Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
I don't think anyone cares what you are doing.... except when it gives them earache (metaphorically).
Hic. Noticed you didn't make your views known at the AGM today. Should have been the perfect opportunity for you to speak directly to the board and the shareholder present. I don't agree with you but healthy for everyone to have their say.
Personally, I don't give a toss about the current share price. I'm not selling until we list on the Nasdaq or later, unless things are cut short by a monster takeover bid. I think Andrew is doing the right things to get us to the promised land. Carry on Andrew.
One of the many things I like about Andrew: He is, at the same time, (1) hugely passionate, enthusiastic and immensely knowledgeable about his company's field and (2) centered on making the most lucrative exit possible for himself (and other shareholders) as early as possible. A very healthy balance. I've had several good investments that were held back a bit by having management who had (1) or (2) but not the other, or one of the two outweighing the other.
Sorry for not posting sooner. I've decided not to buy into Purecircle. Of course, others may think it to be a great investment and they may well be right. I have to go with my own instinct.
Reading around the subject, I decided that the sweetener market is in a wild-west stage where many will die and a few may survive and, possibly, make lots of money. It is a very active and complicated area and I just don't see myself caring enough to stay on top of all the latest developments and to know if Purecircle is the best gunslinger in the fight and when (if) it is losing that position.
I think this article is excellent and represents well how I see the sweetener market:
http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/sugar-stevia-low-calorie-sweetener/
Purecircle investors could make an absolute fortune but for me, without enough knowledge (despite research) to assess their chances, it is too much of a gamble.
Good luck in all your investing.
Cancelling trades (making "dummy trades", as you call it), runs the (small?) risk of looking like spoofing, which is illegal. From my point of view, I don't think a small dummy trade works as a spoof so should not be characterized as such but for a pro, it perhaps isn't worth the risk versus the cost of just executing a small trade.
Hi Robbie, This is the tier 2's sales not including tier 1 revenue. Tier 1 revenue is additional to these figures.
If you see these figures as a triumph, you are seeing exactly what I'm seeing.
"USD$1bn order intake typically accumulates into USD$4bn-$6bn lifetime revenue".
https://www.redeye.se/themes/autotech/videos
Video "Redeye Autotech Seminar". At time 1:53:44
Veoneer say "USD$1bn order intake typically accumulares into USD$4bn-$6bn lifetime revenue".
Veoneer use Seeing Machines for DMS (see 1:49:51 in same video).
Assuming 'order intake' is calculated on same basis as amounts announces as ordered by SEE, totaling USD$100m, that implies lifetime revenue from contracts ALREADY WON of US$400m - US$600m.
Add to that the $1bn of RFQs up for grabs over the next year (or is it 4 x $1bn)...
And market cap of SEE is currently only USD$230m. Go figure!!!
Hi, Mostlyharmless. I'm trying to read up on PureCircle at the moment. I have a few questions on my list but hopefully I can tick some of them off. I'll post up something tomorrow on how I'm getting on. With Coke moves in NZ, and the recent share price movements, I'm surprised there isn't more activity on this discussion board. Good to know there is at least one person here other than me!
Considering chucking some money at this. Never invested in this co before. Any PureCircle evangelists out there?
Background for potential Toyota contract which seems like it might be the next big announcement...
Bloomberg: "Toyota’s Vision of Autonomous Cars Is Not Exactly Driverless"
"The company invested $4 billion in a robotics and AI research institute to create safer vehicles"
"Eustice [Totota Research Institute's Senior Vice President for Automated Driving] lets the vehicle drift as he pretends to fall asleep. A dashboard camera spies his head drooping and eyes closing. In an instant, Guardian takes over and moves the car back into its lane. When Eustice perks up, he’s asked to tap the brake to resume driving."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-09-19/toyota-s-vision-of-autonomous-cars-is-not-exactly-driverless?srnd=premium-europe
Total Toyota sales 2016, 10.2m.
compare these figures to...
Ford: Total production 6.4m. Initial See contract A$50m.
BMW: Total production 2.4m. Initial See contract A$25m.
Please ignore.
Mathematician talking about the future of autonomous driving
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b0bh5x20
600,000 Prius sold worldwide in 2016, if that is the first model (it says Prius on his shirt). Multiply that by per unit price and it gives you a warm feeling inside. Total Toyota sales 2016, 10.2m.
compare these figures to...
Ford: Total production 6.4m. Initial See contract A$50m.
BMW: Total production 2.4m. Initial See contract A$25m.
With added evidence of this one, I'm getting excited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Sales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manufacturers_by_motor_vehicle_production
Thanks, Klick. Great article http://www.itbiznews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=12865
Strengthens the idea that Toyota is going to be the first Japanese customer (did Safestocks say they are in the bag?). Not least because, half way down, is a picture of Kevin Tanaka (Seeing Mahines Senior Director Marketing, Automotive) wearing a Toyota branded shirt!!!
