Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

Thanks Prion 25

It's sounded hopeful for years.

But as I mentioned before, IQE has an uncanny knack of making nothing out of something.

Sbjben8 - you ask if Meta might bother bidding for Lucy.

Well, only likely I imagine if Lucy has a distinct competitive advantage that Meta can’t easily replicate. Otherwise Meta, Rayban etc. will simply throw the necessary dollars at their own in-house solution & watch their lower-capitalised competitors gradually decline.

TopCatz - no idea from that article how you could possibly conclude So Lo simply may not have tasted salty enough. Bizarre reaction!

Anyhow, I seem to remember you saying you’d already invested in Microsalt via its earlier US crowdfund? Good luck with that if so. Here’s hoping - genuinely - that Microsalt doesn’t mean micro sales & micro profits.

Badsterman - there may be small adherence differences between Microsalt & Tate & Lyle's product. The honest answer is I don't know.

What I do know though is that Tate & Lyle's crystals were also significantly smaller than regular sized ones. And that they were suitable for multiple food manufacturers too, as the Tate & Lyle link in my previous post states:

"SODA-LO™ Salt Microspheres has been tested and shown to work well in a wide variety of foods including baked goods, breading and coatings, salty snacks and work continues to assess its suitability in a number of other applications."

As far as I'm aware, Soda-Lo is no longer available. So possibly there's currently no direct equivalent of Microsalt on the market. But my point is, there was. And it was marketed by an experienced giant global food manufacturer (Tate & Lyle). And apparently it flopped. Otherwise why wouldn't it still be available?

Tate & Lyle produced & patented their small salt crystal "invention" well before Microsalt. So it clearly can't be THAT difficult to do. And unless they've let it lapse since, Tate & Lyle's patent can't have infringed Microsalt's. Or vice versa. Which suggests other manufacturers could equally well produce something similar (but not identical) without infringing any patents.

The $64m question is why Tate & Lyle halted commercialisation. And what makes a comparative tiddler like Microsalt more likely to succeed than Tate & Lyle seem to have done - with all the production know-how & marketing clout Tate & Lyle could presumably afford to throw at it?

I still hope Microsalt works and boosts TEK's share price significantly over time. But unless others can convincingly counter my reservations, I'd be VERY wary of investing ANY funds direct with Microsalt. Particularly when you won't even know the price you're paying before having to commit.

CauldStream7 - Failure so far. Longer term, who knows?

The latest date I've found any reference to Tate & Lyle's Soda-Lo on Google was in 2019.

Here's an interesting article. You could pretty much substitute Microsalt for Soda-Lo throughout:

https://www.foodanddrinktechnology.com/news/3835/soda-lo-celebrates-patent-success/

* Soda-Lo celebrates a US "patent success"

* Soda-Lo "tastes, labels and functions like salt because it is salt". Hmmm, where have we heard that since?

* Because Soda-Lo is made from real salt, it has none of the bitter aftertaste or off-flavours associated with some other salt compounds or substitutes. Again, exactly the same questionable USP as Microsalt's using

Yet Soda-Lo appears NOT to have taken the world by storm. Unless someone can show me where it's still on sale today?

NickE - thanks for an interesting post.

That Tate & Lyle link bears out what I'm saying. Other companies have also managed to produce smaller crystal sizes. Tate & Lyle called them microspheres:

https://www.tateandlyle.com/news/tate-lyle-launches-soda-lo-salt-microspheres-globally

They launched their product - Soda-Lo - in 2012. But unless it's been rebranded since, it subsequently seems to have vanished off the face of the earth.

Assuming this is the case, what makes people so confident Microsalt can make a go of it, when a multinational the size of Tate & Lyle apparently failed?

TopCatz - OK. Thanks for your answers, even though they were full of holes.

I’ve no more idea than you how Microsalt will be valued. And as I won’t be investing in it directly, I shan’t be wasting time trying to second-guess.

