I disagree. By this logic BHP and Rio Tinto would not furnish the market with quarterly production (and cost) reports and various geological reports.
LIS should provide its investors with appropriate and informative information so as to have a properly functioning market in its shares. It does not do this, it has never done this, and it demonstrates a failure in its understanding of how capital markets work by not doing so. It goes without saying it can do this without disclosing commercially sensitive information or scientific secrets.
Without being exhaustive, regarding its newly commissioned production plant, it should as a matter of course provide the following:
- Formal date of commissioning
- Date of consistent run rate of production
- Yield (production rate versus nameplate capacity)
- Battery yield - number of batteries produced that meet targeted performance metrics versus those which do not meet designated performance metrics, ie.e waste rate, so that the market can monitor the quality of batteries produced.
- LIS stated that the foil plant will provide higher quality inputs into the production of its batteries. It should quantify this in an appropriate way for existing and future potential shareholders by quantifying the quality improvement.
- The number of partners or customers who receive their batteries (without identifying the partners).
- Other relevant metrics.
For the different battery types produced at its new facility, it should take, for example, half a dozen relevant battery metrics and report against them over time, probably on a quarterly basis. It should report cost metrics. BNNT is a critical and unique input into its batteries. It should report quality metrics on the BNNT used in its batteries over time. I suggest this in the expectation that it would be better at producing higher quality BNNT over time, and it has stated that its cost of production of BNNT over time has reduced.
All of this information should be transparent and reported to a level of detail that other Australian companies routinely report at without compromising commercially sensitive information with their potential customers. But also, no customer should have a veto over the disclosure policies of LIS.
As an investor who wishes the best for LIS, and my investment, and for others who are invested in LIS, I am constantly astonished at the abysmal disclosure of LIS. It is, as a statement of fact, not a transparent company. This, in my opinion, is a key reason why the LIS share price has excelled at underperforming. There is a direct correlation between its poor, arguably almost non-existent disclosure, and its dismal share price.
A separate matter is its share register, the most recent which is available in its recently released annual report. There is no evidence at all as far as I am aware - to be absolutely clear - none - that LIS markets itself to potential institutional investors. Its share register is laughable and an embarrassment and indisputable evidence of the failures of LIS management and Board in its most basic responsibilities. So, a company that has seen its share price fall materially below its IPO price of three years ago, and which it contends has made great strides in meeting the objectives outlined in its IPO prospectus, is apparently unable or unwilling to make its case to the investment community that it is an inexpensive investment and a suitable and very attractive investment for them. LIS, which very frequently presents to various conferences in Europe, the US and Australia, is apparently completely unprepared and unwilling to make its investment case to potential new investors.
These are serious and chronic fiduciary failures of management and the Board. LIS management almost seems to take pride in its failures to provide relevant information to the market and to present its investment thesis to institutions and individuals that as a matter of course seek attractive investment opportunities. Most companies in Australia and elsewhere are eager to present their investment proposition to the market and do so routinely. If anything, many companies are too eager. LIS almost seems to take delight in not doing this, and by not doing so, does not meet its fiduciary responsibilities to the people who have invested in it.
Amongst the investment risks outlines in its IPO prospectus, I believe I did not see the investment risks that 1. it would not disclose any relevant information to the financial markets, and 2. that it would not seek to make any serious effort to persuade investors of its investment merits so as to have a fully informed market in its shares.
(20min delay)