No you won't because you are a buy-high, sell-low type. Just as you responded OTT emotionally to the fall in the price, you will respond OTT emotionally to the rise in price.
Buy-low, sell-high sounds like the most obvious strategy in the world but it is harder to execute than it sounds. You have to have confidence in your own judgement of the value of the company that is unaffected by the share price of the day. You judge the company by the share price which is the most human thing to do but a quick way to financial ruin.
This game might not be for you, and that is worth thinking about... If you can be honest with yourself. Alternatively you can try and learn from this rather than taking it as a provocation.
Reading too much into a word choice used by KK on the fly. Sometimes we get insight by latching onto a tiny detail and picking and picking at it. Sometimes we are just reading far much into a detail and finding something that isn't there. Part of the skill is knowing the difference.
As pointed out by others below, interpreting "doubling" as literally doubling to 20,000 units and interpreting the "end of the year" as the end of the financial year does not make any sense given number of units already connected and known pipeline. And if it doesn't make any sense? Then it probably isn't the right interpretation. It is not the interpretation that fits our other knowledge. Do we rely just on the precise wording of that one phase or the evidence of everything else we know?
My only concern on Fleet is as follows. We know that the limit on growth speed is the number of highly skilled and trained Seeing Machines personnel. We know that Ken is dealing with competing claims from each division for the manpower. Each division has customer opportunities they want to take but there isn't enough people to do everything so KK has to decide which opportunities are taken. It appears that Auto is happening a lot more quickly than was expected (see Smart Eye CEO comment about how many RFQs are in play. Wow!) and I think KK will have to prioritize that which could take people away from other divisions and slow down other divisions. My take is that the recently indicated move to using more distributors for Fleet, and mainly only dealing with v large Fleet customers direct, is one way that SEE are dealing with the constrained personnel issue. However this is a good problem, there may be less Fleet, but only because there is a wave of business elsewhere.
Important to note that this limit on people is NOT a cash issue. They are recruiting people fast but they want to make sure they don't recruit careless. They have to make sure recruits are carefully selected to be up to SEE standards and fit culture and then they have to be properly trained. Worst thing would be to damage reputation by deploying staff who are not up to snuff.
All in my very humble opinion. I own a large chunk and I also make a living from trading volatility in this share and others so I am not independent. Do your own research and make your own opinions.
If, over the last couple of weeks, you have been following the Toyota/Uber investment (valuing Uber at approx $70 BILLION) and Musk/Tesla go-private (valuing Tesla at approx $70 BILLION) , you will have noticed how much significance has been given to real-world driving miles.
Tesla have real-world driving miles data of approx 1 billion but... OOPS! Mr Musk insisted on NOT having an internal-facing camera so despite all his millions of data points recorded for a billion miles, he lacks data on the driver... who ... ermmm... it turns out is fairly important. Guess who has approx 1 billion miles of driver observation data?
The data-set recorded by Tesla is regarded as a significant part of the justification of the value. eg
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-420-share-bargain-autopilot-data/
"t[investors] would be getting quite a deal at $420 per share. Apart from Tesla’s electric car and energy business — both of which are growing at an immense rate — investors would also be buying into a company that holds what could very well be automotive world’s most extensive amount of real-world driving data. As of July, a report from MIT’s Lex Fridman estimated that Tesla had acquired around 1.2 billion miles on Autopilot and approximately 7.8 billion miles in Autopilot “Shadow Mode.” In comparison, Waymo’s fleet of vehicles have driven a total of 5 million real-world miles in self-driving mode and an additional 5 billion miles in simulation as of May this year." "Tesla’s focus on data gathered from real-world miles was emphasized by Nidhi Kalra, a senior information scientist for the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. According to the information scientist, simulations such as the ones used by Waymo to train its fleet of autonomous vehicles are a “simplification” of the real world.“The problem with any simulator is that it’s a simplification of the real world. Even if it stimulates the world accurately, if all you’re simulating is a sunny day in Mountain View with no traffic, then what is the value of doing a billion miles on the same cul-de-sac in Mountain View? I’m not saying that’s what anyone’s doing but without that information we can’t know what a billion miles really means. Real-world miles still really, really matter. That’s where, literally, the rubber meets the road, and there’s no substitute for it,”"
Meanwhile Toyota already had an investment in Uber and values the real-World driving data Uber have already collected (large amount compared to many others but very very small compared to Tesla or SEE) but seem frustrated by Uber stopping real-World testing and it is thought that the latest investment holds a nudge to get that going again.eg " The Toyota partnership puts pressure on Uber to resume testing on public roads,"
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uber-toyota/toyota-to-invest-500-million-in-uber-for-self-driving-cars-idUKKCN1LC201
PI spots share that appears undervalued based on what they know of the company. Gets a stiffy. Buys share.
