Zephyrnet Logo

Tag: $3

Oil Surges Past $100 A Barrel, Prices At The Pump Hit $3.60 A Gallon

Diesel is already over $4.00 per gallon on average in the United States. Will regular gasoline reach that threshold?

American Software Reports Third Quarterof Fiscal Year 2022 Results

Double-Digit Revenue Growth Driven by Continued Strong Growth in Subscription Fees ATLANTA (February 23, 2022) American Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMSWA) today reported preliminary financial results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2022. Key Third Quarter Financial Highlights: Subscription fees were $10.9 million for the quarter ended January 31, 2022, a 45% increase compared to […]

Claim €50 to €100 bonus at Bet365

Bet365 has different offers around the globe, where new players can claim a bonus of up to between €50 to €100 in bet credits! You just have to make a deposit of at least €5 to receive the bet credits, which can be used in Bet365 sportsbook. When making the first deposit, Bet365 matches your […]

The post Claim €50 to €100 bonus at Bet365 appeared first on Esportsbetting.gg.

Faceit and ESL Gaming Sold for $1bn to Savvy Gaming Group

Cologne-based e-sports organizer ESL Gaming Sold. Modern Times Group (MTG) is selling the loss-making division to Saudi Arabia. “Full halls,

WordPress Hosting: All You Need To Know To Find The Best WordPress Hosting

Selecting the finest WordPress hosting for your needs may improve your website performance and profits. In this article, we'll help you pick the best one.

The post WordPress Hosting: All You Need To Know To Find The Best WordPress Hosting first appeared on Ecwid | E-Commerce Shopping Cart.

5 Insurance Chatbot Use Cases Along the Customer Journey

Policyholders are in control. They’re turning to online channels for self-service insurance information and support — instantly, seamlessly, and at any time.

The post 5 Insurance Chatbot Use Cases Along the Customer Journey appeared first on Inbenta.

National Private Truck Council (NPTC) Survey Highlights Value, Performance of Private Fleets



The National Private Truck Council 2021 Benchmarking Survey Report provides fleets with new industry standards to evaluate performance and identify opportunities for improvement.


"Information is power," explained Jim Lager, senior vice president for Penske Truck Leasing. "Fleet operators need real-time data to make informed decisions about their business. They want to know if what they are doing is best-in-class or underperforming, and how they can improve. Being able to see that information helps them identify areas of opportunity within their operations."

Lager added that every aspect of the supply chain is stressed right now. "I think it is even more critical to have good information and good partners to talk to about it," he said.

The 2021 NPTC Benchmarking Survey Report, which is sponsored by Penske, captures critical metrics from the 2020 calendar year, which was a time like no other.

"The purpose of this report is not to critique any fleet's performance, but rather to give them the tools so when they need the answers and the metrics in their continuous improvement efforts that they can grab onto those metrics in the report and move on," said Tom Moore, executive vice president of NPTC.

Even with the challenges, private fleets performed well and used their advantages to navigate supply chain challenges, hauling more shipments and volume than they did in the previous year.

Moore continued: "The thing that really impresses me, despite everything that is going on in the pandemic, is the stability that occurred in our private fleet management. We didn't see extreme swings in terms of equipment buying or a lot of change in the driver hours, even though the DOT extended those hours. Those folks stuck right in that core business. I thought that was a telling statement for how private fleets position themselves for success."

Supply chain challenges have helped private fleets raise the awareness and importance of transportation generally within their companies.

"In the last three to four years, companies have decided to start their own private fleet from scratch because of the vulnerability in finding transportation," said Gary Petty, CEO of NPTC. "I think a lot of companies are saying, 'We can manufacture the greatest product around, but if we can't get it in a way that has no damage and no loss that is timely, it doesn't matter.'"

Many private fleets shined during COVID disruptions and were able to navigate capacity constraints and surging costs others faced within the transportation market, strengthening the case for having a private fleet.

Penske Truck Leasing is a leading North American transportation services provider.

"Private fleets are resilient and flexible," Lager said, adding that more and more companies are considering and transitioning to private fleets. "That is a result of the spot market and the carrier situation driving them toward that so they could control their destiny. They don't want to trust that to a carrier. They want to do it with a partner like Penske."

Petty stated 75% of the private fleets in the study are operating as cost centers or, as he calls them, contribution centers. "They're in it to provide outstanding customer cost in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Whatever financial model, the goal is to deliver exceptional levels of customer service in the most efficient manner possible," he said.

As in years past, the primary reason companies report operating a private fleet is to provide exceptional levels of customer service that are unavailable on the open market, especially at a time when transportation and logistics capacity has been relatively constrained.

