The point about whether anything has changed is maybe not something (that as a relative newbie) I can speak to authoritatively about, but I do have some thoughts alonsie others.
I do think a number of things have changed that are worth taking into account, when pondering whether this is the same old, same old.
A successful company needs some particular ingredients that we all know about - ie: good management, strategic focus, a quality product, a market to address and an ability to execute into that market.
If that all happens, you aim for the margin of money you make to be enough to cover costs, then make more money, then rinse and repeat.
So, we have had a good product for a while. Management has changed, and along with it I would argue ADO's strategic focus. I think in two main ways - a move from a research / science company to a market driven company and from dealing with customers / collaborators in the science to partners / companies within the market.
But often one of the most important ingredients when it comes to the market is 'timing'. If you go too early and the market doesn't arrive, you fail. If you go too late and your adressable market / product has been gazumped by others, or passed you by - then you fail.
If you look at many companies involved in the battery value chain over the past 10years or so, wether that be miners (eg: PLS), cathode / anode makers (eg: NVX); EV makers (eg: TSLA) one thing they all have in common with us is stagnation in SP & MC for a decade or so. This was not because they didn't have a strategic focus, or good management, or promise of a market, but in large part it was about timing.
All of these companies, and many others who did not survive, were impacted by timing and/or a false dawn in the mid 2010's, where a new EV / battery market was indicated, but never emerged.
If you look at the share price and market cap of these companies they roughly all follow a similar trajectory to ADO, and they all begin to re-emerge in early / mid 2020.
ADO had a dual strategic focus on PoC and battery's at that time. Unfortunately, it could be argued we executed with a focus on PoC and both foci poorly, hence our SP looks like it does. We could argue that since 2020 it was execution (the responsibility of management) that let us down. Although not always managements fault, so whether it was bad management or poor timing or both, the reality is the buck stops somewhere.
Our new board and management, for reasons of strategic 'timing', have recalibrated our strategic focus on the 'battery value chain'. We have limited resources and we are now focussing there. We have not abandoned PoC, but for reasons of timing and limited resources, we have pivoted a bit more to batteries, but still happy to partner with anyone interested in doing the heavy lifting to executing the process of going to market with the PoC.
It seems to me the new CEO (after 16 weeks) is well aware that we are now late to this 'battery party', that commenced for other party goers in early 2020. Hence, he knows we need a specific focus on batteries, we need speed, the door may be closing and if we are to get into the party we need some partners who are already there, otherwise this opportunity will pass us by.
It's this new agility and awareness to adapt to the 'timing' that causes me to now relegate the past to history, and not see it as a good predictor of the future.
I think for the reasons above the future looks so different and I just don't think the past is that relevant anymore.
Good luck all - I have a feeling this is going to be an interesting March 2023!
EB
Expand
(20min delay)