Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. Watch the video here.
S2020. Not much time/inclination 2 post now. Going 4 drinks with another company. Large part of partners investment comes from sim time & staff time. Time of management, techies & pilots put into research with SEE tech. Doesn't appear in our p&l as money doesnt go through us. However (1) partners are not p-ing money up the wall, they are doing it for a reason and (2) we get the benefit of that r&d almost as if we'd spent the cash ourselves.
1) It was an RNS-R not an RNS. RNS is info required for regulatory reasons. RNS-R is supplementary information to that required by regulations.
2) Ken has said several times that if he has something worth releasing and that he CAN release then he will. He has also said that he wishes he could release a lot more but a lot of the really interesting stuff is prevented from release because of formal non-disclosure agreements or because the other side would be P'd off by us talking about what we are doing with them.
3) The aviation RNS-R was not released because it is the best news they had or because of any special significance of timing. My understanding is that (i) It was released because they CAN release it and (ii) Because it hints towards other things which are more difficult to directly release. Not least of which...My understanding is that, between them, the "partners" mentioned in the RNS-R have spent millions on R&D working with SEE tech. They are doing that for a reason.
SEE knew about the ramping up of auto business when they did the last fund raise. They fully expect (and expected) it to ramp up further from here. So that, in itself, does not give reason for a fund raise.
I really like the aviation news from yesterday. It is not a surprise but it is always nice to have confirmation that aviation continues to bubble along. Guess how many of the other DMS players are in aviation? None? Sounds right to me!
Aviation is probably the most rigorous transport sector with the highest demands for precision, accuracy, quality and safety. What are we using in that space? Fovio. The same core product that we will be using in auto and fleet. Operating in the aviation environment (and making a nice profit from doing so), will teach us an awful lot which will then make Fovio a better product for all other transport segments. It will also give Fovio a great reputation - the product so good, it is the one used in aviation - it won't let down your brand as an auto maker/haulage company/ large scale distribution company (eg FedEx)/large scale coach company/rail network etc etc. It has proven accuracy to enable enhanced comfort features as well as safety features.
Emirates have already invested millions into research with SEE - it doesn't show in our P&L because they spend the money rather than giving it to us to spend, but we benefit from what is learnt in that research, and the other DMS companies don't.
Sure, FedEx won't be signing a fleet deal with us yet. Sure, there is engineering work to be done with all the auto clients being won. Sure there is massive potential still to be fulfilled and fulfilling that potential involves hard work and costs but it also involves profits and the achievement of massive potential!
Not quite true. It would be more accurate to say that Ken doesn't care about short term share price fluctuations as long as they are not too severe. He would care about a severe short term price fluctuation that undermines the company's ability to progress towards its medium-term goals. He does care about the company achieving its medium term potential and that being recognised, in the medium term, by its share price.
The undervaluation of Seeing Machines does irritate senior management. I've had several conversations with senior managers where they have displayed annoyance about the low share price and talked excitedly about the potential for it to be much much higher in the future. However, they understand that the way to achieve maximum medium term share price is not to focus on the share price but to focus on delivering a great product and service really effectively and that is what they concentrate on day-to-day, not whether the share price has gone up or down by 2p.
The opportunity is in simulators AND in aircraft. Don't belittle the opportunity in simulators though.
Per the below link,
- "all the training for commercial pilots around the world is done on flight simulators"
- "Flight simulators [cost]... between $8 million and $20 million"
- "civil aviation training [market]... is worth more than $3.5 billion annually".
- And this market will grow "255,000 new commercial airline pilots will be needed over the next 10 years to sustain the growth of the commercial air transport industry. This record demand—70 new pilots per day, or 25,500 a year—will challenge current recruitment channels"
- "Massive traffic growth in the aviation industry and a serious pilot shortfall are boosting the demand for pilot training"
http://tradecommissioner.gc.ca/canadexport/0002526.aspx?lang=eng
So simulators is a big enough prize to get excited about!
