Well a sobering assessment! I have humbly contributed to this...

Well a sobering assessment! I have humbly contributed to this forum a few posts over time that have gradually become a little less enthusiastic with each year. Most here will not even remember me- that’s ok- this is just a bit of naval gazing….

Two years ago my message was “you either believe the directors or not- there may be production issues but I’m on board on the basis that the Board wouldn’t be outright liars”. Production of 1200 tonnes a month was due ….. next …… month…. Closed loop would be achieved……. next ……. month……. $8 million profitability would be achieved ……. next……. month……

More recently I related this enterprise to Papyrus Technology (PPY) (paper made form banana trunks with zero waste which will revolutionise the industry) where a strong “inventor” railroaded the directors, with enthusiasm, that the technology will save the world, if, if, if things happen.

I think two year ago my optimism was wrong and that MHM was much more akin to my PPY experience!! The two examples are somewhat analogous.

The lesson for us all, I think, is that inventor/enthusiasts can not be trusted to be objective about the hurdles to commercialisation; that directors can be persuaded to go along with rosy assessments of the potential of the technology. That the line that we are NEARLY there, and next month we will have cracked the problems cannot be trusted because the strong inventor enthusiast rules the communications.

In essence the company becomes in thrall of the technology innovator and BUYS the upside and the sales spin, and sells US that upside, and at the same time minimises the downside.

Apart for PPY there are many similar examples-

think Sarich Orbital engines

think geothermal hot rocks – GDY and all the rest

think acquaculture to save the world CAQ

think airboss puncture proof tyres – now SPH – a loooong story don’t ask

We all WANT to believe the great life changing ideas, we all WANT to believe we will make our fortune on the coat-tails of the innovators. In the end it is all about RISK only a few (5%????) of the innovations really work.

The ultimate lesson is that we cannot rely on the inventor to give us a realistic view of the prospective success. The inventor is committed and will boost to the end! We need to recognise that the likelihood of success is much lower than the boost would portray.

Here endeth the introspective pontification!!