My apologies for not clarifying, I'm still positive about QHL (though I have now reached my confortable holding amount) and although both QHL and Terma make fuselage and door composite parts, we dont know if they are the same parts. Otherwise, Terma do horizontal tail leading edge and some other wing components. Both use autoclave production for the F-35 though Terma appears to be a larger-scale producer than QHL (i.e. likely better margins) with existing contracts with aerospace players such as Boeing (see what I'm getting at?).
QHL on the other hand do vertical tails, doors, skins etc. I suspect there is some overlap but both probably have some areas or parts they produce exclusively. Comes with the political games about keeping partner countries committed. Also means a lot of it is bluster and job creation hubris rather than making profitable listed enterprises.
The point I was trying to make is as takealoadoff mentioned, an advantage in a fast moving sector can be lost quickly. Certainly in the F-35 space, we're not doing anything unique compared to other composite supplies. Just each supplier has a somewhat assured piece of the pie due to politics, but there are work aspects which they could concievably compete on.
The undercurrents also suggest to me that although I dont expect huge changes, I expect some in the near future. I think there will likely be some 'encouragement' to further cut costs, with the incentive dangled that the lower cost gets the deal. This is a risk for QHL as I don't believe our F-35 production is particularly profitable to begin with, margin wise. Someone will put me right but I think the figures were in the 10-20% range gross.
The other point I was trying to make is the market is dynamic. Terma is expanding rapidly, new autoclaves, new production techniques. Who is to say they or someone else similarly motivated does not come out with a better autoclave/non autoclave based/different composite structure/material-based solution that leaves QHL dead in the water.
The problem with emerging technologies is that they are emerging. Companies need to move fast, prove technology, lock in contracts, get into business, innovate on ways to make money from it. Passive sitting on hands for a contract or customer to come through doesn't cut it. Yes, things are happening with QHL but outside of politically motivated aerospace or military contracts, really, not much yet if we look at the cold hard results achieved. Lots of if's and but's. My concern is, we're paying big sums to a big management team, at some point, shareholders need to demonstrate results in terms of bottom line $$$. If not, we need to bring the people with the vision and execution to make it happen. I'll also whinge again about the lack of shareholding of our directors.
Taking a leaf out of a different book, maybe we need a newsletter to know things are happening?
I can see the catalysts that will spike this share to a multibagger. I still think QHL is worth more than the piddly share price suggests. But I also sympathise with why people are not willing to invest when nothing appears to be happening. Better to wait for something to actually come to fruition and take a hit to what you could've made, rather than be locked in for year after year of the sound of crickets.
I'm one to be willing to point out the risks when a rosy future is protrayed, and one to point out the positives when everything feels fine and dandy.
We're sitting on a huge wave and its going to dunk us under unless we clamber on, push forward and take it for a heckuva ride.
As with all things of course, no guarantees. Just my $0.02
(20min delay)