Attacking? Since my first post here "downramper" "limited ability", "spurious", "frivolous", "do not know what you are talking about", just a few examples from you. Imo you are incapable of rational debate on the merits of the issue and instead rely on condescension to devalue any opposing view.
You may well accept that the technology is "low cost to manufacture" but that is a baseless claim - if it is without any basis in fact to support it. You talk about "advanced business case questions" - are you suggesting the company didn't perform a business case analysis when it did its acquisition DD? Surely they must have, and that would have included (in addition to market analysis, revenue potential, etc) projections on cost structure, profitability, etc. Surely the company wouldn't have spent over $500K on a technology without any understanding of its potential profitability? As a company investing into a new technology it would want to know that before buying into it (i.e. when weighing up its investment options).
Well we are also investors, and as someone else has said, there are 2000 or so companies listed on the ASX, all promoting themselves to potential investors in an effort to achieve a return to their existing shareholders. So why would potential investors in the market not want to know the profitability when weighing up various investment options.
Not all companies disclose their costs or cost structures, you have to work it out from the annual reports and other data. I get that. However this company repeatedly promotes this technology to the market as "low cost", i.e. they are making a claim, repeatedly, to the market of potential investors. If they make this claim, then it is appropriate to ask the question - "what is the cost". If they don't want to say what the costs are, then they shouldn't promote the "low cost" pitch.
It is not frivolous to question claims made by companies - there are a lot of companies making a lot of claims - unless you think losing money is frivolous because you simply accept companies' claims and the claims turn out at best to be optimistic, or something else at worst.
Cheers, Sharks.
Expand
(20min delay)