Member Info for Brockwl

Very quite on here at the moment.

Had a look at last years trading update, and assuming they are consistent and publish similar details, I've taken a go at what I hope the statement might consist of.
I'm being conservative here, and these are my worse case guess at figures. Hopefully theirs will be better.

The Company expects to report revenue for H2 2021 of A$23m (H1 2021: A$18.1m), a (approx.) 26% increase.
Total connected Guardian units at 31 December 2021 was 36,500, securing forward Annualised Recurring Revenues including royalties of A$20.5m (H2 2021: A$17.2m, +19%). This represents an increase of 4,783 Guardian units in H2 2021 with additional hardware sales of 5000 units still to be connected. Cash position at 31 December 2021 of A$87m (H1 2021: A$48.1m).

Expect to find we are now in over 300,000 cars globally

GLA

Esc,
You could be right, the recent Nov raise would be about 5% dilution of you choose not to participate.
Still present explain all the 100 and 200k sells and buys going though. Must be coming from somewhere.

So now we know who the big seller is, looks like they have sold, roughly 22million shares.
It has been clear for a while, by the size of sells and the small spread that there was a big seller.
Question now is how many more are they planning on selling?

Seems a big seller happy to unload at any price.
Suspect it will fall further if it continues. Share price in the 7's not out of the equation now.
That's my next planned top up.

Never seen the spread so small here.
Surprisingly easy to find sellers at this price it seems.

I f you look at 2017 options awarded, Alberto had 150,000 which were due to expire next month, and Cesar 95,000.
I'm guessing these are part of the sale, so not completely true they didn't need to sell. However I agree it's odd why edwardo and Cesar have taken the other options now. Also why none were sold to cover tax.
However if a takeover was to happen, they would have to honour those options anyway so don't see that being the reason.

It was A$40m at end Sept 2021. So 7.4m was spent in a quarter, which if continued suggest that's now A$32.6 at end 2021.
But they raised $40m US in November less fees, so about A$55m, which is A$87.6 in total.
FX rate and
Fees may be higher so possibly a bit less.

Maplinman,
you ask "How can you be confident that you have created a financial model that can predict See's share price years in advance? Even trained financial analysts get it wrong most of the time and that is just predicting a year in advance."

I'm not confident I've got it right, it could be out by some way. However the whole point of doing something like this is too get the model to provide an answer, then adjust for potential inaccuracies to validate the investment is sound .
For example my model says 29p for 2025.
I can be out by 100% and still justify a 14.5p share price. Now I might think it's likely to be out in the other direction, but the key thing here is when one has a very large investment, you must keep confirming that your capital is safe.
The model tells me that if I'm 100% out I should still be able to sell at 14.5p in 2025. Not great but not a disaster that wipes me out.
As we enjoy the ride, and more information becomes available the model can be refined.
All the info needed to create a rough mode exists, and is supplied by the company in various results and presentations. The last presentation being the most useful. Currently its rough, because they can't or won't be overly specific.

Frankly I'm amazed that so many big share holders here, aren't trying to make similar estimates, as I don't see Paul offering any in the near future.
So far it's all been finger in the air stuff, plus a hope that because its such a good product it must do great.
The market is littered with companies who produced great products but couldn't commercialize it.
If SEE is to hit the highs of 100p, it will typically need to be showing a profit of £400m a year, which will likely mean revenue needs to be at least £500m. If growth is exceptional I accept it may do it for less than this, but I want to see that £400m is possible, to give me more confidence in the investment case.
Until you do some sort of model you can't have any clue if that is possible.

GLA

Oldfool,
You said "Sorry but why not post your observations when the price was higher?"
I thought I made it clear that I only posted because people kept moaning about the share price being too low, in their opinion, after all the wonderful recent news. It frustrates me sometimes and I respond.
If the price was higher they wouldn't be moaning so much, and I wouldn't have felt the need to post.

Blimey soon as you mention them, one pops up.

The reason I'm invested so heavily, is that my model then goes on to show prices of
2025 29p
2026 52p
2027 70p
2028 93p
That's all at a per of 15, which they won't be if the forecasted growth comes though.
They will easily hit a PER of 30 by then and you can double all the above at least.
Plus currently I only include auto and fleet aftermarket, nothing for anything else.
So I'm fully invested because I see a serious multibag possibility over time.
I just don't see it happening just yet.

Plus I didn't say I thought it would be worth 2p. In 2 years. I said if you valued it using standard metrics, that's what it would be.
Clearly due to the potential it's not being valued that way.

