Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Posted this on advfn
Interesting to note how much cash the two principal directors have put into the company within the last two years let alone the hours or hard graft.
David Levi and Shavit Baruch have spent a combined £434k on buying ENET shares in the last two years. That figure reflects the shares sold to partially cover the 30p warrant exercise, ie only the net spend is counted.
The breakdown is:
DL £351k
SM £83k.
Nobody can accuse them of not backing the company to the hilt. By any standards that is an impressive sum.
Well, if that’s competition that’s good. I would be seriously worried if there wasn’t competition, that would indicate that either the market doesn’t exist or it’s too small to be worth bothering with.
The size of these markets is global and ENET only require a very modest % to do well.
I view the Napatech news as very encouraging
atb
If you told me last week that we would release news that:
-we’ve optimised the UEP products, completion this month
- developed a higher end product for 2022 deployment
-the company’s patented wireless bonding solution bestows a unique advantage on our products which will see them entering mass production
- we’re sourcing components for 2023 with the help of our customers
-we can see visibility on over $20m revenues from UEP/ ACE-NIC excluding licensing and royalty
-we expect further additional growth and revenues from new customers
Then I would be looking for the sp to be in the 40’s, not 20’s.
Hang on, we did say that, only it was done in ‘DL language’!
The fact remains that at c £20m that valuation hardly covers the sunk R&D costs.
Must be a few companies running the rule over ENET.
A new approach to IR may not be a bad idea!
atb
An excellent idea dallo and one that I have recently suggested to the company.
They really need to embrace IR wholeheartedly and get everyone behind the company , these sort of events would help. I suggest they could be held after significant news, eg results, or a contract, or, perish the thought, a fund raise.
The QCA code in the Corporate Governance section is well worth reading. Clearly, to date, the company are failing on the shareholder returns but.
Re communication, they say this:
‘The Company encourages two-way communication with all shareholders and responds, as appropriate, to all queries received. The CEO and CFO are available to meet regularly with the Company’s major shareholders, and where appropriate engages with other significant shareholders.’
That’s good to know snd I trust all shareholders questions will be replied to and answered, as much as they can.
Hi Dallo
Thanks for your thoughts and info.
I’m certainly sorry to hear that about Mark and hope he recovers well, as we all know CV19 can be very nasty.
I don’t think keeping their heads down is the right thing to do, if MR is unable to answer shareholders legitimate concerns then surely someone else in the company should be able to manage it, BK springs to mind.
Yes, they’ve dug themselves a big hole and now need solid news to extract themselves from it. I guess the timing of their actions may depend on how far off we are from the next fund raise, probably less than 6 months, imo. I’m sure they’d love the warrant money for that, in which case a big turn round in news and sentiment is required.
atb
Thanks Sergi
I sincerely hope that’s not the case, as it is the duty of a company to respond and communicate with their shareholders . On the ENET web site they say
‘As a company, we embrace the ten principles of the Quoted Company Alliance (QCA) Code, and we refer you to our Corporate Governance section for more detailed information.’
Would have to check it out but pretty sure that includes communicating with shareholders.
At the very least one would expect a ‘Im sorry, we will not comment beyond what was said in the RNS’ type reply, that’s the very minimum.
Has anyone here heard back from MR? I’m aware of quite a number of investors who have contacted him re Monday’s offering but , to date, no one I’m in contact with has heard a sausage. To be fair he could be away, too busy, inundated, still composing a suitable reply etc etc.
ps @g
Re no chance of a buy out <$250m
How we’ve missed TL, a post straight out of his locker!
Equates to c £2.50, I’d have your hand off up to your armpit if you offered me that, I don’t think I’d be alone, form an orderly queue.
GtheG
If it worked for you then that’s fine.
I’ve outlined my views so no need to repeat.
Yes, agreed, there were positives
I would love to sit on a share that goes up in a straight line, don’t think that’s happened since dot.com days and a certain 100 bagger for me with Batman! (BATM).
I’ve not sold a single ENET share to date, I’m comfortable, plenty of other irons in the fire, but at the same time frustrated with what most folk see a simple and avoidable mistakes.
Yes, I certainly appreciate different viewpoints, helps to question my own take and it’s good and what these boards should be for
atb
@g
I’ve also nibbled today as despite my strong reservations regarding comms/IR I believe they will be successful, or bought out at a premium to today’s sp. Not bothered which it is.
I agree re educating investors.I’m blowed why they thought it was necessary to go into a lengthy diatribe about the ins and outs of product development. These things change all the time, we don’t need to know. But if you’re going to make the mistake of opening up at this level, at least try and explain it properly. Hopefully they won’t bore us with any more in detail product ‘insights’ . I’ve no wish to know , in detail, how G2 is better than G1. Faster and higher margins for ENET, that’s the only sort of info they need to tell us.
Skid
I certainly appreciate your view point. And I do take on board that these are difficult times with the components shortages and I’m sure ENET are doing everything to minimise the problem.
So what I’m objecting to is the 14th December release paints it as an improved product:
‘Ethernity is adapting its hardware version to produce an improved and more comprehensive go-to-market product’
Then in the 14th February release we’re told:
‘…., it was agreed to restore the plans to produce the contracted UEP platform…..
which is a higher-end product…..’
It’s either disingenuous, or badly written, or an attempt to justify the U turn.
I’ve no problems with changes, situations change and you adjust accordingly. But don’t tell us plan B is the bees knees and then say it was plan A all along.
Clear, concise, open communication.
Unfortunately the above is only one element of a very poor RNS yesterday. The thing is strewn with errors, poor wording, poor communication, vital bits left out of an update.
They should have worked out exactly what they wanted and what should be covered by an update and set about that in a clear, concise and open manner. Instead we got a rag bag of old waffle that has left everyone scratching their heads wondering what they were trying to say
atb
uhlf
Could they not try to improve their comms/IR
They don’t seem able to do a release without tripping over themselves and/or scoring an own goal.
At c £20m market cap that’s less than the total funds raised since listed. What a damning indictment of non delivery of shareholder value.
Perversely with Tarana going great guns and further products about to be scaled up this could be a very opportune time to buy.
The risk of a take out here must also be high.
There always seems to be some excuse as to why they don’t deliver.Don’t know if they make it up as they go along. The poor comms/IR means we struggle to make any sense of it.
I think yesterday’s news was good news dressed up in a load of old waffle.
They really haven’t a clue about the forward facing bit of the company.
gh
I’m all for being flexible, adaptable, changing to meet the situation. I’ve no problem with any of that.
What I don’t like is unclear /misleading communication, they were telling us in the Dec 14th update that the new version carried several advantages performance wise, it turns out it didn’t, it was a dumbed down version and they’ve had to revert back to plan A. They’ve tried rather clumsily to dress that up. What I’m after is open, honest, clear communication. Don’t treat us like idiots.
Just read the two excerpts and it’s , imo, pretty obvious.
That’s just wrong. They’ve got themselves into a tight pickle over this and that has resulted in a clumsy , wordy, poorly written attempt at an explanation. Not good enough. We deserve better.
atb
uhlf