Hi
@b!ll - It’s frustrating. Not a sell yet though mate. 12 month hold. But agree with your points per my quick thoughts below
- company has zero strategy. No understanding of ASX and the way the low/mid tier funds work. Or shareholder expectations.
- This is not an example of agile execution of a strategy. But reactive. Latter behaviour is typically domain of private, small funded entrepreneurs. Often fail in transition and are weeded out before hitting ASX. Agile execution requires a strategy to begin with which is not obvious at all.
- no consistency in reporting and communication. No transparency. Selective is a red signal
- vapour marketing. Even more this weekend after promising to stop. Cheap approach to driving share price. Never works, well not since 2007.
- My feeling is Gernot is getting sidelined by the chair’s preference for Jamie, based on Jamie and Chair having same utopian & entreprenurial academic philosophy.
- no tenacity or persistency in key SEA zones. Should be hard grafting this region/geography up until SEA games. Systematic, underground movement with ambassadors, free press exposure. Then use the global event (SEA games) to move from underground to national no.1 in specific SEA area.
- this board and management team are rapidly moving into a model that is transactional strategy. As opposed to a roadmap. Model now a combination of trying to land a whale of a partner, with puff around it. And a series of clever technical deployments. Like maybe - bitcoin entry fees, play=mining, co-optive equity arrangements, etc etc. some gambling (which partners will be divided on).
- strategy should have included strong ‘voice of customer’ during development. Not build it and they will come. A series of geographical champion challengers to test scale and activity. With monetisation inelaciticity testing later once behaviour locked. Conversion and cross sell modelling, into active users or revenue service (third party) bundling.
- should have hired strategy and marketing consultants located and living IN actual SEA region. With deep and current SEA expertise. Not Australian. With experience from 20 years ago.
not a sell until we see SEA games through. And what happens with Razer relationship. Relationship is not as safe as people think. There is a corporate reason why companies like Razer set up arms length relationships. It gives small companies chance to grow through independence (stops corporate think) but on the flip side allows the larger company to strategically divorce (no contracts). Tencet will have its own resource and assets.
Maybe the risk with Razer is higher than we think. Hence the knee jerk response to offer razer gear. And the move to Oceana and to secure a ‘type of’ partner platform strategy
I do appreciate people on HC offering their views on strategic direction or value proposition. But remember, we should be hearing this from the company
Bill. this is a very low market cap. Will probably get back to 3cents. It’s worth a 12 month wait. Rising tide of the industry and all that, and a transaction that may have short term appeal. Downside risk is 0.8cents. Upside is 3.5 cents. So worth hanging around for if you can carry the capital.
(20min delay)