NET (ASX) Ann: EGM Management Presentation

Originally posted by Petey: ↑

There is no such thing as 'the best product(s)' - people have to understand that the technology involved in moving data around is pretty well 'old tech now'. What IS important is technology has to be able to 'fit in' with whatever clients have and what clients would like to be able to do and what the requirements of external service providers ( like Cloud providers ) need. Then you get into more complex useage cases like IOT and general useage cases for example connecting many many edge-based sensors ( as in utilities like water/ wind/ field technology services etc etc ) that basically measure things and then have to send back data so things can be monitored etc etc etc

This means that the ability to understand industry usage cases is far more important than who has the prettiest coloured boxes for sale or who spends the most on marketing...or whose GUI looks the best on pamphlets - in fact the whole 'Gartner quadrant' stuff that some quote on here is totally irrelevant in real-world ability to win and maintain clients- these third party 'testers' are just part of the marketing regime - who are paid by large companies to 'test' their products and make recommendations and pretty charts about product capabilities - it is all BS as far as real-world engineered implementation goes.

4G/5G allows for much greater amounts of data collection transfer and analysis and action capability. This means that enterprises of all sorts will want to increase their ability to measure and monitor things for all sorts of reasons...

So a good operator needs the engineering talent as well as the customer servicing capability and support capability in place to work with clients and industries to design and implement the required infrastructure. Good technology also needs to be able to 'fit in' with client existing tools - like specialised security systems for example - a lot of companies make a big deal about having so-called 'one shop solutions' - the reality is that this is NOT a value driver for large enterprise clients - flexibility, relative ease of implementation, total cost of life of the contact, support and maintenance capability and ability to work with what is there are far more important considerations to businesses.

As far as NET is concerned its current range of routers and software-based platform is good to go and is already being used in large scale in China. The major needs of large clients are able to be satisfied across a range of attributes.

So the company will grow in line with its ability to service X number of clients. We are down to simple formula now.

How much does NET spend to make how much revenue - and how much it spends is all about how much it can afford to spend based on how much working capital it has access to. Growth is not constrained by COMPETITION or alternative so called 'better products' - it is constrained by having the money to grow into a high demand environment(s)

The only problem NET has is its ability to raise capital in order to grow. The company has been forced to use very expensive capital in the past and I have read on here criticisms about this forced decision - as if management actually choose to use expensive capital.

As revenue grows the ability for the company to raise cheaper capital via debt OR equity will increase and as this happens the cost of doing business will decrease and the ability to grow ts business will also increase.

There are very few Australian tech companies in this position.

Expand

Hi Petey, so I've kept researching following our productive dialogue. And I came across some interesting articles, promoted by our netlinkz itself, which contradicts two key points that you made.

ARTICLE 1 (JUNE 2019)
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/netlinkz-ltd-asx-net-announces-successful-lab-testing-of-cyber-security-sdwan-vin-software-with-us-federal-government-it-solutions-provider-blue-tech-300874110.html

ARTICLE 2 (JUNE 2020)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/**promotion blocked**/tech/how-netlinkz-built-the-virtual-invisible-network-for-the-global-data-economy/%3famp

Article 1 refers to VIN as being our go to technology and reaching a sales agreement with major US distributor Blue Tech as part of our strategy to expand in the US by selling VIN tech to US government customers.

Article 2, which was just this june gone by (2020), again talks about it's key technology, the VIN. And in this article, it refers to a strategy of targeting the counter-movement to centralised data, by marketing VIN to businesses looking to expand IOT application uses within a more decentralised "edge" cloud network paradigm.

So, I don't mean to cobtradict you, but I thought you said that we had left VIN behind and on to a more scalable solution. As of June, VIN appears clearly to still be front-and-center our key tech.

Also, you mentioned that China and Asia Pacific was our go to strategy, but article 1 clearly leaves the impresdion that we are targeting the very profitable US market, by using a successful US government IT contractor to resell our VIN technology, using the Fed Govt as an entry point in the US it seems.

And for your reference, there is yet another 2020 * article where we state a growth strategy by targeting VIN tech to the expanding mobile phone market in Asia, by providing safe secure, and flexible mobile phone enabled networking solution.

Our company is so hard to understand, when I read all of these different objectives and compare them and then compare them to what you have written. And I mean, I know you told me to stop obsessing about the tech side of things, that it wasn't about the "shiny tech" so much as capital and being able to offer flexible, adaptive and cost-efficient solutions to big clients. But, again and again, our company kee ps going on about our tech. And VIN continues to be spruiked. So, what is going on? Is it all about our (VIN), our Invisible tech or not? And is our strategy big enterprise in China, or the US Fed govt agencies, or mobile phones in Asia?

I hope you can make sense of all that? Cheers.