This post is a reverse scrutiny of the author of The Australian articles against Magnis and Sukh Energy. I don't have much time as I have work but I just wanted to clear the air again, sorry if there are grammatically bad sentences all over the place.
Before I delve into this, two key comments:
I'm only doing this counter investigation into these articles because Magnis management hasn't fully cleared the air about Sukh Energy themelves. This is something I do agree with Fritzl; that it's management's responsibility to release a clarification statement if enough investors are concerned (FYI I have also reached out to Magnis team and their response was to refer to the September 15 announcement). Even if the reason for not being more transparent is due to commerical-in-confidence or NDA clauses in their agreement, you can at least say that and make the statement that 'sukh has demonstrated the financial capacity to pay for the order'.
My previous post about Sukh Energy is ultimately speculation as I could only find solid information about Omega Seiki Mobility. I know it's easy to lump all downrampers into the same ignore basket but if you want to be a successful long term investor you must accept a valid query from all parties, even those with malicious intent. And more importantly try to find answers yourself.
It is okay to question a company you hold share in even if it's detrimental to its share price in the short term. Better to learn of genuine problems with Magnis early than to be blindsided 6 months down the road with a bankruptcy or some sort of class action filing like what PLL holders are experiencing. The best investors are fiercely rational and pragmatic. They hold no emotional attachments to any company or individuals, but it is important to critically think of every piece of data and opinion you encounter when both valuing and contemplating other investors' and traders' short and long term intentions with a stock.
So who is Kylar Loussikian?
Kylar Loussikian is the author of all 3 articles on The Australian, and so it might be good to look at his track record:
* His LinkedIn account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kylar-loussikian-374895175/?originalSubdomain=auApart from his previous jobs at various Murdoch news outlets, he has no disclosed educational background in Journalism, Finance or STEM. Based on UNSW student letters he had a Bachelor of Art. This is pretty anomalous for a 'chief editor' of a major news outlet to not mention their alma mater, as most journalists are very proud alumni of their university (UNSW is pretty reputable). * His role and contributions in The Australian: I read a few of his articles and he does not have a topic specialty or depth of understanding. He talks about a broad range of topics randomly and mixes commentary with a bit of targeted mentioning of specific parts of announcements or quotes from the company or people he's writing about. Biased and surface journalism at its finest.
its worth noting his last hit pieces targetted Huon salmon farm and he's moved on once their share took a dip.
* His role and contributions in Other News Outlets:
The Age: https://www.theage.com.au/by/kylar-loussikian-h13xbz
You can go read these accusations of Kylar and draw your own conclusion about his character.
By my read is that these reverse investigative pieces conclude that Kylar has been doing sniper jobs on companies and individuals that don't align with News Corporation business or political interests including targeting anything from vaccination experts.
He might be a good writer but his motives are not to shine a light on coruption but rather to influence readers towards a Murdoch-esque perception.
My Conclusion
The Bad I cannot find any data to disprove Kylar's suspicions about Sukh Energy other than my hypothesis that they might be a shell company used by a parent entity to orchestrate a tax reduction exercise for EV battery import to India.
My theory should be treated with the same scrutiny as Kylar's claim.As Fritzl says, it's up to Magnis to clarify this with investors if there's anything untrue about The Australian articles.
The Good No issues were mentioned about Omega Seiki Mobiliy or the other offtake customers. And given that Kylar has now dedicated 3 articles to find anything disparaging he can, that's very promising!
A final note. Even IF we entertain the idea that Sukh is a separate company from Omega and really doesn't have money to pay for the batteries (i.e. the sham hypothesis), then the contract would be void and IM3NY can reallocate their production to another future customer. It would be incredibly dumb to deliver batteries to a customer without receiving a deposit and progress payments, and given the prismatic form factor of IM3's cell, any cancelled orders for produced cell can easily be re-routed to fulfil other paid for orders.
As always, DYOR and always take a grain of salt with anything you read but source matters. But for me, I am 98% assured that with a lot of people having tried to tear Magnis apart, nothing else bad can be said or found of C4V's technology or IM3 leadership/project strategy/execution strength other than that they're still in progress towards a working factory. They only lack exposure and a stronger PR team.
Take care and stay calm! Love with your heart, but use your mind with everything else.
(20min delay)