Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
2 million by End of June will actually be rather poor. We are already over 1.5m, which only suggests less than another 0.5 million, showing quite poor growth.
I thought the next 2 KPIs were supposed to be awesome given BMW and VW are joining the party. If that's the case it will be another Auto revenue miss, and breakeven pushed back further.
Sorry the price in pence was miscalulated previously. It should be:-
The previous didn't format very well. So hopefully this is clearer
PER --------Price in Cent --------------Price in Pence
10 --------- 10 -----------------------------7.9p
15 ---------15 -----------------------------11.34p
20 ---------20 -----------------------------15.8p
The above is 2026 expectations. If these are met, plus new contracts appear, I'd expect profit to double each year.
Share price would obviously increase in a similar fashion providing growth projections (ie visibility via future contracts ), continues. Without the growth ( ie new contracts) the PER associated with the stock will reduce.
So getting to 15.8p is possible on hitting 2026 forecasts.
Then profits doubling in 2027 and 2028 would normally see the share price also double. However without the visibility of future growth the PER would drop back to 10 from 20 and you stay at 15.8p.
All sorts of variables in there. It won't work out like that, but that's the theory
The previous didn't format very well. So hopefully this is clearer
PER --------Price in Cent --------------Price in Pence
10 --------- 10 -----------------------------7.9p
15 ---------15 -----------------------------15.8p
20 ---------20 -----------------------------23.7p
Micky,
I have a model which breaks down the various revenues and costs in the same manner that the results are produced. I'm happy to share headline numbers, as not sure I could handle the formatting here for the full figures.
It comes with a number of caveats.
1. Revenue assumes Auto to meet predicted forecasts.
Note this hasn’t happened in any year to date and future forecasts are always revised downwards after release of latest figures.
The last 2 Quarters were zero growth and the next 2 need to be exceptional to make up the difference. So, another downgrade is highly likely.
2. It contains nothing for aviation other than the Collins licence payment.
3. It contains nothing for OEM NRE and Hardware installs, which historically have been about $7m
4. It assumes a reduction in costs of $4m, which given inflation is currently 5% may be optimistic.
However, they are guiding on costs falling after this year, and is balanced out by no NRE above.
5. I have included nothing for After Manufacture, but have assumed Fleet to have above average years for 25 and 26.
Revenue Profit/(Loss)
2024 $62m ($9m)
2025 $83m $15m
2026 $120m $52m
Currently the company has repeatedly guide $125m revenue in 2026, but as they have never hit a target yet, I’m happy to leave it at $120m.
Market cap is currently £227m using 5p at share. Which is $286m
Assuming the Magna convertible happens with interest in shares, there will be roughly 4.55b shares.
In 2026 $52m profit (Lets use $4.5.5m, because to date they always under deliver, tax is unknown, and it makes the math easy. Gives an eps of 1 cent.
Using various PERs, take your pick.
PER Price in Cent Price in Pence
10 10 7.9p
15 15 15.8p
20 20 23.7p
Years 2027 and 2028 should see profit double each year from 2026’s figure.
If they can hit the revenue and profit figures above through 2025 and 2026, and it’s a big if, plus we see future contracts materialise then a PER of 20 would seem very reasonable.
However, if they continue to over promise and under deliver then expect a PER of 10 going forward.
I can still see potential for a 50p share price in 2027/2028, but I can also see much which could derail or delay that.
Also my figures show a $15m profit in 2025, the company only talks about reaching cash flow breakeven in 2025, so that worries me a little. It could still mean they do actually make a profit, if the cash flow breakeven occurs early in year.. But they are being quite vague here and leaving plenty of wriggle room.
Glandore,
Completely agree with that view. I'm viewing Paul's purchase in much the same way, ie he thinks he can make money at these prices, but his options are unlikely to produce anything meaningful.
So we might double or triple at some point, but the multi bag dream of 10x
Has disappeared from the horizon.
The biggest contradiction I could see in the presentation was the statements re cash burn.
Martin stated H1 averaged $4m per month, and expects/hopes FY to finish at $1m per month.
He didn’t state the current monthly cash burn.
However we know we have $22.2m left and they expect that to be $15m after H2. That suggests they expect to burn $7.2m in 6 months, so an average of $1.2m per month.
I’m having trouble seeing how that is possible unless we are already close to the $1.2m a month average burn. If that’s the case and we are at those levels why not state that, and if we are not and we are at $3m, then how can you average $1.2m, when the final month will be $1m at best.
Basically, I’m very sceptical, about these figures and can see the cash figure going down to anything from $5m to $12m at FY results.
Not only does this take them to the wire, but it makes inventory management tricky. If by chance they got a big G3 or Fleet order, they would struggle with cash flow to meet it.
