to answer your first question in a round about way, my...

First 31 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
cactusjack17

819 Posts.

208

29/01/24

18:19

Post #: 72117676
Share

Originally posted by prhb: ↑

The Quarterly shows revenue, but the direct costs (without corporate and staff costs) are equal to the revenue.
Can someone please help me understand this?
Is one of the problems that the production process is not commercially cheaper than the Kroll process?
If so, then for ASM to succeed, it is waiting on the US Government to enact further legislation to support non Chinese produced material.

From page 11 of report, under Market Outlook
"In addition, the Biden administration proposed a tightening of Inflation Reduction Act
rules so that from 2024, EV tax credit eligibility will only be available for those vehicle models using battery
components manufactured or assembled outside a foreign entity of concern (FEOC). This will then be
extended to the extraction, processing or recycling of all critical materials in a vehicle (including rare earths
for the motor) by 2025."

Also from page 11, under the sub heading NdFeB
"With NdFeB alloys a key component in the motors of most electric vehicles and with the changes to the IRA
outlined above, it is reasonable to expect the emergence of a bifurcation in pricing for alloys processed
without links to FEOCs."

Thoughts?

Expand

to answer your first question in a round about way, my understanding is that the "innovative" process is currently only being used for CuTi trial products, and the rest of the products being offered for sale are being produced by the traditional process.
I stand corrected if I'm wrong, but that's the way i read it, R.

ASM Price at posting: $1.00 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply