Member Info for DreamMachine

I've asked the question before, but I will ask it again. Here are the Nasdaq rules.

Nasdaq has stringent criteria for investment protection. These listing rules apply to all companies that want to list on the exchange. The Nasdaq has three tiers. These are:

Nasdaq Global Select Market: The strictest of the Nasdaq tiers attracts companies of international standing. Among the criteria, shares must trade for at least $4 per share. In addition, companies must have a minimum of 1,250,000 publicly traded shares

Nasdaq Global Market: Companies must have at least 1,100,000 shares that trade at $4 or more.

Nasdaq Capital Market: At least 1,000,000 public shares are required at a $4 minimum.

https://www.benzinga.com/money/understanding-nasdaq-listing-requirements

So, $4 at listing is the minimum (for most companies. There are some other rules at $3 and $2 for some companies apparently, but for most, it's $4) . See are currently around 5p. That's a massive consolidation. I'm sure that will make everyone happy.

A higher share price would mean a lower consolidation, but See are on AIM, and the market has decided to not pay a premium for the shares. So, how does the share price get higher to reduce a Nasdaq consolidation? Catch 22.

By my calculations, even at 50p - a ten bagger from here (£2.2 billion or so MC), a Nasdaq consolidation will be about 7/8 to 1.

And if See are at a MC of over $2 billion, then a main market listing in the UK is better. It's FTSE 250 Territory, the goal being FTSE100.

I think the Nasdaq listing is a red herring. I doubt it happens, the numbers don't add up, unless you are happy with a massive consolidation. If there is an alternative way, I'd be happy to know what it is.

Brockwl, I do take note of what you say, because you do put some time and effort to get at what is really going on as against the hype. My take on yesterday's results are as follows. I think it can be summed up by what the report said.

"The Group remains well-placed to deliver continued progress in the year ahead, with a typical weighting to the second half, and the Board retains its expectations that financial performance for FY2024 will be in line with consensus[1]."

In line.

My response? Not good enough. The market response? Clearly not good enough, the share price is still where it is. The reality is that quality growth companies, the numero uno, the best in class, the world beater, don't just produce "in line with expectations" results. Most of those expectations are set by the company and it's brokers anyway. Quality growth companies blow them away, beat them, surprise the market (that's what ARM did by the way). To put it simple, See never do that. It's steady as she goes, which is fine for the company, but will do nothing for investors, for reasons I've given before (a clue 4.156billion reasons and the return per share calculation, etc).

Now, you mention the possibility of a further fund raise. I'd like to think that this will not happen, as it would just go further to destroying the investment case. It has to be avoided. Having said that they say and have said that they are fully funded to profit, so to raise again would destroy any credibility they have left. So, if they need more money, they are likely to explore other options. Of course, it will not be good if they do. I mean, they may make a profit in a couple of years, but it's only taken them 25 years to get there!

The trouble is, See will not report again until later this year, so investors are entering the annual black hole time with See, when announcements are often rare. There needs to be more regular contract announcements, preferably with big money attached. They need to make the market sit up and take notice, and a few contracts here an there each year will not do that. Even worse, no news on AIM will be interpreted as bad. I think everyone knows what that means for the share price.

Just a suggestion to See management. Start beating expectations, that's what world leaders do, because if you don't the market has told you what it thinks.

Shares in issue/price determine market cap. Here's the fiction of the one pound per share price predictions that occasionally get thrown around. It would be a market cap of £4.156 billion. £4.5 billion when you add the magna take up (further dilution) of 350million to come, assuming they do it. The bottom of the FTSE100 is around £4.5billion right now.

Yes, See will consolidate eventually. For a start, I can't see any way they could list on the NASDAQ (assuming they still want to) without a big consolidation as the minimum listing requirement is $4 dollars. As of right now, how many 5p's shares go into one $4 dollar share (around 70/80 at the current exchange rate?). There again, I doubt it happens at all.