In the latest study, more than 92% of the respondents, in response to the open-ended question, 'What is the primary reason your company operates a private fleet?,' answered customer service.

Measuring on-time performance remains the primary means of tracking customer service, although other metrics are growing in acceptance.

This year 68% of the fleets report measuring on-time performance as opposed to 82% last year.

This erosion in on-time deliveries makes room for a bevy of other metrics, according to the NPTC report, most notably safety scores, tracked by 56% of respondents (53% last year); cost-per-mile, tracked by 55% of the respondents (35% last year); and customer comment, tracked by 32% of the population.

Shipments for private fleets were up from last year by 9.7%, and volume was up by 5.6%. This growth is supported by an overall mileage increase of 5.7%, which means that fleet respondents accomplished these gains rather efficiently, according to the report.

Even still, private fleets do face challenges, with driver-related issues being the No. 1 challenge listed. Driver-related issues are cited by nearly every respondent, often more than once. Rounding out the list of issues cited by fleets are: Cost-related issues; equipment and maintenance; customer service; regulatory and safety.

While driver issues remain top-of-mind, private fleets perform better than the for-hire population. "While everybody is feeling the driver shortage, it is less at private fleets," Penske's Lager said.

This year's survey found that driver turnover fell to 15.8%, nearly three full percentage points down from last year's 18.5% turnover rate and much lower when compared to the for-hire segment. Private fleet's average driver turnover is 14.25% over the 15-year history of the survey, and the average driver in the NPTC survey stays with a carrier for more than ten years. "That is extraordinary," Petty said.

NPTC started tracking metrics surrounding the time to hire and the hiring process for the first time. NPTC found that the average fleet has to review, screen and/or interview 19.7 candidates to fill one driver's seat, and the average time to hire a driver candidate is 34 days.

"Private fleets understand you get what you pay for," Moore stated. "They changed the mentality from speed-to-hire because they want to hire the right person.

The three top reasons for turnover are discipline issues, drivers leaving for another job, or retirement.

Moore noted: "For those leaving for another job or discipline issues, that tells me a private fleet can do a better job in the hiring process. If you're asking the right questions in the interview, you can identify what drivers are more likely to leave or will have discipline issues."

For the first time, NPTC asked fleets how much it cost to bring a driver on board. It is about $7,500 for the typical heavy-duty operation, and $3,400 for medium-duty fleets.

The survey also examined which freight movements private fleets haul and which they contract out. Private fleets typically handle about 2/3 of the outbound flow of goods and work with third-party carriers to handle the rest.

For-hire motor carriers handle 17% of all outbound freight movements, while dedicated contract carriers perform 12%. When deciding how to position the private fleet, survey respondents mention numerous inter-related and overlapping factors. The most frequently highlighted are cost, service, geography, and proximity to customers, and backhaul loads.

Empty mileage rates decreased, with an empty mileage of 26% down from last year's 33.3% and the previous year's 28.4%. NPTC found that 28% of respondents reported improved empty mileage, and Lager said reducing empty miles is top-of-mind for carriers. "There is not the luxury of being inefficient right now."

Penske Truck Leasing helps customers analyze their network to determine the best lanes to handle internally and the best to outsource.

"We have the engineering capability and capacity to analyze a customer's entire operation and make a recommendation," Lager said. "We can process the data and optimize it in several ways. It isn't always about cost; it is about delivery windows and meeting schedules. We can display all of that and help them make those decisions."

Use of on-board safety technology continues to increase, and not one respondent indicated not using on-board safety technology.

"If you're not safe, you're not going to be efficient, and the rest of the metrics don't matter," Moore said. "The safety record continued to get better and stronger and was one of the best years we ever had."

Survey participants can request customized data pulls that compares data of peer or like-kind fleets in the same market.

Petty: "It is apples-to-apples numbers they can use. This is powerful information internally. We have found once companies get on the track of scoring themselves against peers, it gives the whole benchmarking exercise a powerful boost of credibility."

By "Move Ahead" Staff

Penske Recognized as a 2022 Military-Friendly Employer



Committed to helping veterans move forward, Penske was recently named a 2022 Military-Friendly Employer. This honor recognizes companies that have remained steadfast in creating employment opportunities for veterans.


The list was established by VIQTORY nearly two decades ago. VIQTORY, which publishes G.I. Jobs and Military Spouses magazines, links the military community to civilian opportunities.

Penske is proud to be among 308 employers to earn the Military-Friendly Employer designation. In the past year, veterans represented nearly 9% of all Penske new hires – a testament to Penske's robust support to veterans and veteran organizations.

