Originally posted by jsbuser
Backlisting into the ASX via a shell miner was a whole heap easier than the USA, which is expensive and has numerous requirements to get on the boards. I think it was explained that the alternative source of funds was via USA venture capitalists and they rob you blind via dilution. I am not convinced yet that RWL is any better though so far. For EMC it made sense, they were small and needed the cash to fund, and a lot of Israeli companies were going this route possibly due to outreach from company brokers in Israel.
Now, RWL then bought in for MABR. Its important to their overall product mix, they need purification in the portfolio, but it isnt the company, its another product line in a company that has several (desal, animal waste, large plants...).
They really didnt have a choice in buying EMC, it was listed on the ASX. They had to "merge" since this was the cheapest way to buy in at the time. A takeover would have been harder. They have now driven retail holders old as they accumulate to get the ownership back over time.
But RWL doesnt want to be on the ASX, never has. It was a necessary evil to get MABR. I believe the process to date is being run exactly to their plan. The push down whilst systematic accumulation from Ron and co. The current cap raising is again USA centric, the SPP will be scaled back, hoovering up yet more straggling retail shares. Every trick in the book is being played to capture the company back.
Begs the question, will they take it to the USA boards, or say they will and then instead just take it back private, becoming Fluence in name but in the same structure as RWL was previously. It would be very easy to force us all to give up all our shares in a shift to the USA boards, declare the temporary delisting, pay us out, paying low dollars in a beaten down price, only for the listing to never materialise over there.
While I largely agree with your first 3 paragraphs, the only issue I have with the conspiracy theories is that management would have purposely had to suppress business opportunities in order for this to be the plan. There have been a number of delays/issues that were outside of management's hands:
1. 12 month delay in Mexican San Quintin contract due to political party challenge on PPP laws. If revenue began in 2017, likely would have reached approx $82 million revenue (of $90m guidance) vs $68m . Would have also added +$20m USD in 2018 revenues. Plus $10m operation & maintenance revenue in 2020. ($105m guidance + $20m).
2. Being lowest/best bidder on SA desalination fast-build contract (whoever can supply 50ML fastest), but SA gov ran out of money and could not award. Management expected to win this one, and we built up stock of Niroboxes in order to fulfill. (+$30m to revenue 2018). Plus after 3 years of drought rain actually did come. If another drought year money would have been found.
3. Delay of export credit financing approval for West African +$100m contract. If won in Q2/Q3 Additional revenue in 2018/19/20.
4. Slower than expected uptake in China of MABR.
#4 was to be expected, the water industry is slow to adopt. #3 was always a bonus and not an expectation.
#2 has had a 2 bad effects, it was taken into account in 2018 forecasts (now missed revenue) and blew up expenses. If we had not built up stock we would have about $12m USD more cash at this stage also.
#1 led to a big miss in 2017 revenue. If Fluence made $82 million in revenue in 2017, plus was guiding $150m for 2018, I do not think the share price could have fallen so low for Australian shareholder sentiment to be so low.
I am not defending management or their future intentions, I am simply stating that if some business opportunities had followed the initial planned timelines (outside of control of management) then it would have had a drastic effect on revenue and current financial position and we would likely be in a difference place SP wise. Seems like a stretch to assume that management have themselves sabotaged these deals in order to get cheaper shares or list in the US more cheaply?
