I am not unhappy with the LIS quarterly report but also I am not happy.
The narrative of the report reads well, progress is being made in numerous areas, "successful" testing of a drone occurred (although the criteria for judging success are not given), the underlying lithium-sulphur and Li-Nanomesh technologies are being progressed and we are reassured are working, and importantly, the Company has $43.9 million in cash on its books at the end of the quarter. These and the other points listed all suggest the Company is on track.
However, what is again missing, much to my astonishment, is any indication of the comparative merits of its lithium sulphur battery technologies in relation to its competitors and any kind of comment about whether LIS is improving the performance of its underlying technologies over time. It would seem to be very simple to present a number of high-level charts showing the performance of its LIS batteries compared to its best-in-class competitors, and thereby demonstrate the commercial potential of the Company and its technologies.
From what I can ascertain, the only people who this information is withheld from are the existing investors in LIS and future potential investors in LIS. Would this not be amongst the most important pieces of information a potential investor in LIS would want to see before investing? Would not outlining the superior performance of the LIS technologies in the public domain - as a number of its peer companies do - add to the investment merits of LIS (and its main shareholder PPK)? Is there any good reason why LIS does not present this information, when doing so clearly has the potential to assist in its share price performance?
It is hard to see how, in the absence of this information, new investors will be motivated to buy LIS stock on market. It is up to the Company to "sell its story" and not for potential investors to do its job for it.
I am sure LIS has this information readily at hand. It would presumably present this to the companies and organisations it meets at events such as the International Meeting on Lithium Batteries in Sydney and the Battery Show Europe in Stuttgart. It should further utilise this information - in summary form - by presenting it to its investors and the capital markets more broadly. It can and should of course do this without compromising its intellectual property, but if it followed the examples of how other battery companies present the technological and commercial potential of their battery technologies, then this concern would not arise.
So, in summary, not a bad report and indeed it contains much positive news about the progress it is making. But, on the other hand, the most important information to shareholders and potential shareholders has again been omitted. It is a great shame this opportunity continues to be passed up by LIS and PPK management. The question arises: why does LIS not disclose this information? And why does it not do so on a regular (quarterly) and consistent basis?
(20min delay)