Oldfool,
Absolutely no intention to get people to sell from me. I have well over 1m of these shares, so I only want to see the price rise.
I just get frustrated reading posts from people moaning that the price should be much higher currently, when breakeven is still 2 years away.
I don't disagree that this could go mental at some stage, just don't agree with others view 're timing.
That said it could all change with a bid.
There are some great researchers and posters on here, who unfortunately demean themselves with responses which just don't hold up, when challenged on timelines.
I let most of it go, but unfortunately it needs to be addressed occasionally to keep things real.

S2020,
That's 125m aus dollars. Which is £63m. Which at 90% margin is £57m.
Which is over 5 years. So £12m a year?
Actually no cos it will likely be £1m first year, £3m 2nd year, 12m 3rd year, 20m 4th year, 21m 5th year.
So first 2 years it does nothing to the financials

You really can't deal with anyone who tries to keep it real can you?

DR777,
I don't know if it will go down again. But if you already have enough and these are just traders then I'd be taking the profit.
To start trading these you need to be clear its a simple trade and not some I might keep because they were cheap.
I sold the ones I bought yesterday for a £15 profit, because I thought we was in for a bad market day today. I was wrong about that but can have another go another day.
Market very risky for trading a tech stock at moment, so I might leave this for a bit.
But a month ago when this was going from 10 to 11 almost daily it was a good trade.

While I’m in posting mood, I thought I’d repeat my view on the share price.
A lot of posters are expecting this share to jump considerably on news, as they see plenty of other loss-making story stocks at silly valuations.
You have to look at it from the point of view of other potential buyers, trying to value the stock. They don’t know the detail, that most on here know, and just look at the financials, and try to measure growth.
If you came to this stock fresh, the first ting you would notice is the £400M market cap.
Then you would notice its loss making. Ok not ideal, but before you dismiss it completely maybe the level of growth, will make up for all that and make it a screaming buy.
But what you find is last year was by far the best at something like 18% revenue growth.
At that point you dismiss it as just another story stock, that’s just not cutting it.
You see people may invest if that growth is 30% to 50%, but 18% isn’t enough, for a company still loss making.
What’s unusual about SEE as a blue sky, story stock is that its growth profile is very different to others.
If you look at some of the pipeline graphs that Paul put out at the last presentation, and model that with some revenue/profit calculations, what becomes very clear is that growth for auto whilst good for the next couple of years doesn’t make much of a dent in our revenue and profit figures.
My model shows a small profit at year end June 2024. Enough to warrant a 2p share price for a normal moderate growth type company, using a PER of 15.
That profit also won’t show until they release those results, so might be October 2024 before we know we are no longer loss making.
The following year 2025 is when auto really ramps up (5* the 2024 years figures). After that it’s all downhill.
Now I have no idea when the market will move the share price to reflect the 2025 onwards windfall, however I don’t expect it to be anytime soon.
No matter what the news, investors need to see the company become profitable, or at the very least show exceptional growth.
Whilst in 2025 I expect that growth to be 500% in auto alone, and the price pop. I’m not convinced the growth or news in the next year is going to be anywhere near enough to see a serious rerate.
I’m not even convinced it will happen in the year following.
Try not to be impatient with this share, it will happen I’m sure, but not as soon as everybody is hoping.
In the meantime, it’s almost becoming a trading share. Rather than get annoyed about the price drops, pick up a few on the bad days and sell on the good days. Keep any profit in shares, its surprising how many you can add to your total.
GLA

Phil,
Cella has got it right, something happened which stopped full figures being recorded.
Sunday 23/10/21 was the last proper daily mileage figure we can use.
For that week I had us at 35,034 installs. Since then although I have collected the figures, they are just garbage, so we are shooting in the dark using them.
At that point in time (23/10/21), I had us at A$19.75m guaranteed recurring revenue for the following year.
Taking the install rate July to November and using that for December would give us 35700 installs.
So that is the minimum I’m expecting in TU. 35700 installs A$20m recurring revenue.
I’m hoping its higher, and that the recent installs are doing less than the average mileage and thus distort the figures downwards.
I’m encouraged by the increase in fatigue interventions, which either means we have a lot of sleepy new drivers or the above estimate is too low. Last time I used that as a rough guide I got-
206,000/35034 we get 5.88 – which means each van has 5.88 interventions per year.
If we use that average to now it’s 237727/5.88
So 237727/5.88 = 40428 installs.
Bit of a crude measurement, but unfortunately beggars can’t be choosers. I suspect that is on the high side.
So, I’m expecting minimum 35700, maximum 40000. Most likely the lower end.
GLA

Lewbo exponential growth doesn't start until FY 2024, so you may have another year to wait. E.g. August 2023.
Then add another 6 to 9 months for one of their very delayed trading updates.
But it should be worth it.