On a positive, I was quite pleased that Paul clarified the guaranteed 1/3rd minimum order comment, which completely mislead investors here at the last presentation, myself included.
Something that was taken as a negative and a bit of a shock, has been clarified and can now be seen as a positive. It’s basically an insurance policy to force anyone who walks away from the contract below SOP to pay 1/3rd of the contract for the privilege.
Dream,
Very good post, I enjoyed reading that.
I think we are broadly on the same page, although rather than inline, my take is that it was below that, but glossed up to make it seem inline. They are hoping that the extra cost cutting they have had to implement in the 2nd half will bring the yearly update back to inline. They are also banking on this 40% – 60% H2 weighting happening as well. Although I don’t see it as H1 to H2 weighting, in the normal sense. I see it as expected growth.
Apologies to those who are strong bulls of the company, for the fact that I mainly post on the negatives that I see. But there is a reason for that.
I run a fairly concentrated portfolio, and can't really afford for any of the 5 or so big positions I hold to go belly up.
Having built a sizable investment in SEE over the years, I've watched it go from amazing potential to average potential, ie from potential 30 bagger to possible 4 bagger.
The company has achieved many excellent things, but for various reasons (mainly delays outside of its control), it has taken much longer to get to profitability than ever imagined. When you look back, it’s amazing they have got this far, and it’s probably only the Magna and Collins deals which have kept them going financially, and with some potential left.
That alone tells you how easy it would have been to go belly up, or back out to the market for more money and leaving existing investors with little upside.
When I first invested here, I only looked at the potential upside case. Now after all these years and a much bigger stake, I tend to spend much more time researching the downside and stress testing the investment.
I ignore most of Paul’s hopes and promises, and look for contradictions in what management say and what the figures tell you. Paul will always put some spin on it, as any MD would do, but there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed in doing that, and I’m checking for that continually.
It’s not that hard to present numbers in such a way, as to make things look better than they are. Especially when you are under pressure to deliver, and believe that if you could buy a little more time, it will all come good.
I’ve had some experience of this and know the temptations.
Paul was pretty honest about investors being unhappy about the share price, and looked to me to be under a degree of pressure regarding this.
Terry,
Don't know where you got those numbers but they are wrong. Just looking at cash position in your extract it says cash position of $26.1m at end of FY24, ie June 2024.
Today's presentation has Martin's first slide showing cash position at Dec 2023 at $22.2m and he goes on to say Mid teens by June 2024.
No idea where you got those numbers, but suggest you watch the presentation for the real figures.
The stand out for me is that the cash burn has continued to be above projections, and that seems to stem from Auto revenue being lighter than expected, due to various delays and other unknowns.
To address this, they seem to have decided to cut costs far more aggressively than anticipated in H2, to try to make up the difference.
They now suggest that cash in hand will be in “mid-teens millions” by end June 24. So, we have to assume $15m left by then.
Which should be just enough for cash flow breakeven in 2025, but things are tighter than was envisaged 12 months ago.
Given by their own admission, they don’t fully understand last quarter’s drop in revenue, the worry would be that Auto revenue continues to be lighter than expectations.
Clearly its good that they have the scope to cut costs, to recover lost revenue, but it looks like they now have played that card.
So, what happens if revenue continues to be lighter than expected?
Another discounted raise?
The next KPI’s have suddenly become even more significant.
I saw someone suggest that they expect directors to start buying again now that the close period restrictions have finished. Love to see it, as it might provide me some reassurance, but I suspect its very unlikely.
However if and when it does happen, it would suggest things are back on track.
So having previously been on track for 3m per month burn, which turned out to be 4m for 6 months.
Your impressed and happy to believe another on track statement, given that is hugely dependant on future revenue.
What was abundantly clear from the presentation is they haven't got a clue about future Auto revenues, and are having to have a investigation into what happened to OEM4's revenue last quarter.
If that doesn't tell you they are completely guessing future Auto revenues I don't know what will.
S2020.
Well if you know that, then you also know they said first quarter would be 3.5m per month and 2nd quarter would be 3m per month.
Turns out it's been 4m per month. So 4.5m more than they predicted.
So they are actually just trying to claw back what they failed to achieve in the first half.
They was on track to deliver that previously and haven't, so I wouldn't trust on track predictions.
You need to look at things more objectively and report the full picture and not just the bit you think people might like to hear.
It's so much better to read objective viewpoints rather than rampy statements
Chris,
I hope you are right about Valeo, price action certainly looked like,some people being in the know about something good going forward.
I don't buy it's people getting in ahead of results, as I'm not expecting anything in results that is any better than the trading update. In fact I'm expecting results to read less positive than the trading update.