Large scale simulator deployment of SEE tech will come before large scale in-aircraft deployment as large-scale in-aircraft deployment will likely need to go through extensive testing before it can be permitted. However, large-scale in-aircraft deployment may be able to happen earlier if the initial role is passive (eg as an enhancement to the black box flight recorders) rather than active (eg being involved in alerting the pilot to certain data during flight).
And yes, as a blackbox enhancer, there is the potential that this will become an FAA requirement for any aircraft required to have a data redorder. This gives a good explanation of which aircraft this applies to ( it is a lot!):
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1684/which-aircraft-are-required-to-have-a-black-box
Emirates, Quantas & FedEx: Good people to be involved with as we open up a market which could be huge. I posted this on 20 July:
The instrument display in the cockpit of a commercial airliner is very complicated. I understand the main use of SEE tech in aircraft has little to do with drowsiness or reducing number of pilots per plane but is more to do with monitoring what the pilot is looking at. This is important for:
(i) Assisting the pilots to do their jobs better as the the SEE tech potentially enables the aircraft to draw their attention to important matters it knows they haven't seen - particularly important in high pressure situations in which it has been proven that pilots can develop tunnel vision and become focused on what they perceive as 'high priority' items to the exclusion of looking at other things which may be important.
(ii) Black Box. Existing black box tech records hundreds of thousands of data points about what the aircraft did but records very little about what the pilots did, basically just what switches they flipped. To properly understand what happened during incidents, it would be much better to have a record of where the pilots were looking throughout the incident, which instruments they were looking at and when. We are not just talking about crashes here, but any incident. Commercial aviation is obsessed with these investigations - it is this obsession which makes air travel as safe as it is, which is crucial for consumer confidence and the commercial success of the industry. These investigations lead to better instrument design, better cockpit design, better procedures, better training.
(iii) Better initial training. SEE tech can be used to understand how a good pilot looks at their instruments in various situations, their 'scan pattern'. This understanding is gained from observing the "good" pilots both in simulators and in actual flight situations. Simulator observations are useful because you can run the same scenario many times and collect lots of data. Cockpit observations are useful because they are real world. The SEE tech can then also be used to objectively monitor and rate the scan patterns of trainees. This improves identification of shortcomings in trainee scan patterns and helps training to be targeted better and more quickly. This helps better and quicker training of pilots.
(iv) Better ongoing training. Pilots are regularly sent back to the simulator to practice unusual situations, brush up skills and for update. SEE tech helps as described above.
Regular meetings with large shareholders and analysts are a regular occurrence for many listed companies. It can take up quite a lot of time. It is something usually dealt with by the CEO, Chairman and/or CFO and in different companies is allocated between these people in varying degrees. In my experience, this job is a pain in the ass. I have mostly managed to avoid it :-)
These meetings can be face-to-face, by phone or can be exchange of emails. They are often one-to-one and sometimes in larger groups. They can be formal presentations or an informal meeting over lunch or coffee.
They are a pain in the ass and one of the reasons that private equity think they can give a company a boost by taking a company private, which allows the senior directors to focus on growing the company instead of having to deal with these meetings.
You CAN NOT release information in these meetings which is material and not already in the public domain. You do get asked to look at investor/analyst projections for the company and comment on them which is always tricky. You can't be rude by refusing too much but it is difficult to comment without overstepping the line of giving more solid guidance than has been released publicly, Always a tricky balance and directors do sometimes get it wrong.
Ken has said that he does not like doing these meetings. A lot of senior directors don't like them. Ken doesn't think that these meetings are are a good use of his particular talents and he doesn't feel at home doing them. This appears to be one reason he did not want to be CEO but changed his mind once a chairman was found who could pick up a lot of these meetings.
I'm surprised that a lot of people on here seem unaware that these sorts of meetings happen with listed companies and can be frequent. I'd expect even more than usual of these meetings to be happening now and/or over the next year as ken introduces people to the new chairman to effectively say "don't call me, call him".
Not having access to these sorts of meetings is one of the handicaps of being a PI but, however, SEE are better to PIs than most in this respect. SEE are pretty good at responding to PI emails, they staged an excellent investor presentation/meeting earlier this year (and, I understand, are thinking about doing similar in the autumn, though the new chairman might or might not like that idea) and are so open to PIs that they even gave Beefy a face-to-face meeting and a tour of the HQ.
