Glandore, your assumptions involve a 12.5% per annum compound growth rate for Guardian service [from 31.7k to 90k by 2030]
Generally, when looking at the potential of the business, I look at the target market size and the Product / Service's potential market share. That is of course entirely different from a forecast - it is instead a target. There are as we know any number of reasons why such a target might be in practice unobtainable.
However, I think if SEE's ambitions for Guardian were as conservative as your working guesstimate / assumptions, then I would question the intelligence of the BoD and sell my shareholdings.
My strategic aims would be: 300m target market; 1% penetration by 2030 i.e. a compound growth rate of 65% pa and say an annual service fee of US$300 = US$900 annual licence / service income.
Insurance savings / certification argue against extreme commodification of the price.
Not saying SEE will do it. I am saying they would be losers to go for such measly targets as you have - or indeed I have.
At Imperial College New Ventures course they talked about targeting 30%+ market shares as indicators of winning strategies. Marginal players get squeezed out.
Further, what is the point of all that capex if the returns aren't intended to be big?
Why did SEE win this contract?
Because it has a world class product / service. Fact.
The total target market is 300m commercial vehicles worldwide + OEM. Shell deal opens doors where before there was no interest.
The value of Guardian is potentially £bnss.
Take off will be hockey stick shaped.
Barnden is a fan
Lot of talk on here, as usual, on prospective share price [good & bad]. Lacks any substance.
The only guy that talks sense on potential valuation of SEE is Colin. I think in the past he has suggested some very high values.
I agree that SEE is resource constrained but I think it is insufficient software engineers - not cash.
Really hope there is no takeover but imo the one reason to favour a takeover is to have access to large pools of additional software engineers
Nice news. Fleet already profitable. New avenues opening up with more elegant fitment solutions / integration / networking on customer based etc etc. You name it, it is good. Fleet, from being a destroyer of cash & CEOs is set now to become a cash cow - which isn't in anyone's valuation. Could really speed up SEE going cash positive.
What did they say about the ugly duckling?
Is it so important?
There is an explanation, I'm sure e.g. they only redo the NPV model every so often therefore it gets progressively out of date. Doubtless, say after the release of audited Results in October Cenkos will do a fresh full note with the updated valuation. Another e.g. is that SEE might think discretion the better part of valour. We all notice that SEE unlike SmartEye think it commercially expedient to be very secretive. As to IIs, agreed Cenkos cd have done better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxXiTf4sO54
I apologise for posting this in light of its length [55mns]
However, it was tweeted by Barnden and I think it is really impressive. SEE shd give this guy a job asap
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4447583-qualcomms-next-5-billion-move-and-what-it-means-for-investors#comments
reference to SEE & in comments