I think the recent presentation had enough information to have a stab at a valuation model.
Auto had a pipeline per year graph, and fleet is relatively predictable, until we get a different model to aftermarket.
Anyway I've had a go at producing my own, just to see what it shows, and reinforce my investment confidence.
The 2 things that stand out, are:-

1. Auto is a slow burner until FY 2023/2024 when we finally break into profit
2. It gets very interesting 2024/2027

What the figures I get say to me is:-

1. The share price isn't likely to do that much for the next year at least, and most people have far too high short term expectations.
2. In the long term the share price appreciation will be significant.

Having sold after the troubles became apparent, I've kept an open mind on whether to buy back in. Being a copper bull I had 20% of my pension in this.
However I'm not finding anything to move me to even invest a smaller percentage.
I get the bull case but find the negatives too strong.

Sasa costs are going to increase next year over what they budgeted for in the mine transition.
Geo political risks increased
Tax increases coming
I never invest in Russia and links to Russia have just become stronger with Kaz
In all the years I've owned this share it hasn't done much other than pay good dividends. I haven't lost money but it hasn't done what a copper miner should have in recent years. Which suggests it will always remain under valued.
If I'm going to invest in a miner I want more.

Gla

Very illuminating to see the responses in this thread so far.
After being called a deramper for his views, Glandore provided some gems of information which supported his view. All of which came from company published presentations, and in many ways can't be disputed.
I’ll repeat it again below, as so far, no one has provided a compelling counter argument

"Cheers slider, you are quite correct the Figure for Fy21 was approx A$19 per vehicle.
This was for the first year, low volume and only for top-end vehicles.
If you move to slide 11 on the results presentation of Nov 24th where Paul discusses the eight RFQ's for A$1.1bn a quick check will show this covers approx 97m vehicles. So already the Revenue per vehicle is down to approx A$11 per vehicle.
The kicker is that Paul very clearly states that these RFQ's already include the "40 extra features".
Within that slide he identifies the Magna RFQ "the black bars" and as far as I can recall I roughly calculated the Revenue per vehicle for that RFQ as A$8 per vehicle.
So price erosion is already evident - I don't know how far it will go or will it be impacted by getting into the "Volume" market but it is something to bear in mind. "

When you consider this solution has been 20 years in the making, and the lengths they have gone to get to this point, I find it absolutely incredible that we are selling it to Magna at £4 at pop.
As I’ve said before, my big worry here is that because of the volumes involved we sell the product far too cheaply.
It seems to me that if we can’t get a minimum of £10 (A$20), per unit, we will miss a massive opportunity. But currently that looks beyond us.
Sure, we can still double or maybe treble from here based on those figures, but it don’t indicate a 10 bagger anytime soon.
I’d love the opportunity to question Paul with regard this, and have him provide the rationale to this approach. Hopefully an investormeet opportunity will come soon and I can pose these questions.

Just finished reading the whitepaper.
Not sure if others have the technical background to appreciate just how good this is. But hopefully its so well written you don't need it.
It illustrates the lengths they have gone to, and depth of work that has been put in to produce both Occular NPU, and the FOVIO Chip.
It also illustrates really well, why they have done this, and why the competition will struggle without similar approaches, for at least a few years. As waiting for chip companies to possibly provide more compatible chips, may never happen.
Until I read this, I didn't really understand why they had produced the FOVIO and Occular NPU options, and what the reasons behind it were. However, this explains it, in as simple terms as possible.
If I wasn't satisfied just how far ahead they were technically before, I certainly am now.

Having been in systems, application, and development support for the last 25 years I can fully appreciate just how complicated what they are having to produce is.
Any software engineer who has been involved from the beginning, building this from the ground up, will have deep knowledge that someone coming in later will never fully gain, as those early experiences will never be repeated.
Hence I can now see why the recent options award to keep people at the company for the next 2.5 years, was not only very sensible, it was absolutely essential.
Losing key engineers now would be a serious set back, just when they are in prime position.

I've been convinced for some time now, that SEE will dominate the marketplace it is addressing, based on it's technical dominance. However the nagging doubt for me has always been, whether we can retain pricing power in what is an extremely cost conscious Auto industry. Indeed if the whitepaper tells you anything it tells you how difficult it is to deliver what is required given the various cost constraint issues.
Whilst that works in our favor, in terms of how much market share we will likely win because of the way we are addressing these issues, I still worry about just how much per unit profit we can seriously expect.
If it's anything like the figures which have been mentioned here, and by the company or Cenkos previously then I see no issues and we should see multiples of the current share price in time. However if the increased volume, results in serious reduction in margins per unit, then the end game becomes far less ideal.
It worries me that every time I read something about the auto industry, it always mentions how tough they are on keeping supplier costs to a minimum.
I suspect this is one element which is contributing to holding back the price.
Or maybe it's just me needing to find something negative in what seems a complete no brainer, must have share.

Does anyone else worry that whilst we should dominate market share, the projected margins in auto will not be at levels that they should be worth?

GLA