The instrument display in the cockpit of a commercial airliner is very complicated. I understand the main use of SEE tech in aircraft has little to do with drowsiness or reducing number of pilots per plane but is more to do with monitoring what the pilot is looking at. This is important for:
(i) Assisting the pilots to do their jobs better as the the SEE tech potentially enables the aircraft to draw their attention to important matters it knows they haven't seen - particularly important in high pressure situations in which it has been proven that pilots can develop tunnel vision and become focused on what they perceive as 'high priority' items to the exclusion of looking at other things which may be important.
(ii) Black Box. Existing black box tech records hundreds of thousands of data points about what the aircraft did but records very little about what the pilots did, basically just what switches they flipped. To properly understand what happened during incidents, it would be much better to have a record of where the pilots were looking throughout the incident, which instruments they were looking at and when. We are not just talking about crashes here, but any incident. Commercial aviation is obsessed with these investigations - it is this obsession which makes air travel as safe as it is, which is crucial for consumer confidence and the commercial success of the industry. These investigations lead to better instrument design, better cockpit design, better procedures, better training.
(iii) Better initial training. SEE tech can be used to understand how a good pilot looks at their instruments in various situations, their 'scan pattern'. This understanding is gained from observing the "good" pilots both in simulators and in actual flight situations. Simulator observations are useful because you can run the same scenario many times and collect lots of data. Cockpit observations are useful because they are real world. The SEE tech can then also be used to objectively monitor and rate the scan patterns of trainees. This improves identification of shortcomings in trainee scan patterns and helps training to be targeted better and more quickly. This helps better and quicker training of pilots.
(iv) Better ongoing training. Pilots are regularly sent back to the simulator to practice unusual situations, brush up skills and for update. SEE tech helps as described above.
If you are only asking for an RNS about an approach when the company are legally obliges to issue one, then I don't understand what your point is. I'm sure you trust SEE to meet the legal basics, or you wouldn't be trusting them with your money.
To sound like a broken record, it is often very difficult to tell the difference between a serious or speculative approach until pretty much a firm offer is on the table, or at least the level of info disclosure to the interested party reaches a point where break-fees and peep fees come into play but in that case manner of disclosure is often restricted by the terms agreed on the info disclosure. Potential acquirers don't want to be identified before the magic moment any more than the target does.
It will all happen in the smoke filled rooms (ahem, maybe with SEE, it'll not be smoke with all those cyclists) and we'll find out at the last minute.
I'm going to leave M&A behind now. I'm sure I'm way past the point of becoming boring now. I'm boring myself something rotten.
Maplinman - "given the speculation, isn't there a very strong case for SEE stating whether or not they are in negotiations for a possible sale". No. Companies like this often receive fairly frequent "approaches" which are of varying seriousness. In my professional life, I have received various approaches asking if I'd be interested in selling asset X or sounding me out on takeover of the entire company. Sometimes the approach comes from a potential acquirer directly, sometimes from a deal maker who says he has an acquirer who is interested, sometimes from a deal maker who has identified a potential acquirer who has no current relationship with the deal maker but the deal maker has done his maths and thinks he has identified value for the acquirer much higher than the potential purchase price of the target (M&A houses do this, identify a deal that makes sense then sell the deal to the target and the acquirer).
You get these approaches all the time, and as per my previous post, some of them bubble on for ages and never come to anything, some bubble for ages then suddenly come to a deal, and some of them quickly become a done deal without initial delay. As management at the target (and even as management at the target or as the deal maker between), it is very hard to know which category an approach is going to fall into until it becomes a done-deal or gets very close. It is not in your interests to reveal every approach as constant takeover talk can unsettle staff and others. You have little choice but to keep it close to your chest.
As an investor, you can reasonably expect that approaches are being made and that management are taking a measured response to these. They'll tell us if something becomes serious but don't expect that to be long before the deal becomes very serious. Don't expect a denial of approaches - even if we get a denial of any formal approach, that doesn't mean they are not being sounded out. Even if there is a denial of formal approach, there can still be conclusion of a deal soon after as lack of formal approach does not mean no informal sounding-out is happening and management can't see the future and don't know if a deal will rapidly evolve.