I've given reasons before why See should go for a main market listing in the UK. I think it is the way to go for the company and would not require any immediate consolidation to do so. All See need to do is announce to the market that they will apply for a main market listing and get off the corrupt AIM market soon after they get into profit. Plan it out over the next two years or so. Quite a few decent AIM companies have done it, and I think it would be good for the company to list on a respectable index. AIM is a conman's paradise (if you want to see an example from today, go and look at what is going on at another Aussie company CAP-X, or as it should be called CRAP-X!).

I've been saying for a while, look at the daily chart for the last nine months, it has been between 5p and 6p. It needs to break out above 6p and stay above for there to be any possibility "of a run". Nine months, you could call it a pregnant pause. One way or another, something eventually gives. Some regular, decent contract news, that pays in the here and now rather than jam tomorrow, or beating expectations, rather than just meeting them, would help.

Both companies have been terrible performers over the last two years.

Here's what I would suggest is a technical reason why SmartEye moves more than See on news announcements.

SmartEye, 37 million shares in issue.

See, 4.156 billion shares in issue.

A $13 million contract will do little to the See share price, because the pro's work things out on a per share basis when it comes to valuation. Takes a lot more to move a pile of 4 billion shares than 37 million.

SmartEye have only recently resorted to the dilution approach, although for some reason some See investors seem to take great delight in there need to raise cash. Needless to say, See did ten years of dilution until recently. Number of shares in issue are 10X what they were ten years ago (not including the Magna 350 million pile still to be added). I don't think See investors can give SmartEye a lesson in how bad dilution is.

SmartEye report quarterly financials because I suspect it is a requirement of the market they are listed on. See do not. See's trading updates are essentially a preamble to the half and full year report. They usually are released 4-6 weeks before the main financial report and really tell very little that you won't read in the full report a few weeks later. See report quartyly KPI numbers and SmartEye do not.

It's swings and roundabouts, both fail to do the right thing, which is to report financials and KPI numbers at the same time. If See reported quarterly financials at the same tine as SmartEye, like for like comparisons could be made rather than guesswork. They do not, because AIM does not require it. Aim has a more relaxed attitude towards regulation of companies and I suspect companies on AIM like that, especially the dodgy ones.

Being on AIM is See's choice. They could do better, in terms of reporting, if they wanted to.

" ..lots of different options which can be added or removed which impact the pricing"

It would be nice to see what those are and how it does impact the pricing.

The good thing about legislation is that it will require those who have not thought about this to now do so. As to the numbers, it may well take a while to come through as to the choices buyers are making.

Thanks for that. I thought this would be the case, and I was sure that I had heard it mentioned in a past presentatrion.

It does raise some interesting questions.

Will See give numbers seperately for those sold without 24/7 monitoring and those that choose that option? I have a feeling that given the ongoing expense of 24/7 monitoring, most will choose self monitoring. For larger fleets it is a big chunk of change which I doubt they will want to pay. Given the cost of living crisis, buyers will either want, or try, to pass on the cost or simply go for the cheaper option. Their view might be that as long as it works and meets the regulatory requirements why pay for 24/7 monitoring? There may well be an opportunity here to offer training and advice to buyers as an after sale option, but if I had to guess, I think most will probably go for self monitoring simply because of the cost. We will not know until the numbers are in.

The European Parliament has passed a law that camera-based DMS, among a range of other safety technologies, must be fitted in all new cars, vans, trucks and buses from 2024. With regards the commercial vans, trucks and buses part, my understanding is that 24/7 monitoring is not a requirement of the new law and that See will therefore offer both a self monitoring and a 24/7 option. Is this correct?

A serious question. In what way is See the next Arm? A comparison of just a few numbers suggest that there are light years difference.

Shares in issue; Arm 1,03billion, See 4,156billion

Revenue; Arm, current QUARTER rev $850-900 million. See $58 million - For the YEAR.

"Arm said its customers shipped 7.7 billion Arm chips during the September quarter, the most recent period for which figures are available."