I say that because you can just keep the trading statement to accentuate the positives, and just disclose the bits you want. Whereas results will be everything, warts and all.
Even if they didn't do that, there is nothing to suggest that results will be better than trading update.
So lets hope it's a contract in the bag.
If you read the next paragraph it explains exactly why.
Makes perfect sense to me.
The line that caught my eye was
The basis for this project was a scientific study commissioned by Shell and other operators to review more than 100 commercially available technological systems that purported to detect fatigue or distraction in drivers.
100 competing products!!!!!
You can see why take up has been so poor in Fleet. Having mopped up Australia and most of New Zealand fairly easily, getting others around the world to look at your product seriously must be difficult with this number of competing options.
How many are going to have the capability like Shell to look at all products, and do a proper assessment.
Especially if the customer already has strong telematics associations with suppliers not supporting us.
In addition whilst we may be the best, I'd guess we are also the most expensive.
I'd previously thought there may be 10 competing products in Fleet at most. It doesn't really matter if most are rubbish, when there are 100 it just makes knowing you have looked at all the right products all the harder if not impossible for the customer.
Hopefully the aftermarket DMS offerings, when buying new vehicles in Europe, will only be the best of breed,as manufacturers must know what is what here.
This should serve to make the haulage companies etc far more knowledgeable about what they should be buying in the future.
So for me the 100 competing products is a bit of a red flag, however Euro aftermarket regulation may help to clarify the landscape for European customers somewhat.
I have only read what Seize has posted of the interview, as it requires registration.
The key 2 quotes are
"Seeing Machines, which is listed on the AIM market in London, has forecast a doubling in revenue to $US125 million by 2026.
The critical aspect of that forecast is that revenue from royalties will rise about nine-fold to as much as $US68.75 million."
The $125m revenue figure for 2026 is the crux of the investing case for SEE. If that transpires they will be in a very healthy position, and should be making about $40m profit.
This should result in a company rerate and the share price should be anywhere from 7p to 10p, and if they can demonstrate there is further growth to follow, be above 10p.
He's made that $125m statement a couple of times now, and is slightly above my estimate of $120m.
Whilst previously they had said the $125m would be a rough 50/50 split between Auto and Fleet, he has further qualified that quoting $68.75m today.
That's slightly less than I had modeled at $71m, but will be very happy if they achieve that. It also suggests they expect Fleet to do better than I have projected. Presumably because I have nothing in for aftermarket, and they expect some decent revenue from that.
To get to $68.75m in Auto they will need to be doing about 5.75m cars a year in 2026. Which would roughly suggest the following yearly totals.
2024 1.25m
2025 3m
2026 5.75m
Half way through this year we are at 433k cars. Averaging 216.5k per quarter.
So we need to deliver another 800k over the last 2 quarters to be on track.
So a minimum of 300k for the next quarter and possibly a few more.
There goes the "we are/will be in all BMWs " claim that's been posted here a number of times.
Until the company starts to give some steer as to what cars/models we are in, it's more a throw of the dice than an investment.
Time and time again people come up with good reasons why we are in this and that, only to find its not the case.five
The original Auto investment case was that we would be rolled out into premium models and trims first, and then get the real volume when rolled out into mainstream models.
However more and more it seems that's not happening and cheaper options are being used for those.
My big concern is that by the time quality DMS becomes mainstream for all cars, it will be too late for SEE investors.
I think Colin sums up the Smarteye position very well, and it's beyond me how the share price has risen since these results. Its surely clear to anyone who has watched any of their presentations, that Martin is way out of his depth here.
I suspect another raise is probably 6 months away.
Knowing these are our biggest competitor is definitely helping me stay invested here.
However whilst I think they pose very little threat in automotive, (other than low end business), I suspect that they will take away a lot of business from us in Aftermarket. There will be many operators who just want to tick the box and be legal rather than look for the best solution. This may be what gets them through in the end if they can sell it at a profit, and may well take a lot of business away from us
Why would anyone buy shares at 11p when they are trading at 5p or less. You would either take the money back, or possibly roll over the deal on much better terms.
Can't understand why you think they won't have the money, listening on here they should be swimming in cash by then.
Good to see someone ask some proper questions, and not let him off the hook.
Wasn't that convinced with some of the replies.
We were surprised by last month's auto figures! Reasons - it's complicated
Now mentioning that the 300m + RNS figure is only 1/3 guaranteed. Never heard that mentioned before.
Got rid of 5 to 6m stock last 6 months, so adding that to the 13.9m cash burn makes at least 19m cash burn. That's about what Martin forecast at the last presentation.
Still predicting 100% auto year on year growth, although I thought he was less convincing. He clearly knows that requires a big 2nd half.