World Graphite (Natural, Synthetic & Carbon Fiber) Market, page-20

they won it because of their contract model - graphite has a lot less to do with why they secured this contract and the flexibility of pricing is far more responsible for their success. If these guys produce 94% or greater, their stuff gets bought for an 'agreed' price.

if it's ashbury - do you guys honestly think that ashbury would be buying for $1K when it costs Manoli $500bucks (for example) to get it to ashbury or its customers on a 'brokered' basis? Seriously - we've all read what his thoughts are on the matter. Nah - Manoli got his contact because he has a predetermined and fixed margin he wants to make on his sales of graphite - and ashbury is happy to give him the margin because it's acceptable to Mr Riddle. So what do we reckon - 20% margin, or is it lower like 8% margin. This is the greatest flaw of the boutique model - low margin means higher turnover necessary to survive - unless your boutique niche. At least that's what I was sure of - but a lot of niche boutiques out there struggling currently. Jaded's pretty morgue girl doing ok and bucking the trend - might even get back to its highs.

But if boutiques struggle and then ashbury can't strong arm little suppliers to sell graphite to him 'cheaper' than the current 'established' operations? Can't remember his words exactly - but he effectively stated any newbie operation has to sell it to him cheaper than he can currently buy it for him to get interested. This is why he wants boutiques to survive - why he wants investors to go into boutiques maybe. Interesting that he comments that some operations are 'overvalued' but doesn't go so far to say that the boutiques are 'undervalued' - he just says boutiques 'need more investors'. Make of that what you will.

So Manoli cheaper - provided he makes 94%. Manoli has production facilities - hence why many think he won the contract. Maybe - but if Manoli with his established production facilities can't get it to 94%, then he can't sell.

Explain to me why this situation is less risky than the MOU route. Don't see it personally. I see comparably similar levels of risk between an MOU and a contract - especially if structured this way. And the contracts must be structured this way - otherwise no contract - no commitment. Contracts don't mean anything if either party to it can't comply with the conditions. 94% is the condition. So there is a contract, and there isn't a contract - at the same time - y'see?

anyway - anyone watching SER LML out of interest?