Since 2003, the Military-Friendly lists have set the standard for organizations to provide the best opportunities for veterans and military spouses.

"Penske is proud and honored to have earned the silver Military-Friendly Designation for 2022," said Nikita Rhodes, vice president for diversity and inclusion at Penske. "This designation is important because it highlights to associates, customers and suppliers that Penske is committed to the military community."

Rhodes continued, "We recognize the hard work, dedication and perseverance that veterans bring to Penske. While these characteristics are important to our organization year-round, they are especially important on Veterans Day. That's why we take time to recognize and thank our veterans for their service and sacrifice. We couldn't be more proud and grateful for the more than 1,700 veterans that we currently employ as part of our Penske family."

Driving Military Recruitment

Penske actively recruits veterans by promoting employment opportunities in military publications, on veterans' job boards, and through exclusive partnerships with military-friendly organizations such as ESGR, G.I. Jobs, RecruitMilitary, Military Officers Association of America, VetCentral, VRS Virtual Veteran Career Fairs, Hirepurpose, Corporate America Supports You, Lucas Group and Bradley-Morris, Inc.

Penske has teamed up with Veteran Recruiting (VR) and other leading employers to support the VetFriendly Jobs Initiative to hire or train 100,000 veterans by 2020.

The company was one of many that joined efforts with VR to support the White House Joining Forces Initiative, which led to the hiring of 170,000 veterans between 2011 and 2016.

Military-Friendly Organization Supporter

In addition to hiring, the company is proud to partner with and support military-friendly organizations, including The Paralyzed Veterans of America's Mission: ABLE campaign and Support Military Families.

Penske Truck Rental, a division of Penske Truck Leasing, joined with Paralyzed Veterans eight years ago to create the #OneWay4PVA campaign, which encourages rental customers to donate $1 to Paralyzed Veterans Mission: ABLE campaign.

The generosity of one-way customers and Penske donations on all one-way moves have resulted in more than $3 million for Paralyzed Veterans.

Penske associates regularly volunteer for organizations that support and honor our troops and veterans, like the Paul R. Gordon Veteran Social Center of Berks County in Reading, Pennsylvania.

In addition, Penske offers discounts on truck rentals for active military members and veterans when reserving one-way truck rentals online.

Both Penske Truck Leasing and Penske Logistics offer a wide range of career opportunities, including truck fleet maintenance technicians, truck drivers, fleet maintenance supervisors, operations management roles, as well as logistics and supply chain operations roles and many others.

Visit https://penske.jobs/veterans/ for more information on career opportunities.

By "Move Ahead" Staff

Review of Splitgate: Arena Warfare In 2021 🌀 Is It Still Worth It?

  “What would happen if Halo and Portal meet up?” Splitgate happens. That premise has been used to promote this game since the beginning. But why, if it’s a mix between two highly-acclaimed games, then it’s not well-known? Let’s find out.   Review: What Is Splitgate: Arena Warfare? Is It Worth It In 2021? As […]

The post Review of Splitgate: Arena Warfare In 2021 🌀 Is It Still Worth It? appeared first on Gamer One.

What is Ethereum? The ULTIMATE Research-Backed ETH Guide

Ethereum is the leading blockchain app platform that was proposed in 2013 by Vitalik Buterin and went live on July 30, 2015. There are...

Windlab


One of the more interesting companies to launch an IPO in the last few years is Windlab, a windfarm development company that was founded in 2003 to commercialise software developed at the CSIRO. Windlab’s proprietary software Windscape overlays atmospheric modelling on geographical features to identify and evaluate potential windfarm sites. In their prospectus they claimed this software gives them a significant advantage over other windfarm development companies, as it enables them to identify sites with high wind resources without conducting costly and lengthy on-site testing. As evidence of this claim, the two windfarms that delivered the highest percentage of their maximum output throughout 2018 are on sites found and developed using windscape, Coonooer Bridge and Kiata both in Victoria. 

The company listed in August 2017 on the ASX at $2 a share, equalling a fully diluted market cap of $146.3 million. While initially results were promising, with the company making a profit of $9.5 million in 2017, 2018 has seen a complete reversal of that progress, with revenue dropping from $23.1 million to $3.5 million, and the company making a loss of $3.8 million. As a result, the share price has declined steeply, and is now trading at around $1.04, or a market cap of $77 million.
While for the average company a decline in performance of this magnitude would suggest that something is seriously wrong, I don’t think this is the case for Windlab. Like any company that gains most of its revenue from developments, significant swings in profit from one year to the next are inevitable. The company went from reaching financial close on two windfarm sites in 2017 to one in 2018, and while the failure to reach financial close on a single project was disappointing, it is not surprising given the long timeframes required for most wind farm developments.  It is my belief that the market has overreacted to Windlab’s 2018 results due to a misunderstanding or mistrust of the companies operating model, and that at the current share price the company is significantly undervalued.