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/08/arm-shares-soar-after-reporting-strong-earnings-and-forecast.html

Honestly, I really don't think such comparisons help. In terms of performance, which ultimately is calculated on a per share basis, there is no comparison. Let's begin with one possibility - when do you think See will make in a year what Arm have just made in a quarter? Give me a year. Then remember, See have about 4 times more shares in issue than Arm. Admittedly, Arm are helped by being on the US market, but the numbers are on another planet compared to See.

When it comes to predictions, especially ones over a short time frame period of say a year, I wonder how many investors take note of the following.

1 — Number of shares in issue.

2 — Market cap at the predicted price.

3 — Revenue at the predicted price.

4 — Profit/loss at the predicted price.

5 — Market conditions

If they did, then no one would be making silly predictions of a share price that would result in a market cap of billions. In a risk off, not a bull market situation, there is no chance of See having a share price that high based purely on hope of better things to come. That's reality.

So, I would ask everyone here just one question, and it is this. If you think See is worth 15p, 25p, 50p, 70p, or a quid, what do you think the yearly revenue and profits should be to justify that valuation? Given See's current rate of rev growth, why would you expect this to happen in the next year when they might, just about, breakeven?

IF I could ask McGlone one question, it would be how did he arrive at that 70p price prediction, a market cap of around £3.2 billion, which right now would put See in the top 15 of the FTSE250. Did he not know that the investors he was talking to would be wondering the same thing?

As for a takeover in the billions, it does not make sense. There are many potential bidders out there for a company like See, and they know all about the company, but it is totally against human nature for them to be sitting around waiting to fork out billions. In the history of takeovers, it is rare for the bidder to pay many times the current share price, and totally illogical to believe they would do so. Outside of irrational bull market times, it rarely happens. So, while a bid may eventually happen, you may well be disappointed when it arrives. I'd prefer no bid for several years, because in the next year or so it is likely to be a cheap one.

Happy new year, and here's hoping — finally — for better things.

"On the face of it the deal is much smaller than Smart Eye’s US$150m but, given that Seeing Machines tends to be ultra conservative, if you multiply the Seeing Machines minimum value by three and cut the Smart Eye one in half I think you’ll end up with a more realistic estimate of the value of both deals; US$90m versus US$75m."

Where is the actual evidence for this?

I'd like to see evidence that this is the case rather than hearsay. Can anyone point to any See contract that it can be confirmed paid three times more than what they originally said (not including follow on contracts)? Or a SmartEye one that actually paid 50% less than what they originally said. I assume this must apply to lots of contracts for such a sweeping statement to be made, not just one. How exactly would anyone know this, especially when many of these contracts run for years into the future or don't even start until 2026?

Investing is about dealing in facts. I'm afraid this sounds like sour grapes to me and without evidence is very misleading.

"Smart Eye has now received a total of up to 296 design wins from 20 OEMs. The combined estimated lifetime value from current design wins is now larger than SEK 6.715 billion. The estimated value over the product lifecycle from possible additional design wins with all 20 car manufacturers is SEK 3 billion."

So, lifetime value is now almost 7 billion. What's that in British pounds?

Nine zeros to a billion. When I pop it into a sek/pound exchange rate it comes up with this figure.

£538,935,386.50

So, about £539 million lifetime value so far. Was the calculator wrong?

The auto OEM'S were always going to play suppliers off against one another to get the cheapest price. That's what they do. See were never going to get the whole market or anywhere near.

Contrary to what some think it looks like SmartEye are doing quite well for themselves. They are now delivering big contracts. See need to deliver and quick.

The 5p support level is being tested.

Just my observations.

Cipia are a microcap. 150million or so shares in issue, £13-14million MC last time I looked. Chances are that any contract or business they announce could be transformational to them. A £10 million contract would see the share price rocket. A similar contract would do nothing for See because of the number of shares in issue, 4.156billion. A 1p move in the See share price is £41.56 million of market cap, roughly 3 Cipia's.

SmartEye share price was around 270 sek two years ago and is 67 now? They've had the same crappy two years as See, but have only recently had to play the dilution game. I suspect that many SmartEye holders are well down on their original investment despite the recent upturn.

Tobii, no real idea what is going on with them, but they are a latecomer to the DMS party.

