Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Trickey.
How about answering the actual question rather than doing a Piers Morgan ?
As Hull, and the company have pointed out, the advantages and growth of PON. However this is an established market, established players, established agreements where ENET hasn't sold a dime.
So the question is what is the ENET USP, and is their offering sufficiently differentiated from current competitors to outweigh dealing with a company such as ENET with its "history" and balance sheet.
I dont think any of us here are qualified to answer, unless we have a Telecoms analyst from Gartner or a telecoms techie from a competitor / potential customer.
Trickey.
The sales pitch is never easy. I think DL thought this with his "at the finish line", "no brainer", "we know more than anyone about telecoms" stuff and simply doesn't understand the decision making process in customers.
Ilan has the CV of someone who does a weekly in depth pipeline call and detailed sales evaluations.
We just need some independent view of the tech from Gartner / Forrester or even better a contract with guaranteed volume sales (not a contract with fluffy words)
Some misunderstandings here.
ENET doesn't manufacture fpgas or asics.
You cannot convert or upgrade an fpga to an asic or vice versa after the fact, but based on the application you may be able to load the same applications to both.
Asic hardware is generally cheaper than fpga hardware, therefore there is a unit tipping point where the marginal cost offsets upfront cost.
Where ENET does supply the fpga / Asic as these are COTS, standard volume products anyone can buy them including the customer their margin is minimal, all of the margin (effectively 100%) is in the ENET software which for the same application will be the same.
So if, if, ENET state the customer is using an ASIC it is good news as the customer has a strong expectation of on going volume providing an on going run rate X quarters into the future, but bad news as what is loaded is probably less complex at a lower price point.
Bit breezy out there and a few energy gels consumed. The single track road out the back of Turville (vicar of dibley) up the hill stunning as ever.
"Indicated an interest" doesn't scream waiting for a signature and not even at the "advanced negotiations with 4 oems" from 15 months ago, best read the two uep2025 business update rnss from last year.
I think Dplewis (someone at the meetings with DL and MR with me) on opportunity management on advfn "DLs handed a few business cards at a conference and thinks that counts as pipeline. Almost exactly the same language he used in previous updates over the years when nothing has materialised".
Hope I'm wrong but not holding my breath.
Dbh.
You have not either not read the RNS correctly or most probably deliberately misrepresented it., they have not stated that the technology / product decision has been made and the only negotiation is just price points.
The standard tech categorisation where a tech decision has not been made is "weak up side".
Incredible - a direct communication.
“Successful delivery of existing and pipeline contracts would deliver in excess of $20m over the next 24 months. In addition the company continues to benefit from royalty and licencing revenue streams”. Wow licencing on top!
Page of cups.
What contracts ? There are no contracts.
From my notes direct from DL 15 months ago "we are advanced negotiations with four OEMs", so seemingly absolutely no further forward, two gone backwards.
Umair.
As I’ve said before the sales cycle on this sort of sale is at least 18 months - and even then a time to ramp sales to any material amount. Despite setting out timetables between parties you can usually double expectations.
If you’re getting from this that a contract will be signed in the next couple of days (or even weeks, months) from these opportunities you will be sorely disappointed.
- overriding everything from DL and ENET "potential" and "no guarantee" have traditionally led to nothing. They are not professional sales people who understand the sales science and detail required in managing opportunities and forecasts.
- this isnt a business update, its a product update. a business update would have detail of the progress on the chinese contracts so silence here assumes they are dead with large write offs in the 2023 accounts, as well as a tarana update where I am inclined on PATTs view that the order last year may have been for hardware with a quarterly royalty on software download - if this is the case ENET should tell shareholders.
- if they dont know the contract route (system vs licencing) they cant be near closing these contracts, also clear they are not in a preferred technology or vendor status.
- with the above they do need to get a wiggle on for the $2.2m - $3m, with a ramp so much could happen to take this out. Also completely unclear whether this fits into new customer products which have to launch and gain market acceptance, or existing products as new enhancements where there is an existing run rate of unit sales.
- cash cycle on a pure royalty model far suits ENET, they simply dont have working capital for system sales or even the hybrid royalty model of providing the fpga (even with a low cost of sales component %)
- if, a big if, they achieve orders and revenue no mention or understanding of margin from the c 100 posts today who understand ENET and DL inside out and back to front - margin drives the forward view on breakeven on fixed costs and the share price. the fabulously knowledgable ex CFO did tell us these were very high margin products with a high IP / SW content. Is the assumption that $2.2m is the royalty amount and $3m the system sales ? If so assume $2.2m is the margin (plus a bit of margin flowthrough on the h/w?)
- As usual with DL and ENET its all about execution
Far, far too many on this board got hooked into ENET in the "tulip bulb" moments in the TSP without any understanding of the two contracts placed in TSP, the company, its markets, its technology, its competitors and most importantly with smaller companies the leadership team.
A very, very long day at work today - will forward a couple of snippets from my emails to the Chair and CEO from the last two years tonight - they are not the best at understanding their opportunity pipeline, weighting it and executing.
No their new tech is neither proven or endorsed, new products have not been sold to anyone - Indian deal with 10k units a year (c $10m pa) nowhere, Chinese refusing to honour their contract, israeli deal canned.....
No it's not early days.
Forget the cfo, they have one new team member.
You really do need to check RNSs on how many times DL has said trials and evaluations.
Last year from my notes they were in " advanced negotiations with 4 oems", about 15 months ago now so assume they have all rejected ENET tech.
Investdonk,
After releasing Tarana in early RNSs I think they were told by Tarana not to name them in future RNSs, I think due to potential IPO or just competitors seeing what ENA=ET are doing and extrapolating numbers onto Tarana.
Most of what ENET do is under non disclosure - so hard to work out customers / usage / market potential.