The Case for Windlab


 Renewable energy is going through a difficult time in Australia, with little cohesion between federal and state governments, and new connection requirements making connecting a renewable energy plant to the grid more expensive. However, if you believe that climate change is real, then renewable energy should be one of the fastest growing industries over the next twenty to thirty years. While growth in the efficiency of solar tends to get more attention, Windfarm technology is also improving in efficiency, and nearly all renewable energy experts see wind farms playing a significant role in the transition to renewable energy. On a much shorter time scale, if Labor wins the upcoming federal election the domestic market for renewable energy should improve markedly. Labor has a policy of 50% renewable energy by 2030, and to achieve this the level of investment in wind farm projects in Australia will need to increase exponentially.

Windlab is ideally placed to take advantage of this, as the development of windfarm sites is perhaps the most profitable part of the wind farm industry. From 2014 to 2017 the company managed an average Return On Equity of 42%, in a time that included significant growth and the cost of listing on the ASX. 

. 2017 2016 2015
Revenue  $                                          24,515,379  $           18,101,100  $         10,012,006
Expenses -$                                          10,098,372 -$            13,023,113 -$           8,524,804
Profit before income tax  $                                          14,417,007  $             5,077,987  $            1,487,202
Income tax -$                                            4,912,534 -$             1,779,491  $                 14,687
Profit  $                                            9,504,473  $             3,298,496  $            1,501,889
Equity at the start of the year  $                                          13,404,230  $             9,207,680  $            7,699,065
ROE 71% 36% 20%
Average 42%

The company is able to achieve this sort of ROE as windfarm developments are sold once all approvals and agreements signed but before construction begins, meaning developing multi-million dollar projects does not require significant capital. For example, take the site of the Coonooer bridge wind farm, a 19.8 megawatt wind farm in North Western Victoria with a total development cost of $48.6 million. After identifying the site with Windscape, Windlab spent only $300,000 in acquiring the land, then spent $2.2 million or research and planning applications for a total investment of only $2.5 million. Windlab then sold 96.5% of the equity in the Coonoer Bridge to Eurus Energy for just over $4.7 million who then funded the construction of the site with help from grants from the state government. In total, Windlab walked away from this transaction with over $4.7 million in cash and a remaining 3.5% stake in the project, a return of over 111% on the initial investment. 

Valuation


While historically Windlab has sourced most of its revenue from wind farm development, the company also has a growing asset management arm of the business, where they provide asset management services to Wind and Electricity farms, in addition to significant equity in operating and soon to be operating Windfarms. Although historically insignificant when compared to the companies development fees, these sections of the business are quickly growing, and seems to be the managements way of ensuring cashflows are a little more predictable in the future.

In order to accurately value Windlab, I have therefore broken down the company into three separate areas.

Inventory (wind farm development projects)

The book value Windlab gives to its inventory as per the 2019 financials is $9.69M, though this is overly conservative as projects are valued at the lower of their cost or net realisable value.  In order to get a more accurate picture of the actual value of Windlab’s inventory, I have tried to assign individual value to some of Windlab’s larger projects.

Lakeland Wind Farm

Lakeland is a 106 megawatt project located in Northern Queensland. While Windlab does not give a breakdown of inventory values, due to its size and stage in the development cycle the Lakeland Wind Farm is probably the single project with the largest value in the companies inventory.  Lakeland is also one of the main causes for the decline in share price over the last six months, as the project was scheduled to reach financial close in 2018 until the primary investor pulled out at the last minute. This delay has meant the project is now subject to new requirements to connect to the electricity grid, which will mean significant additional costs to increase the stability of the connection (this is a change to the nation-wide connection criteria for renewable energy plants designed to address unstable supply).

While these setbacks are undeniably concerning, Windlab claims that the delay has also allowed them to re-tender for more efficient turbines and they have not yet impaired the inventory value of the project, something they have done in the past when projects are compromised. As per their latest announcements Windlab are still confident of reaching financial close on this project in 2019.
If successful, Lakeland will be the largest project brought to financial close by Windlab to date, at 106 Megawatts. For Kennedy, a 56 megawatt project, Windlab received a financial close payment of 5.4 million, while keeping 50% equity in the project. If Windlab is to acheive a similar margin and equity structure for Lakeland, this would result in a payment to Windlab of $10.2 million, with the remaining 50% equity in the project worth at least $10.2 million as well, for a total value of $20.4 million. Given the uncertainty around the project though, a 50% discount would seem appropriate, which gives the project a total value of $10.2 million for our calculations.

