The management's track record is undeniably bad, however it would appear hat they are now (possibly belatedly) now adopting a new approach. Since about 2010 the focus has been licensing their IP to other companies (they did not start out on this basis - in 2007 they wanted to get into manufacturing). To succeed in licensing you have to convince that they have little alternative but to adopt your "invention". Where BLG management have failed is that they have not appreciated that most semi-conductor companies are not run by "scientist" but by hard nosed businessmen (also accountants) who do not want to change to a better technology unless they are under threat. Even if they are under threat they would prefer to steal "sweets" from the "scientists" who they see as vulnerable by encouraging them to undertake "collaborations" (preferably without payment) and then "pulling the rug" when the technology shows promise in the hope that they can takeover for a song and use the IP to stare down their competitors; it's a tough world!! I have been the victim of this approach in the past, particularly when involved with "entrepreneurs". If you look at Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg's and others you will find "colorful" incident in their "start up" phase; it's dog eat dog. BLG's "smart" is that they have resisted an exclusive license (as I understand it that was what Lumileds wanted) but been driven into the ground in the process. Fortunately they appear to have done sufficient work to develop what they consider to be a "killer application" - the laser diode; we shall see if it is.
It appears to me that BLG believe that the "active as grown" Tunnel Junction (TJ) as an investors going into the right issue (RI) you have to decide whether this is correct and whether BLG management a capable of exploiting it. All the application BLG are promoting relies upon the "edge" RPCVD appears to have in not requiring "annealing" in the growth of Mg doped P-GaN which is a serious encumbrance to "go to" process of MOCVD. There are alternatives (e.g MBE) but these are expensive to operate. The TJ offers promise in the use N-GaN at contacts (N-GaN) is far more conductive than P-GaN. The problem is that (to date) the forward voltage drop of the TJ is too high and the transparency is inadequate. BLG appear to be confident that the thickness of the TJ and the amount of doping can be adjusted to reduce the TJ forward voltage and transparency; whether you believe this or not is crucial in my RI intentions (I do). IMO BLG are solid on technical issues but possibly not timescales (i.e they will get there; the issue is will they live that long) - they appear to be confident that they need 12 months and have done convincing modelling of the doping and thickness of the TJ to be credible). Technical people are usually optimistic; as an investor you have to be pragmatic.
The other issue is the ability of BLG to be a manufacture and direct market their product. With 5 systems they have some (but limited) capacity but the AIXTRON is critical to getting production to a commercial level. I don't consider that BLG have the capability to direct market to end users but they could have agents who may have his capability; if BLG'sclaims are correct then they should have a technical edge in the Laser diode market but the "cutter' systems integrators need to appreciat this. This is my current area of research, hopefully they have "connected' agents and outlet. It's a big deviation from BLG's traditional thinking (i.e the license the product) but it may well work. Focussing on one product (i.e the laser diode) helps but being a 'one horse pony' has it's dangers. Other products (e.g. stacked LED, MicroLEDs, multijunction solar cells) follow in the coat tails but for commerciality the critical product appears to be Laser Diodes. If they are successful the gains could be enormious particularly from 2 cents but the risks are very much there; DYOR.
BLG Price at posting:
2.2¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