My concerns remain:

* Product price

* Lack of traction & take up from more than just a handful of major food producers to date

* Dubious USP, as customers seem perfectly happy with the taste of existing cheaper options

* How robust can any patents ever be? Tate & Lyle seemingly also produced a smaller crystal size, then abandoned commercialisation. Why - and what’s to stop other multinational producers like Saxa circumventing any patents by simply tweaking their own crystal size?

TopCatz - there’s been pressure on food manufacturers to reduce salt & sugar content for years. Legislation may have accelerated this even further up the public agenda, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any pressure beforehand. Why else do you think Lo Salt & So Lo have been out there all these years (since 1984 & 2018 respectively)?

Customers may well have switched to potassium chloride containing alternatives for health reasons. But that doesn’t mean they’d give them a positive taste score if they didn’t like the flavour. Microsalt may indeed improve on the taste. But currently it costs OVER EIGHT TIMES as much. Who’s gonna swallow that sort of premium, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis?

You really are a minus mark.

Baf3 - did you ever go to school (or more likely, are you just starting off there)?

It's "weAn ofF". Not "ween of".

Dear oh dear.

TopCatz - as you well know, the valuation is TBC as "the price per share will be determined at the end of the bookbuilding process".

In other words , investors wanting to back Microsalt are being asked to buy something without actually knowing the price.

I now look forward to you finally addressing my questions. Can barely wait.

TopCatz - you clearly find it much easier to laugh things off or say you can’t be bothered to read my posts than to address any of the valid issues raised.

I’m still waiting for your answer to my points 2 & 3.

Shan’t hold my breath though, as I suspect you simply don’t have a decent counter argument. So are reduced to childish “hahaha”s & “can’t be bothered” replies.

Strangely, TEK doesn’t figure at our dinner table. Nor does Microsalt. Perhaps you should follow our lead & wean yourself off salt altogether, rather than just reducing the crystal size.

AquarianAge - or perhaps Anderson was just a prime example of the maxim "the harder I work, the luckier I get"?!

Between 2009 & 2021, ALL companies benefitted from the same low interest, low inflation rate era. So it would be wrong to completely dismiss SMT's significant outperformance over this period, notwithstanding how things have gone since.

Yes, interest rates have moved on. And perhaps also, yes they were artificially low for too long. But things changed largely because of Covid & Putin. And with the best will in the world, no-one fully saw either coming.

I don't really see SMT being in the "margin of safety" category. If you're looking for that - or have an investment timeframe below 5-10 years - maybe opt for an index tracker. Or indeed PIBS / fixed rate savings, which might start looking a lot more attractive, assuming interest rates are at or near their peak for the foreseeable.

SMT has never marketed itself as either a short term investment or a low risk option. That lack of a "margin of safety" & any ensuing short term volatility & underperformance is the price you pay for potentially higher long term gains.

TopCatz - wrong on pretty much every count I'm afraid:

1. The IPO details are already out there. Just create an account with Primary Bid & download the 125 page prospectus. Zzzzzz.

2. My "nonsense", as you so diplomatically frame it, isn't necessarily at odds with a Fortune 500 company 's ALLEGED interest. I've never said Microsalt has nothing going for it. Indeed, I think it'll almost certainly carve out a niche in the market. My question remains, how big will that niche get? The fact it hasn't managed to gain mass traction BEFORE approaching investors with a begging bowl might just be telling.....

3. There are several low sodium salt competitors already out there, some from leading producers like Saxa. Microsalt dismisses them all as having a "bitter, metallic taste". But what really matters isn't what Microsalt thinks. It's what customers say. And if you look at the reviews on Lo Salt and So Low, you'll see they're generally positive. Including on taste. I keep making the same point, because Microsalt claims taste to be its primary USP. Yet customers seem quite happy with the mix of NaCl & KCl offered by their competitors. Both provide similar health benefits, so what exactly's so special about Microsalt? As far as I can see, no-one on this board has ever addressed the question. Bandying around an expression of interest from a Fortune 500 company doesn't address it either.

