Member Info for phil01

This is just pure speculation in light of what is happening at SEYE.

I hope that SEE has not ham-fisted themselves with their chosen route for RFQ quotes, or access to the market. We did that once with Takata and that crippled us until Takata went under. For this reason I am not really in favour of exclusivity contracts, as it ties your hands, your performance is no longer under your control but depends on the performance of the person you have an exclusive contract with.

From PM statement we are quoting through Tier 2 suppliers and have an understanding not to compete against each other. Now Teir 2 will quote for an RFQ which includes their cost for integrating the modules together: If this cost is high, an OEM may well decide that they have the required capacity and know-how to put the modules together themselves. In that case, can we still quote to deliver the software to the OEM where we have an agreement not to compete with the Tier 2 supplier on any given RFQ?

This must be onevof the big RFQs on the table, so hopefully SEE is not far behind.

The fact is that the majority of cars in Europe will have DMS as a box to ticking excercise, so the procurement will be based on price. The top end models will differentiate by adding other bolts-on to the DMS so they may pay more based on quality.

Even for our SEE DMS the selling price is still based on cist if we are to believe PM. We can charge more because we co-design and thus reduce the bill of material hence the overall cost actually becomes less than our competitors.

Fir those companies that want just the DMS software which we also sell...I am sure our price will be a lot less than when we co-design.

I do believe that in time a lot of OEMs will be buying directly from the DMS supplier and integrating the software themselves. Else why are so many big OEMs registering pattents relating to use if DMS. They clearly have good enough engineering capability to do the engineering themselves . Also by integrating themselves they can protect their specific use and application of DMS which they may consider as an intellectual property that gives them advantage.

In short SEYE is a major player and competitor; they fully believe they will have at least 40% of the market we think we will have 50% by value. One of us is wrong but their is enough scope for investors in both to make money. If I have access to the market SYE is quoted then I would probably buy some SEYE to cover my bets but I don't, so over to you SEE.

Our problem is that you can only cry wolf so many times before people start ignoring you.

We have so many time set expectations that we did not or cannot met. Reason why we did not meet these expectations is just semantics, the cold fact is that we failed to deliver on what we promised at the time we promised so many times.

The market no longer listen to whatever we are promising to deliver tomorrow, wants actual delivery before they can believe us. PM can release an RNS today saying that Gen 3 timeline has moved forward and we will lunch tomorrow and it will make very little difference to the price until he actually lunches the product tomorrow.

Those that have been here for 10year plus probably know the feeling of raised and dashed expectations. Market likes predictability and needs to trust in management ability to forecast and deliver on their forecast.

that is a reason that I am not in the brigade that wants an RNS for the sake of an RNS. Nothing worse that communicating a timeline to the market and not meeting it/ Sometimes it is better not to say anything at all else market will judge you by what you said you will deliver.

We are still a young company so our processes will get better, I hope, as we grow.

Those that have mortgaged their house on the share based on the fact that someone in a BB is telling them that it will be £2 and we will be acquired at £5 a share two years ago, that is a learning experience.

Nothing to worry Seize,

You can take it from me that we are going to get 120% of the market share. I said so and I do have an honest face, so you just have to take my words for it.

Does it matter what the PM vesting conditions are? they can always walk it down if the shares do not perform as they have already done before.

Being that they can change it as suits, I am not really sure why investors waste time worrying about the vesting price. If there hasn't been a precedent where they reduced the vesting price when it is not met, then I can see logic in thinking that he will be worried about not getting his shares.

What is a bit unsettling about this is not the win or money involved. It is the fact that this is for trucks and busses and area a few presentations ago PM alluded to the fact that we are the only player in those space.

We have been threatening to release a market disrupter in that space with Gen 3, but that is at least a year overdue based on the initial timelines. We may still release in the next 2 months or so...but if history is anything to go by then there is another chance of kicking it further down the road.

In this BB we tend to live on ifs and buts .. potential to be released by the time our grand children needs the money for their education.

Never mind! , by this time next year we will be millionaires.

Cipia Awarded 10 Additional Car Models With Leading Chinese Automaker Chery announced today.

6th September: Smart Eye Announces 12 Driver Monitoring System Design Wins with New Japanese Customer. Estimated revenue for the order is SEK 500 million, (USD 45 Mil).

When are we going to start announcing wins for SEE??

Baxter, you are in a happy position. There are probably people here who bought at 11p or above.

Never mind, your grand kids will thank you for it when it does reach the potential that most here seems to believe....something for them to remember you by.

I know I have been down on the board , mainly because they deserve criticism for their execution.

Contract last won by SEYE is not insignificant so has to be one of those 1Bill contracts that were on the table. This probably means that the contracts are starting to drop.

