Ann: Quarterly Activities and Cashflow Report, page-30

Hi craigvn

Thanks for insight.

Yes, you're right that line was made prior to the last CR but I think we were just not at a stage where we had other alternatives. I mean, we're still progressing through the operational evaluation, i wouldn't expect telcos to give us money prior to their successful completion.

Yeah, I've seen that interview, I know the one. ( )
Whilst Meir discusses a few successful CR's that he incorrectly refers to as IPO's, he doesn't necessarily outline that it will be the source of funding for the pearls. Sure, it could be construed that way but then again it might not. He could solely be referring to the comparison between using VC, angel investors etc vs the ASX for their initial funding to get the proverbial ball rolling...

In one of the interviews (I'm sorry i don't recall which one) he mentioned that the idea behind the 3d's was proof of concept. Maximum proof of concept for minimal capex. Sounds like a good idea to me, derisk the project for minimal $ input. So even if they did intend to dilute our holdings to the nth degree, it just seems entirely unnecessary to me now. I mean, they have a proof of concept, operational evaluation agreements underway and big telco's that NEED SAS to be able to monopolise that area. Without SAS, they can't provide the service. That's a pretty strong hand to have. I don't see why a Telco with deep pockets and basic foresight won't want to throw cash at SAS, it seems a little remiss from them not to do so but that's just speculation...like a lot of what we do here. It doesn't have to be a partnership, it can be a collab by where the african mob say, 'we will give you 15m up front if we are the sole blah blah etc etc'.

On top of all that, they're saying we will have 'material' revenue by H2 2019. According to our program we should have launched two sets of sats by then. 40-50 sats. How much funding will that require? How much of that do we already have? Worst case scenario how many more CR's does that mean then? 1? 2?
If we're making 'material revenue' by H2 2019, then the revenue will make us self sufficient. Each lot of sats after H2 2019 will be funded by our own bank account.

All in all, I agree with you that it's a point worth considering. I just don't believe it needs to be anymore than a fleeting thought amongst a sea of other unknowns. I'd be more concerned with their algorithms working cohesively when we have the full constellation up but I guess it's just best to tick off unknowns chronologically. Things change and sometimes worrying about hurdles too far in advance become obsolete when we get there, business plans need to be dynamic.

I understand that you cannot and will not take their announcement words as gospel but then again who's are we to take? I mean you're speculating that what he said in that interview implies we will have CR after CR. Is that not just doing the same thing that I have done from their announcements? Except I have tried not to see the words in isolation but in unison with all the other current state of affairs of the company.

Let me know what you think of all of the above. Enjoying this constructive convo, there reallyy should be more of it on here.

Lets just hope we get these binding agreements coming along sooner rather than later, that will make our speculating much more enjoyable.

Al