' "connect the dots" on opportunity' and related comments strike a chord. MSAR has always been a great idea but difficult to get off the ground due to having to connect the dots of production, transportation, storage and usage (see KSA disappointment). Maybe, in Freepoint, QFI finally have someone who can solve this.
http://www.freepoint.com/our-business/
Leveraging our relationships, expertise and responsiveness, producers, midstream players, and end users alike can rely on our consistency in exceeding their expectations.
Risk-savvy. Managing logistics from the point of production to effectively mitigate risk on the merchant trading end.
Efficient. An agile corporate structure and strategic global relationships across production infrastructure facilitate transactions.
Counterparty-driven. The ability to act on opportunity, never sacrificing the goal of fostering long-term relationships and a mission of prosperity for our counterparties.
Direct access. Our physical merchant capabilities and fully integrated physical production-to-market model enables greater deal access.
Strategic relationships. Using our intellectual capital and unique marketing platform to “connect the dots” on opportunity, Freepoint can acquire the highest production value asset and execute premium market deals tailored to our counterparties’ risk/return profiles.
"Xeros has previously announced that it is undergoing testing and validation trials with two other market leading commercial washing machine OEMs. These trials are continuing and Xeros expects to sign further agreements with major OEMs in the future."
Alex8/Mr.BB. I wouldn't read too much into the Chairmanship timing when it comes to takeover timing. That would assume that SEE set the timetable for takeover approach which is not the case. SEE have the power to reject an approach, to an extent, but they cannot prevent one being made.
Takeovers can happen very quickly or very slowly. Previous takeovers I've worked on have ranged from 5 years to 2 months for time between first contact and conclusion of deal. Often the timing of these deals and length of time to conclusion have largely depended on factors external to the target company. Strategy of the acquirer, internal politics at the acquirer, movements in the market place (market growth, change in market due to regulation, deregulation etc etc), movements in the macro environment, takeover of competitors etc etc etc.
SEE could already be in contact with potential acquirers and they wouldn't have to tell us. Those potential acquirers could be making slow noises to SEE but could, without warning, suddenly go full-steam-ahead (seen this a lot). Alternatively a potential acquirer can arrive on the scene and act very quickly. Point is, the truth of acquisitions is that even the management of the target often have little idea of whether an acquisition will actually happen or how quickly until it has actually happened.
As management of the target company, if someone turns up with an attractive offer with the right price etc etc, you don't tell them to come back next year, you check their credentials, try to squeeze a little more out of them, then take it to your shareholders.
I, for one, didn't say you did say it was SEE tech. I was responding to the person who said you should delete your post, balancing his comment with another viewpoint.
However, now you bring it up, I would be surprised if it is not SEE tech that they are mainly looking at. At least one of their valued customers is already themselves in advanced trials with Guardian and look like adopting it. It would make no sense for them to fit, as standard, a technology which is not the one that one of their major customers seems to want.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced they will fit as standard. I think it will just be having the connection there as standard so Guardian can be easily installed if the customer wants it. There is a truck manufacturer looking at including a connection for Guardian as standard and I would expect AD to be looking at something similar.
If you think it is significant information then it could be insider trading. If you think other readers of the bulletin board would be interested in it, then it could be significant. In which case, I'd suggest you are possibly better off (i) posting it to the BB so you can then argue it was made public before you made any further trades or (ii) informing the company (in this case SEE) of the info of which you have become aware and asking if they think you need to be treated as an insider. Whether or not info is significant can be very subjective. If it was obviously major news (eg you learn of a takeover approach that hasn't been made public), then you'd take the most extreme steps before doing any more trading.
It is common place to name name customers not made public by that company or the supplier. Ford, for example, has not been named by SEE or by Ford but is commonly referred to.
However, if you do have information not-in-the-public domain, and you trade on it, that could be insider trading and you could be on very dodgy ground. Putting the info on the BB (ie arguably putting it in the public domain) before trading based on the info could possibly help protect you.