WFL (ASX) So where do we go from here

Originally posted by underdone ↑

OBJ has now hit 2.1 cents per share and the steady decline is neither surprising nor has it finished yet.

Let’s look at the facts by looking back on a company Report issued in May last year, only 12 months ago, and using it as a reference to see what progress has been made over the past year. The Report was dated May 2017 and was called

“Providing Innovative Solutions to the Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic and Consumer Products Industries”

View attachment 1121783
Back then we were given a presentation which include a statement which explained where we were at, it outlined a strategy for where we should go and an idea of how we might get there.

It listed our markets – their range and size.
View attachment 1121787
and summarised the position

View attachment 1121799

Note that the skincare markets are said to be worth “at least $12 billion annually” and that all other markets, including Bodyguard, are also worth several billion dollars. Yet right at the moment there seems little likelihood that OBJ will capture much, if any, of that.

The following image gives a list of our various technologies, which companies were interested in then and the current position concerning them.

View attachment 1121801

So from this list we were told that we had 5 active technologies; Magnetic Micro-array, DCE Emulsion Technology, Bodyguard, Surface & Skin Hygiene and Advanced Packaging.

In respect of these we had, as a “Partner”, P&G, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Mentholatum, Johnson and Johnson, an unnamed Japanese company and Unilever.

Well one year later, apart from P&G, not one of these Partners has, so far as shareholders know, advanced their interest any further, with the exception of the unnamed company which supported the Bodycare clinical trial conducted by Curtin University.

OBJ does have a “Revenue Strategy” (see below) which was adopted several years ago and I have no problem with its suggested course of action. In essence it wants to use the income from P&G to launch its own products and to extend the licensing of its technology to third parties. That's what Steve Schapera talked about. It is logical but it wasn't new. What may be new is the comapny's ability to successfully implement this strategy..

View attachment 1121805
View attachment 1121807

What it all boils down to is this, OBJ does need to do something about launching its own products otherwise it will never break free of being dependent on major companies, which cmk recently pointed out are just as likely as not to drop their OBJ connection and move on to something else.

Shareholders are not in a position to know which of the OBJ technologies can best be developed in house, but if one was to make an educated guess then the most likely candidate is Bodyguard. It has a defined product, the manufacturing has been completed and there are clinical trials to support its marketing.

There has been some talk of using Accelerators to turbocharge this process (see below)
View attachment 1121817
But I can’t find any hint on the internet of any progress down this track and I’m not sure it is a brilliant way to go anyway.

Inherent in the process of using Accelerators or Venture Capitalists is the proposition that they will raise the funds to promote the technology, but the flip side of that coin is that they will also take majority ownership and control of the spin off.

In fact, if Bodyguard was to be sold off via an Accelerator it may not be a good thing for the company. To my way of thinking Bodyguard is the one technology which is reasonably advanced and which could be developed in house for sale online by OBJ itself. The product is mature enough that an internet marketing campaign using a skilled marketer may be the way to go..

The benefit would be that OBJ would get a much larger share of the sales dollar and would retain more control over its destiny.

The downside is that OBJ could not, at this stage, fund such a project. But, on the other hand, if it does not take the plunge, the opportunity may be lost. After all, there is a time limit on patents and other companies are bound to be working towards similar technology of their own.

Now that we have Steve Schapera and the BECCA team on board it is possible that we might have the know how to do this ourselves, but it will involve a Capital Raising simply because we are not receiving enough from P&G and we do not have enough left in the kitty from the last Capital Raising.

Personally I would support a Capital raising for this purpose and if it to be done at all it should be done sooner than later, so as to retain Bodyguard's first mover status and while the shares still have some value.

Expand

Appreciate your effort, quite insightful.

Do the company make the ‘hard call’ and have a CR at current prices or rely on those two accelerators for a lesser ‘piece’ of the action.

I would be interested if you have any thoughts on how quickly significant revenue could be generated by either scenario.

Would you have any expection of significant upfront funds if via the accelerators?

Thanks in advance.