Good to hear robust discussion with the Chair. To give this promising technology a go, the change will have to be within, as few private or institutional investors will have a compelling case to take a seat at the board and drive restructuring.
One would hope the Board is spending time on a turnaround intervention vs closure and returning capital to shareholders. This is what Boards do.
(having watched the implosion of Opthea (ASX:OPT), by comparison, ADO's Board still have time to act)
- Some additional concerns are that it appears that none of the Board are based in the company's location, Brisbane? But shockingly the CEO may also actually live in Sydney? If this is the case, then hands-off FIFO is expensive, shows questionable selection by the Board and not a very engaging operating model.
- More concerning, in recent it's understood (2nd hand) that the CTO has had his entire Technology team redeployed to a COO who has no Technical or Battery Experience?
There are 700 new entities that have issued Si Anode Technical Patents in the past 2 years alone, not counting the 100's prior and ADO is doing everything possible to remain uninvestible and put roadblocks on this innovative tech getting into full cell service.
(20min delay)