I don't think becoming CF+ is going to have huge effect on share price or the business - maybe a few cents and that's about it. Unless they secure significant contracts with solid revenue it will continue to hover around the 10-15c mark.I've spoken with some microcap funds regarding their interest in archTIS. Different companies have different views, but a common thread has generally been waiting until CF+. Should institutional money start making its way into the business, given how tightly the shares are held, I think it's reasonable to expect a movement in the share price, keeping in mind a circa $87,000 purchase of available stocks will move the price to 15c from here at the time of my writing this.
Also, to re-frame what you've said, you effectively believe there may be up to 50% upside - with virtually no downside - on the current price, in the absence of any significant contracts with solid revenue being announced.
We had the capital raise $3.5M Strategic Financial Package for Kojensi US Expansion announced 2nd Dec and I certainly hope it is actually used for that purpose unlike the previous capital raise.
Agree.
That's it for the past 2 years for any major(?) contracts. Not sue if we label anything under $0.5M as a major contract.
I'm not entirely sure how you've missed the KPMG OneDefence project. Pursuant to the half yearly report, that accounts for $1.4m of contracts in the 120 days preceding the reporting period's end, with that revenue unrecognised as at the half yearly. The report itself notes this "will provide additional opportunities for further services and licensing revenue", which is consistent with the trend of providing services and then licenses.
We need to see contracts in the $M's and also the tens of $M's. There's only been one in the last 2 years. There is something seriously problematic with their marketing and Sales. If we assume that the raised $3.5M will be handled by Kurt in the US to expand Kojensi then we have some hope. However I then question what sales and marketing effort is being expended elsewhere to diversify and sectorial and geographically? If I hear again that it takes time to have marketing effort to mature into material contracts , I think I will vomit.
Vomit if you must, but as I've noted before, I'm of the belief the best sales and marketing will be the successful completion of the Australian Department of Defence project and KPMG's One Defence. I do agree though that I'd like to see a material re-balancing of the revenue on a geographic basis. The half yearly report hints at this, but it would be good to see this translate into numbers in a meaningful manner.
Interesting to find this excerpt of the Australia Pavilion Capability Catalogue DSEI Japan 2023 available online. Interesting references here to Five Eyes, NATO, QUAD, AUKUS, and the Australia-Japan Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation. Looks pretty clear to me this rebalance of geographic source of revenue is underway.