Share goes up/down/sideways or all of these in various sequence.
At some point in the sequence (or all through the sequence, to varying degrees), the share is looking undervalued based on what the PI knows of the company. PI loses confidence and/or imagines there must be a conspiracy by market makers/management/green men.
Illogical.
The market is not perfect. If it was, there would be no point in investing because everything you bought would be fairly valued when you bought it. It would be impossible to out-think the market. Doing research would be pointless. If the market was perfect, investing at random would be just as good as picking a share.
The market isn't perfect which is great, it is why the PI got the chance to buy the stock at less than value in the first place. So when the share price is again undervalued, why does he run around the room shouting " we are all doomed" or stick his tin foil hat on and cry "conspiracy!"??
Maybe because, the initial investment takes a moment of self belief whereas holding for months/years waiting for the share to become fairly valued takes a higher level of confidence in your own assessment of the share and it can be difficult to sustain that self belief. In other words, perhaps shouting "panic!" or "conspiracy!" says more about the PI than the company he is investing in.... It is telling us that PI is just human. Only arrogant ****** sustain their self belief without falter.
Part 2/2
The question is, does this matter?
Well, it depends. You'd obviously prefer a simple blood test than to put a patient through apheresis. It is cheaper, quicker, easier and less stressful. You are only going to use apheresis if you can't get enough CTCs with the normal blood test. Parsortix has, so far, had a lot of success being used on normal blood samples and apheresis would appear not to be necessary in a large number of cases.
Some other CTC capture techniques may be less efficient so may benefit from running on apheresis product rather than normal blood samples. Some types of cancer may produce very low numbers of CTCs, even compared to other types of cancers, so in those cases, there might be benefit to using apheresis product rather than normal blood but you still need to capture the CTCs from the apheresis product and as far as I know, Parsortix could be used to capture the CTCs from the apheresis product just as it can be from the blood. Apheresis product is really just blood with some of the blood cells removed. Likewise, depending on the analysis the scientist/doctor wants to do, they might want to have more CTCs for analysis so they may choose to use apheresis to get those extra CTCs but, again, they still need to capture the CTCs and that might be using Parsortix.
Warnings: I am not a doctor or a practicing scientist. My posts should not be taken as expert opinion. My posts are merely my own personal opinion from having read around the Mail Research and others should do their own background reading and form their own opinions. Further, I have a large investment in Angle and so am not independent and may not be objective. The Mail Research can be viewed here: http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2018/08/08/1078-0432.CCR-18-0862
Part1/2
Thanks Chazzy2. The Daily Mail article is a good spot and it was interesting to dig out what had actually been done... which wasn't really as represented in the Daily Mail article.
Cancers shed cells known as CTCs into the bloodstream and if these can be captured then they can be analysed to gain information about the source cancer and this information might then be able to be used to detect the cancer, assess whether the cancer is one that requires treatment, work out which treatments will be effective on the cancer, monitor progress of treatment, detect changes in the cancer that mean treatment needs to change. Capturing these CTCs from the bloodstream is very difficult as for every CTC, there are hundreds of millions of other cells in the blood... Angle's Parsortix is a CTC capture product and there are others.
Parsortix, like other CTC capture technologies, is normally used on blood extracted in small amounts in a normal blood test, like the one that your GP gives you. This has the advantage of being quick, cheap and easy. The key difference in the research paper sited by the Daily Mail ("the Mail Research") is that instead of using the CTC capture technology on a blood sample, they used on the product from apheresis. What does that mean? Well, instead of just having a small blood sample taken like when you go to your GP, you need to go somewhere that has an apheresis machine. Two tubes are put into you, one for taking blood out and one for putting it back. Your blood goes out, passes through a centrifuge to extract one portion of the blood and then the remainder of the blood is returned to your body. In the Mail Research, patients were hooked up to the apheresis machine for between 90 minutes and 160 minutes. The centrifuge in the apheresis machine does NOT produce a pure CTC sample or anything close, it mainly extracts stuff other than CTCs, so the product still needs to be put through a CTC capture technique in order to separate the CTCs. The idea is that using the apheresis means you search through a lot more blood so the apheresis sample will have more CTCs in it than a normal blood sample would.The question is, does this matter?
Well, it depends. You'd obviously prefer a simple blood test than to put a patient through apheresis. It is cheaper, quicker, easier and less stressful. You are only going to use apheresis if you can't get enough CTCs with the normal blood test. Parsortix has, so far, had a lot of success being used on normal blood samples and apheresis would appear not to be necessary in a large number of cases.
Some other CTC capture techniques may be less efficient so may benefit from running on apheresis product rather than normal blood samples. (continued)