Hi RDawg,To me there is a continuation/consistency of message,...

Hi RDawg,

To me there is a continuation/consistency of message, but no real change as such, so while I'm happy the SP has increased, I have not been chasing more. They have changed some framework aspects (accounting treatment of revenue recognition, and debt levels), which have assisted the narrative in terms of the timing of the effects and resilience. I think there is still plenty of risk, but the base contracts imply there is plenty of time for that to play out. Personally, some thoughts:

- I don't like the performance bonus program - trigger criteria and breadth, but don't see it changing

- Mark influence a big positive, but looking at his resume, how long might he stay

- Board renewal was signalled at last year AGM, so announcements re directors this year consistent with that, but I don't have a feeling associated costs are capped, so is there an element of comfortable gravy train

- A bit of a shock for QHL to get so far without qualifying the liquid cure tech for aerospace - and even then that requiring a technology suite to leverage once validated --> seems to me that point of differentiation is not likely to be accessed any time soon, yet is the key to being more than a race to the bottom participant. Discussion of likely timelines at last years AGM - long. Certainly is no way existing production will shift to it for a number of reasons.

- Australian manufacturing location fully certified a positive

- What is happening is consistent with stated goals re institutional investors - demonstrate a track record of achieving stated goals, get to threshold cap at which II's are able/interested to buy in --> get to what's felt to be a correct SP. That's all well and good, but in my opinion only addresses perceived SP undervaluation, rather than fundamental business value, for which they need new contracts.

Will be interested to hear thoughts from when you catch up with them