Right now, the See share price is stuck in channel of 5-6p, been like that for six months. 5p appears to be support (it's clear on the chart going back a few years), 6p a struggle to get through as no meaningful news i.e. contracts that bring money into the coffers in the here and now. To fall below 5p and drift further down will probably take bad news, while going above 6p will require good news. There is no momentum to take it higher given the lack of contract news. I think it is as simple as that. The market wants to see contracts delivered and they will probably need to be big contracts.

"Why would they put years of work into auto certification when they could use SEE tech ?"

Because they are an eye tracking company that have been around for years with their own tech? It must be reasonably good to dominate IT and be in VR headsets with Qualcomm.

They also have an auto design win.

This design win is with a commercial vehicle manufacturer with multiple brands headquartered in Europe for 25 heavy vehicle models. Tobii is expected to receive license revenues starting in 2025.

"This design win is a proof point that Tobii DMS meets the stringent requirements of the automotive industry."

https://corporate.tobii.com/newsroom/press-releases/2023/4/tobii-dms-has-been-awarded-its-first-design-win

I think there is zero chance Tobii are using See tech. I mean, all of these eye tracking companies work with "partners". They don't work with each other though. They are in the same markets for business.

David, you can see the major short positions that have to be reported here.

https://shorttracker.co.uk/

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareShortPositions.html?shareprice=SEE&share=Seeing-Machines

I've never seen See on the list.

Maybe some punters do get a short on, but I doubt they can move the market much. If someone like BlackRock were shorting See you would know about it.

Time to leave AIM?

Yes, absolutely! But to where?

First, re short sellers. There has never been a history of major shorting of See, either by institutions or private investors. It would be reported if so and I would suggest that for the average "trader" even on AIM, it is not that easy to do. Of course, there have been "sellers" in the market, institutions that have got cold feet or simply decided that they have waited long enough. There are also other financial reasons why there may be a forced seller. Truth is, there is no Black Rock trying to short See to hell. Never has been. Reality is, quality performance will always beat short sellers. Produce results and short sellers have no case.

As to where See should go, there is an answer and it is not the Nasdaq.

I think See should apply to list on the FTSE smaller companies index. The benefits of this are obvious.

1) It offers promotion to the FTSE 250 and FTSE100.

2) It would open up investment from institutions and investors that wouldn't touch AIM with a barge pole. Pension funds, index trackers and overseas investors who prefer main market listed companies.

3) They would still benefit from any pick up in smaller company shares. Don't have to be on AIM just for that.

4) A main market listing would not stop See going for a US listing at some point.

Here's another reason why. Promotion to the FTSE250 right now would take a MC of about £650million. So, lets take a couple of figures. Remember McGlone's 70p valuation? (did he really say that? Unfortunately I didn't see the Italian job video as it was taken down sharpish.) 70p would imply a MC of around £3.1billion for See. Right now that would put See top 10 in the FTSE 250 and on the verge of FTSE100 promotion.

What about that quid a share? Some of you thought that See would be achieving that quite quickly once all the contracts rolled in. Or that £5billon private equity bid? Well if you believe this possible than consider this. A couple of months ago Marks and Spencer, nearly £12billon of revenue and £500 million of profits were promoted to the FTSE100. Their MC? £4.3 Billion at the time. Right now, there is only one company in the FTSE250 with a £4billion + MC. A quid a share would put See in the FTSE 100!

I see a main market listing as a win win. Get off the dodgy AIM market, a main market UK listing is the way to go and I suspect it is easier to do than a Nasdaq listing (although I admit I am no expert in such matters).

What's not to like?

"Magna may elect to convert the principal and at Seeing Machines' election, interest outstanding under the Convertible Note at any time during its term, up to a maximum of 349,650,350 shares which, when added to Magna's existing shareholding in the Company, will represent approximately 9.9% of the fully diluted share capital of the Company. The Convertible Note contains standard covenants, and anti-dilution provisions. The interest due at the end of the facility can be paid in cash or converted into equity at Seeing Machines' election."

