know if we are still looking to find a ‘development partner’ with the emphasis on ‘partner’. I’m not sure Infineon fits the strict definition of a partner (ie. sharing costs ). I think the language our BoD uses in regards to the term ‘partner’ has major implications for shareholders expectations regarding the need for future CR’s or whether some funding comes from our partner. DM himself has said in the investor presentation that I went to that, the ‘development partner’ could end up being the
eventual buyer.

Let’s hope some lessons are being learned and the information flow dramatically improves.