You can patent pretty much anything you like, assuming it has a certain unique property to it. But that in itself doesn't necessarily make the unique property in the least important to the end user. Particularly if it costs more.

4. The majority of my shares definitely AREN'T the result of any tips from IC. Sure, they may well have been tipped there over the years. That's generally what the IC does. But it doesn't mean I bought any of them as a result. Trust me, it's far more likely any buy recommendations of theirs would make me steer well clear.

5. Scottish Mortgage is NOT my top holding any more. You've absolutely no idea what & when I buy & sell. Clutching at straws yet again, TopCatz. Must try harder. See me after class.

TopCatz - when you've quite finished your Spam lunch, perhaps you'd care to address the perfectly reasonable issues I've highlighted?

Rather than simply dismiss them with snide remarks, which strongly suggest to me you don't have a valid counter-argument.

Given a vested interest in Microsalt via my TEK holding, I did just register with Primary Bid after all, so I could download their prospectus to skim read.

I've got as far as page 27 so far, where I note the following:

"The majority of sodium-reduced alternatives to salt are formulated with potassium chloride (in place of

sodium chloride) which has a bitter metallic taste. [Crystal] however tastes like salt because it is salt."

I'm sorry, but that basic premise (a bitter metallic taste) totally flies in the face of online customer reviews I've read. Most of these are positive, both for Saxa So-Low and Lo Salt. Both of which contain potassium chloride. Google "low sodium salt" and check out the reviews for yourself.

I'll report back if I find anything else worthy of further scrutiny.

Tivman - no. Nor do I have any intention of doing so thanks.

My existing TEK holding will give me more than enough exposure to Microsalt , asssuming it's a long term winner. And if it isn't, I won't be wasting any more money.

Bazzaman - two main problems with that article.

Firstly, it's from Chronic Investors. Secondly, it's written by Simon Thompson who's been touting TEK in his "bargain" portfolio for nigh on two years, during which time TEK's share price has fairly consistently - & dramatically - fallen.

Like a stopped clock, he might eventually get the timing right. But his predictions to date have been woeful.

And his article even fails to answer the basic question it asks "Will MicroSalt whet investors’ appetite?" Answers on a postcode please Simon.

AquarianAge - I don't think you'll find he left abruptly. He announced retirement from BG in March 21 and left in April 22.

He'd been there over 20 years - quite an endorsement in itself - so perhaps he just wanted a change (of pace/location/culture/remuneration).

As for how much skin he had in the game with SMT, can't find any evidence of 1%. Or indeed any other figure!

AquarianAge - I agree on the surface, it might appear Andersen "ratted" on us.

But if you read the following FT article, you'll see he's investing in similar sectors at his new company. And that the sudden rapid increase in global interest rates is largely responsible for a decline in popularity of growth stocks:

"However, Scottish Mortgage’s performance has soured since Anderson’s exit, which coincided with a regime change in monetary policy. Scottish Mortgage’s shares lost a third of their value in the 12 months to March 31 as growth stocks were curbed by higher interest rates.

Anderson, who at Baillie Gifford was a longtime shareholder in Exor companies, including Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Ferrari, acknowledged that “it’s been a difficult 18 months” for growth investing but said that the long-term opportunity in sectors including artificial intelligence, healthcare and renewable energy was greater than ever.

“One of the great puzzles to me is that markets have become so sceptical and short term at a time when the pace of innovation and change, and the prospects of returns over five, 10 and 20 years, has got greater rather than less,” he said.

He added: “It’s essential that we carry on investing in these sectors rather than worrying about what the Federal Reserve is going to do next.”

Sectors like artificial intelligence, healthcare & renewable energy are the sort of areas SMT also concentrates heavily on. If Andersen really had sensed the writing was on the wall at SMT, why would he adopt a similar investment strategy at his new company? I suspect the move's got more to do with the two firms' respective corporate cultures, a desire for a change of scene & possibly an improvement in his overall remuneration. But I am guessing!