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SEE/exclusive-agreement-with-magna-us65m-investment-v090vnqi6fij762.html

Don't think this dilution, 349,650,350, shares has happened yet.

As there has been talk of a Nasdaq listing at some point, I have been looking at the listing rules.

I’m trying to figure out how some of the rules would apply to See listing.

The Nasdaq has three tiers. These are:

Nasdaq Global Select Market: The strictest of the Nasdaq tiers attracts companies of international standing. Among the criteria, shares must trade for at least $4 per share. In addition, companies must have a minimum of 1,250,000 publicly traded shares

Nasdaq Global Market: Companies must have at least 1,100,000 shares that trade at $4 or more.

Nasdaq Capital Market: At least 1,000,000 public shares are required at a $4 minimum.

https://www.benzinga.com/money/understanding-nasdaq-listing-requirements

With See at 5p (per share), £207million MC in the UK market right now, how do they get to a $4 (per share) minimum listing price in the US? Clearly the current 4.156billion shares in issue could not be transferred at $4 as that would imply a MC of $16.6billion.

My understanding is that on a dual listing the price in both markets has to be equal to each other.

On a de-listing and re-listing in the US there would be a consolidation if necessary.

Here is an example of a company that listed a while back, Electra.

"In conjunction with the uplisting, the Company is required to complete a share consolidation to meet the minimum price threshold for a Nasdaq listing. The resulting smaller share count and higher share price is more palatable to U.S. institutional investors, which will be important for our future growth plans."

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/electra-announces-nasdaq-listing-application-and-share-consolidation-1031334657?op=1

They have not done that well actually as they are currently on the non compliant list of nasdaq companies as their share price appears to have collapsed in the last year. There are many companies on this list.

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/noncompliantcompanylist.aspx

I wonder how the IPO would happen?

I rarely post here, but I happen to read this thread today and there are some good points being made about what needs to happen - delivery.

I agree with the view that the "at least" number for FY26 is low ball, especially when you consider it is 3 years away.

I watched the post result presentation and while the projections ahead are to be welcomed, I do think that the FY26 revenue number seriously understates what they need to be doing. In the Proactive interview after the recent trading update, McGlone was asked the "golden question" if SEE could keep up the current level of growth and his reply was "we believe we can". (3 mins 20)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8E4fqL3Tng

That rev growth was 48%. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect continued rev growth of at least 50% per year for several years to come, especially if you believe the "inflection point" argument. Quality growth companies, especially those that claim to be the leader in their field, deliver consistently high revenue increases during the "growth phase".

So, at 50% rev growth per year, here is a five year projection.

FY24 $58M + $29M = $87M

FY25 $87M + $43M = $130M

FY26 $130M + $65M = $195M

FY27 $195M + $97M = $292M

FY28 £292M + $146M = $438M

I make no mention of profit as until it arrives it's difficult to project on what it will be and to what degree costs are kept under control in an inflationary world.

At 50% rev growth, the "at least" figure is hit in FY25, not 26. That "at least" figure in 2026 implies a lower annual rev growth rate over the next three financial years, which would be poor. Reading between the lines, they must be under cooking their expectations or they really don't know. Investors should hope it is the former.

I don't think a 50% revenue growth rate is unreasonable to expect considering all the jam tomorrow that has been predicted, although it has to be said judging from the presentation there is now a lot of "not known" talk about delivery times. It's unfortunate that consistent delivery of contracts has been poor. Long periods of no news on contracts and you get a share price on AIM like now - a 2 year downtrend.

It's worth noting re share price valuation that every penny a company makes will ultimately be measured against every share in issue. The millstone around SEE's neck is that it takes a lot to shift the share price in "risk off" times when you have 4.156 billion shares in issue (4.5b post Magna dilution to add). There are 10/11x more shares in issue now than 10 years ago. It matters, as each 1p move in the share price is currently equal to £41.56 million of market cap (£45M post Magna share dilution).

My guess, at around 50% rev growth rate and decent profits, a $1billion MC, share price of around 20-25p is doable in 3 years, but that will only happen with financial delivery. It's "Show me the money" time.

Outside of that, pray for a bull market.