@Memsl
dont care about Telstra one way or the other except on the readthrough to CEO reliability & trustworthiness.
in all probability Tesltra simply didnt want to commit to sales minimums - its a giant incumbent - it wants to set terms not accept them.
There's an arrogance in such places thats part of why my Telstra shares have been falling in implied EPS since the T2 float in early 2000s - if Govt hadnt bailed Tesltra out by giving it a free ~$14billion windfall for copper wire usage for NBN - Telstra would have been a sub $1 stock 3-4 years ago.
All its doing now is resuming that downtrend that was in place because of that institutionalised lack of business competence. It was saved by mobile's emergence in the late 90s and then by NBN 'dole payment' in ~2011 - its never otherwise been able to generate any significant new business other than the copper wire it inherited
Australia is a sceptical and hard nosed business market - we have US focus on short term dollars only but without their uber bullishness we can sell what we buy for higher price - in place we have English pessimism/risk averse decision making.
Thats why you get so many stories like AussieBum - cossies in the aussie fashion that had to be sold overseas before we;d buy them here
fortescue had to og o/s to get debt funded - none of our banks would touch it. we as a business culture - for the most part -lack vision. and people in big grey cardigan institutions like Telstra and CBA are the worst places of this
There are many many examples of Aussie companies like AussieBum - having to go OS to get takeup of something before it gets adopted here.
Thats why I've been focused on Ohm's global opportunity.
Culturally to me Northern Europe + UK is the most likely place for Ohm to succeed in the 1st world in the short term - culturally they are focused on sustainability not minimising every dollar spent. Probably something to do with their tribal history of nature gods - the gods man imagines reflect his societal beliefs - not to wax too philiosophical. Definitely reflects the fact they are older cultures ith hundreds to thousands of years of proof of civilisation all around them - they think in decades if not centuries not days and years of younger societies as a result
You can see that behaviour reflected in the way the EU is regulating facebook vs the US. Its a completely different cultural more thats frankly of a much higher echelon - much more focused on social net good vs individuals winning vs other individuals.
economically - the most obvious places where Ohm addresses a need not a want are the 2nd/3rd world - places like South Africa, the Carribean etc - where national infrastructure isnt dependable, low cost and universally accessible and so utility costs are higher for less dependable service
those are the broad strokes - but within every culture there's a mix - so there; always some market share to be won if the service is valuable - and i;ve no doubt it is.
The key issue is the old story of bleeding edge vs leading edge vs needing edge technology that we used to talk about with McKinsey and Bain & Co -
Bleeding edge means you;re too far ahead to get wide enough adoption and so shareholders suffer repeat dilution funding development while waiting for the market demand to mature. Thats BUD in 2014-16
Leading edge is when the market is first capable of offering acceptable economic returns and the successful first movers create what goes on to later be seen as decades long superior competitive position - thats where BUD and others are now
Needing edge is when economic or other demand is so strong that demand j curves - which Id say is 5-10 years away in Australia - though initiatives like the BUD gold standard carbon credit auto matching capability greatly speed up
where you are on that curve differs place to place. exceptional business people recognise that and target business effort accordingly
DM must pull his head in on talking about deals before they are done - and by done I mean sales dollars are walking in the door.
Announce distribution deals when they are signed - not before. No hoopla - no promises of what they mean. Just facts.
It takes me back to what I said 2 years ago - the lack of senior investor relations experience is still the conspicuous fault in his armoury. the fact they have a marketer as the ir contact speaks to that -because they almost completely opposite skillsets.
recognising when you have to shift from behaviour of a company on the make to a more mature and understated approach is part of that skillset
But no CEO is universally competent. And no small company of 20-30 people has the skillsets of companies that can afford dozens of specialists
So you have to take a lot of what is very good about the CEO and the company - with a dose of bad.
the ticks in the 'good' box'still outweigh the 'bad'. But they need to make sure of no missteps from here or that wont be the case.
bear this in mind - this is precisely why Sergei brin and Larry Page were forced to appoint a CEO & chairman to oversee them as 'the adult in the room', why Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple the first time, why Sheryl Sandberg was foisted onto Mark Zuckerberg - because technologists focus on the thing and the vision of the thing and at some point or other fall out of step with the market that - at some point - has a more phlegmatic view and wants cash now not future promises
and yet who was right?
In every case I can think of barring Yahoo - the technologists were right - not the market.
the lesson for those smart enough to draw wisdom from world experience is not to make the mistake of expecting everything to go according to plan - and not demonise visionaries when expectations dont always pan out
thats different to timing your purchase of stock. allowing for those missteps + overall market mechanics that have nothing to do with the company but directly affect its share price - needs to be factored into when you buy and if you sell and whether you hold
you have to make your own determination on whether Ohm 9or any emergent company) is bleeding, leading or needing edge - and if management is going to overcome the barriers to success within your personal risk/time tolerance