It is then MY OPINION that SEE will start announcing contracts within the next 2 months. Both ourselves and SEYE will win a fair share , so whether you are in SEE or SEYE you will make money. I am not predicting who will win the most, besides a prediction is just that, a finger in the air estimate depending on what you consider to be baseline.

Realistically some OEM will prefer SEYE, they just need a software and the are confident in their own engineering team and happy to do their own design, other may want our co-designed stuff where we help them take materials off the bill of materials and for that service they are willing then to pay a higher ASP ..........but then our initial spend is higher...though once done, it essentially boils down to selling software. There is merit in both strategies and up to OEM to pick the one that suits

Now that we have had finished laughing at SEYE CEO for being boring in his delivery. Has anyone considered that if he can sell his software to a major OEM, it can't be due to his polished presentation but rather due to what solution he is offering??

Anyway batter down the hatches and the contracts will start falling within the next two years. Does not mean that our executive team have all of a sudden become world class.. rather we will win our fair share in spite of them as a result of regulatory tailwinds.

Just because you win a contract does not mean that you can deliver what you say...on the other hand maybe you can.

Not wining a contract definitely means that you can deliver nothing. One is probability the other one is 100% certain.

If we have to start tossing probability about then lets at least be consistent if we want to be taken seriously.

For example just because PM says that we will win does not exactly win anything, but I suppose we do not apply probability when it comes from PM whose words has the same weight as the Gospels, and when he is wrong like when giving us a timeline we can always make an excuse for him as it is not his fault.

I suppose when people that have made up their minds they can only see anything from a particular lens as they lose all objectivity irrespective of what is staring them in the face......if share price is tanking then it is a God send as it presents an opportunity to buy more at bottom prices. I suppose that is what it means to be emotionally invested in a share. A bit like your kid, if he becomes an axe murderer ....... it is not really his fault, he is not a bad person, he just fell into the wrong company!

That is probably why the share price is not higher than it is now, other investing public are not emotionally tied so they still need evidence to make an objective judgement whether to invest. PM says so does not quite carry the weight of a gospel for them, as I haven't yet seen a CEO that has not been bullish about their company.

With regards to risks listed at SEYE, most are standard for the business:

People should stop looking for bias confirmation indicators because inevitably they will find something to cling unto.

SEYE and SEE are operating on different markets with different rules.

Just like businesses in US market, SEYE will need to include all potential risk factors in the reporting.

Take a look at Qualcomm and it has over 70 risk factors in their reports, that does not suggest that Qualcomm is about to go down?

While we don't need to report this by LSE regulations we are subject to most of the same risk, including Key personnel leaving, delay in contract awards, failure in our offering, changes to regulations, loss of business, the list could go on. If we were listed in USA or other markets that requires you to tell investors of every risk that may affect the business then we will have a section on the report for risk factors. In LSE this is not required, only a qualification by the auditor if he thinks the risk is above the normal for the industry....real and present danger of the risk materialising.

In US it reporting all risk factors, including alien invasion, saves the company from being sued for misrepresentation when someone loses their money by investing.

Because is on the stock market and can only announce factual information and not suppositions.

See has announced that they have an agreement with Indie and also with Qualcomm.

Indie has won a contact to deliver a OMS system with their chip......most likely it is SEE, but that is still supposition as nothing stops Indie from using a different OMS vendor. Until Indie tells SEE that they have sold a chip with their offering on it then SEE can't announce. Also I would imagine that Indie will only tell SEE once they have delivered the chip and it ha been accepted, because I imagine they would have to pay SEE once they sell a Chip with SEE on it.

They have a contract to deliver an OMS, but as they say many a slip between the cup and the lip. Until they have delivered sample and it is accepted nothing has been sold, may not meet Teir 1 specs etc.

If their new target date for G3 release is HI FY24, then they still have 3 months to meet this target. Hopefully it is lunched soon so that Guardian connections can kick on.

With regards to significant new contracts, even though they seems to be billions of open RFQ, we have not won it but neither has any of the other competitors. Seems to me to suggest that there are a hefty list of features required by the RFQ that neither us nor the other competitors currently have.

Our cash balance, considering that we have drawn down on the Magna loan, suggests that a huge amount is being spent on development cost. Hopefully we can successfully develop/incorporate whatever feature is necessary to satisfy the RFQ, provide sample to the OEM for validation so that they can award the contracts.

If we are having to spend huge amount on development cost to meet the requirements of the open RFQs, so will our competitors and we have a far better financial strength that some of them.

Hopefully by the second half of the year things will start dropping contracts wise. I imagine the differences in the feature sets required by current open RFQ will not be huge so once the first contracts drops a series of them will start dropping.

Makes trading this share a bit risky because once the good news starts flowing there will be a series of them, and you may have to pay much higher to buy back your shares. If you can afford it and don't have the time to baby sit the shares, then just buckle in and wait.

Mind you that does not mean to say that our management can't do any better, which they can and must. While I am optimistic about the company's future , I still not a happy clapper that thinks PM can do no wrong.

I am all for being positive but we also have to be factual.

somebody said something about beating all brokers forecasts, which is not really true.

They did beat the Revenue forecast but failed to meet brokers forecast for Guardian connections and forecast for OEM:

1. Automotive momentum increasing: Vehicles produced with Seeing Machines DMS in FY23 increased 108% to 638,951 and whilst this was 15% behind our forecast of 756,018....

2. Monitored Connections grew 6% over the previous quarter, which has brought the connections at the year

end to within 0.5% of our forecast of 52,218

In each of the sectors they were below forecast, which means that a lot of the revenue may have been from Non- recurring development fee. [ I suppose this is a good indicator of possible future contract/revenue].

With regards to Guardian, I am not expecting a huge increase going forward. If you are a truck or fleet operator will you buy and install a product that is soon to be replaced by a better one, G3??

I know that I would hold off till the G3 system is launched, but the write up from Stifel seems to suggest that this has been kicked further down the road. If memory serves me PM did initially suggest that G3 will be available before Dec 2022, which we missed and then we thought maybe Q3 FY23 year, then Q4 FY23 this year .. and the wait continues.

The potential for the stock is huge but I am not too sure we are getting the most out of it. Our execution seems to be just above average at best. Just my views.

Can anyone care to ask Google bard or other AI when the SEE price will go up.

Without cold facts people can spin the data to suit whatever they want to believe.

They are recruiting ...so must be load of work.

Can also be looked at another way. If we are to believe PM over a year ago that they are almost a Billion dollars of RFQ on the table they ate working on which must be awarded within a year and another similar RFQ added this year. That means almost 2Billion RFQ and yet none has been awarded, even though going by PM's words, it is already late in the day to award and be ready for the regulatory timeline.

A cynic may interpret the non award of RFQ as due to current SEE Offering, (as well as other competitors, since the others hasn't won the RFQ either), not being up to the standard/functionality required by the OEM to give them confidence to award the RFQ. Increase in staffing may thus be interpreted as a rat race to try and get the product to the required standard/functionality required by the OEMs.

I personally am sanguine about the price drop, shares go up as well as down, if you over-extended then you have sleepless nights regarding price fluctuations. I am not one of the ones that think PM and SEE can't do any wrong and we will all be millionaires next week. If you happen to take a cold hard look and point out that there may be warts , then you are a deramper, "Why don't you go and invest somewhere else" , and leave this ship of happy clappers. On the other hand I am also not of the bent that believes the sky is falling down and we are all doomed.

Clearly the company, if you happen to have subscribed to the hype, is not performing ...I know some that have been predicting a share value or take out price of £2 for over 2 years. Then again it is not PM that engineered the hype around the company but the over enthusiastic shareholders so company can't be held accountable for that. I only hold PM accountable to his own stated timeline.

Personally I do not think it will go much lower, so those that were not emotionally invested and sold out at about 11p/10-7p will start buying back in now. Hopefully a contract drops before the KPI an d then the KPI will hopefully provide a strong indication of direction of travel.

Move along, nothing to see here. PM is holding our wins till he can announce $1Bill win at the same time!

Move along, nothing to see here. PM is holding our wins till he can announce $1Bill win at the same time!

Chutz,

Think you should stop while you are ahead.

All earning are subject to tax. If you rent your house it is subject to tax as well as your salary.

Bonuses are subject to tax, even your company car is subject to tax considerations and it is not part of your salary.

Please check your tax liability:

"....... Any money that you receive from your investments will be added to all your other types of income, including wages, personal pensions and rental income. Depending on all your earnings, you will then be taxed at the bracket that is applicable to you ....."

About the only thing where you will get money and it does not involve tax consideration is winning the lottery.

As for whether I am willing to give him 60% of what he makes me . That is a totally different issue, what we are looking at is good corporate governance and that is not dependent on what I would like to give him because he is a good guy on not.

Chutz,

If the shares are part of his salary, why put a target performance against it. If PM is not responsible for share price performance why link his shares to share price performance. [ I do have share options based on performance but these are based on performance and have lost out some years due to performance not meeting target. Due to economic downturn, covid or whatever that is irrelevant, I missed the exercise target. Similarly our workers do have bonuses but again dependent on target profit....miss and they lose out]

You are saying that the board is not stupid, but I can't think of a more stupid thing than for them to say shares will be awarded based on a target performance if the target performance is irrelevant to the award of the shares.

By your own statement you just made the board to be fairly stupid. A can't be a function of B, if B does not impact on the outcome of A.