Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
I sold a little... at a loss of course. Thank me later because my patience is historically a great guide as I often pick the bottom when I sell. My gut wanted me to buy more.
What I can say is that this board has devolved into a pit. I miss the knowledge.
I'll check back in a month.
The only issue that matters: will the company need to issue more shares to get them to profitability.
I have as much optimism as ever on the future sales outlook for all the major DMS players. The question is, what number do I use to divide the pie? (How many shares outstanding)?
It's really important that they are creative and cut any fat until that point.
Safestocks was the first resource to post (eventually time proved correct): Cadillac, Ford and BMW. A better prediction "record" than anyone else I know on SEE.
The AIM is just a black hole for almost any stock... surprisingly it's still a legal trading exchange!?
OPTHEA did it, GW Pharma did it, Avita did it, many others... Essentially you IPO on US exchange to effect the dual-listing... End result is company raises a little capital (and finds a real market price). Reverse split in conjunction. Do this if the company needs any money... NOT the buzz-saw capital raise that is otherwise known as the AIM exchange...
If they don't need amy capital, moot. If they did, they could absolutely hold their own over in USA and would be eligible for Russell2000 inclusion which would be a second boost!
I hear you. I know they've been consistent on the topic. I will be furious if they raise any more capital via a dilutive AIM offering rather than a IPO/relist on NASDAQ.
FWIW, The new companies being added to the Russell2000 this year have a market capitalization of around $150 million USD... SEE is plenty big enough.
The reason it's important to consider is that it needs to trade on a liquid exchange in order to get a fair value... prior to the inevitable takeover offer(s). Nobody will offer more than a 30%-100% premium to the "market price."
Whereas SEE could probably earn a price/sales ratio of around 6x-8x forward revenues in the US as soon as it becomes profitable. Then get a premium on THAT for the expected growth and IP and high margin...
The Israeli software company said Wednesday it will provide VW with both its SuperVision software and more advanced Chauffeur platform. SuperVision allows for “hands off” driving while still requiring the driver to pay attention to the road, while Chauffeur allows for higher levels of autonomy. The deal builds on an existing supplier relationship between the two companies.
Is deramping similar to deplaning?
There are a lot of ways to get to 40p, but I have to admit the dip in gross margins was a alarming to me. Reminds me of the inventory they had to write off.
I think the assets and IP would be much more valuable in the hands/portfolio of a larger company.
Qualcomm, Intel or Mobileye, Ambarella, Magna, DXC, who knows... what other companies could make sense? I believe any/all could pay up to 4x the market price right now without being punished by their own shareholders.
The Lombard ownership did recently increase by 1.4 million shares in February... but the Bloomberg ownership function was double counting. The correct ownership is 644.6 million shares or 15.52%, currently. I do not believe there are any other instances like this in Bloomberg's data. But who knows!?
The trade was a "cross" or block trade (which sometimes can be double counted). But the fact that it is up on the day (albeit barely) is very positive. Up on high volume is materially more meaningful than all the days it is down on small volume ... imho
You make a good point. The website shows Lombard at just over 15.4%. Bloomberg shows the approximate 31%. The real/actual number matters, but not materially to my point about the illiquid nature of the shares from the perspective of incremental Institutional shareholders' interest.
I'll try to get Sophie to respond to my clarification question but you all know this is a Longshot! ;)
I've given up all hope for a better past. I wish I had sold my shares back when it was in the double-digits... I only sold a little. Then bought back more than I sold as it continued to drop. No ramping or deramping (whatever that means) from me, at least not on purpose!
I try to avoid this board - but it's a sort of journal. ;) possibly proving that I suffered for a decade before ultimately being rewarded handsomely... besides there are some good folks on it and I look forward to celebrating with you all (eventually).
Anyway, the stock can be explained so simply: 60% of shares are held by no more than 25 or so institutions. Pinnacle and Zeus have sold a little, but every single other II has been holding or buying more.
LOMBARD bought more and now owns over 31%!?
Federated/Hermes still owns 9.14%
VS hasn't sold a share ever and still owns 8.81%
HERRALD bought more recently and now owns 4.7%
Crux Asset Management (Special Situations Fund) is a new shareholder who bought ALL 21 million shares during early 2023.
Individuals include:
Richard Griffiths with 156 million shares
Paul McGlone with 8.45 million shares
Martin with 7.5 million shares
Catherine Hill with 4.8 million shares...
They all trade on the AIM exchange which is down YTD and since the end of 2022. Whereas the Russell2000 is up nearly 20% since the end of 2022 and a little YTD'24.
What's my point? My point is the float of the shares is arguably less than 50%. This severely limits institutions "eligible" to purchase shares. So this company is essentially a misfit company trading on the misfit stock exchange. Paul et el are unable to drum-up interest because all they'll do is upset prospective investors who want to buy the stock and can not logistically accumulate enough to make a difference in their portfolio. So we're left with algorithms and individuals, mostly. What an opportunity for people like you and me!
I have high conviction in the Fundamentals. Fundamentals justify a stock price of at least 2x today... and as revenues ramp (high visibility), this fair value ramps almost as quickly. I'm not selling any of my shares below 15p, or unless/until the company is acquired. The catalyst to get this thing going will likely be actual trailing profits (because stock screens are really "dumb"), or a relisting, or a sale of the company.
Good luck to everyone. You may have time to sell and repurchase, you may not. The stock "only" needs to get to about 14p and then the shareholder return will outperform the SP500 going back to 2006! It has roughly kept pace with the AIM100 over that time frame. I look forward to catching-up with "opportunity costs" and the fundamentals ultimately making this investment my smartest and most lucrative ever.
It still makes zero sense for SmartEye to have a market capitalization premium of more than 20% vs SEE. The gap will narrow and SEE will return to premium status. SEYE is increasing awareness of DMS/OMS... investors who like an unprofitable half-sized SEYE will love a nearly profitable Seeing Machines, in my humble but professional and biased opinion. 😉
Sort of crazy how much good stuff has happened over the past year and SEE stock is down so much from its high...
Interesting that both SEYE and SEE are valued by the market at around $260 million USD. Any objective person, even the cold fishpie type, would argue or agree that if there are two companies: one of which has twice the revenue, a similar or greater growth rate, and higher and improving profitability metrics, that it should be valued greater than the other company. I would argue materially greater, at least double.
I realize SEYE could simply decline to make me correct. And both could decline and I would still be correct. But my conclusion is that SEE ultimately trades for 8x revenue (SEYE's current valuation multiple) and when applying this to 2026 revenues, SEE becomes a much-deserved unicorn. Finally.