Ann: Quarterly Cashflow Report - 31 March 2023, page-31

Everyone should get involved tomorrow. Join the presentation and make your views known.

Rather than thinking about what I’d like to hear, I’ve been reflecting on what I hope NOT to hear:

1. Vagueness about capital requirements:

To my mind, any non-answer means they fully intend to raise. This will be a giant red flag. The last raise was an unmitigated disaster. The share price is down >60% in just nine months.

2. Suggestions that the share price is beyond management’s control:
Stock prices fluctuate day-to-day with market sentiment, but Spectur’s steady 3-year decline is due to poor financial performance and repeated capital raises. Nothing else. Failure to acknowledge this would suggest that management simply doesn’t get it (or doesn't care).

3. Assertions that the board has ‘shareholder alignment’ due to their own holdings:

The MD owns 2.2 million shares, which sounds like a lot until you consider it’s the equivalent value of six weeks’ wages for him (a genuine drop in the ocean). Only one director took up their full allotment of shares in the last capital raise. Shareholder alignment is poor. 


4. Extrapolation of a completely unverifiable ‘weighted pipeline’:
Yes, it makes a lovely graph but, as anyone who has used sales software knows, literally any potential opportunity can be lumped into an ‘unweighted’ pipeline and any subjective weighting can be assigned. The ASX actually pulled them up on using this earlier. 


5. Any major emphasis on “Total Addressable Market”:

The presentation in August last year included a slide highlighting the ‘TAM’ in Texas / California and $250m in potential revenue. It's truly idle nonsense to spend any time on this.

6. Dismissal of ‘one-off’ costs: 

Every cashflow report has the same diversionary paragraphs about various one-off costs. Here’s the thing - there’s always another ‘one-off’ around the corner. It’s pointless to pretend similar items won’t recur.
We need to generate sufficient revenue to weather these costs consistently.

7. Claims that the company has ‘no real competitors’:
This one really irks me. It’s a huge own-goal to expound on how superior your product is without demonstrating either rapid sales growth or clear pricing power. If the technology is so good, then something else is going very wrong.


I truly hope that in 24 hours this post will seem irrelevant and its fears unfounded. GLTAH