Miombo Hewani

Another late stage windfarm project for Windlab is the Miombo Hewani windfarm in Tanzania. This 300-megawatt, $750 million project is Windlab’s first foray into East Africa, and is undoubtedly the companies most ambitious yet. The project received approval from the Tanzanian government in July 2018 and will receive partial funding from the Government of Finland. Windlab have not committed to achieving financial close in 2019 for Miombo Hewani which is understandable given the uncertainty of operations in Africa, but as development approval is already in place as well as some funding arrangements, financial close can’t be too far off. Demonstrating the significant potential value of Miombo Hewani and Windlabs other East African investments, Eurus Energy, a Japanese sustainable energy company that has partnered with Windlab in the past recently bought a 25% stake in Windlab’s east African projects for $10 million USD, valuing Windlab’s remaining stake in their East African portfolio of development projects alone at $30 million USD, or $42.2 million AUD. While this may seem excessive, Windlab stated in their prospectus that their target development margin for Windfarm developments is $250,000 per megawatt of capacity, and from 2015 to 2017 the company had overachieved this, with margins of $260,000 to $490,000 per megawatt. If Windlab was to successfully reach financial close on Miombo Hewani at their target development margin, this would result in a payment of $75 million alone. As a result, adopting the value assigned by Eurus Energy of $42.3 million for the companies East African projects seems reasonable.

Greenwich

The last late-stage development project worth noting in this section is the Greenwich Windfarm in the USA. Windlab officially sold the project in 2018, but will only receive the bulk of their payment of $4 million USD (5.6M AUD) when construction begins. While Windlab have stated they expect to receive this payment in 2019, a group of neighbours have mounted a challenge to the project to the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to dispute the approval given by the Ohio Power Board. . Given the uncertainty of the case, it is probably prudent to discount this payment by 50%, which would mean a value of $2.8 million for Greenwich.


While the projects listed above are the most likely to result in some form of payment in the next 12 to 18 months, Windlab has numerous other projects earlier in the development cycle. These include:
  • 640 megawatts of approved potential capacity across multiple projects in South Africa. (While South African Renewable Energy projects have been on hiatus, it does seem the projects are about to get up and running again after a recent change of government 
  •       250 megawatt project in Northern Queensland that Windlab is intending to submit a development application for in 2019
  •           230 megawatt project in Vedigre USA that Windlab no longer has control over, but is eligible for up to $4.6 million in success payments if the project reaches financial close.


While an exact value for all of these projects is difficult, I have assigned a value of $15 million for the remainder of Windlab's projects.

Excluding Windlab’s asset management business, which I will cover separately, Windlab spends around $6.4 million a year on project expenses, administration and employees. The projects I have listed above are predominantly expected to reach some form of financial close in the next three years, so it seems logical to assign a cost of $19.2 million, or three years of costs to the above calculations. Once a tax rate of 30% is factored in, you are left with a total inventory value of $35.177 as per the below table.

Project Value
Lakeland  $   10,200,000.00
East African projects  $   42,300,000.00
Greenwich  $     2,800,000.00
Other projects  $   15,000,000.00
Total  $   70,300,000.00
Book value  $     9,690,000.00
three years of annual costs  $   19,200,000.00
tax on projected profit  $   12,423,000.00
Value after tax  $   38,677,000.00

Operating Wind Farms

Currently Windlab has significant equity in two large operating or soon to be operating Wind Farms, Kiata, in Melbourne’s North West which has now been operating for just over a year, and Kennedy Energy Park in Northern Queensland that has completed construction and will be connected to the grid in the coming months. Both projects were originally found and developed using Windlab’s proprietary technology Windscape, with Windlab then subsequently selling down equity in the project to help fund development. Windlab owns 25% of the Kiata wind farm and 50% of Kennedy, and combined these two projects have a book value of $43.6 million on the Windlab balance sheet.
Kiata is a 30 megawatt 9 turbine windfarm in Northern Victoria that had its first full year of operation in 2018, with a total profit of $4.57 million for the year. Wind farms are thought to have a useful life of roughly 20 years, after which significant refurbishment costs are needed in order to continue operation. If we discount these future cash flows at a rate of 7%, (which seems reasonable given the relative low risk of an established wind farm) we get a total value for Kiata of just under $43.9 million. This values Windlab’s stake at $10.97 million.

To value Kennedy is a little more complex, as it has not yet begun operation. However, we know that the project is a 56-megawatt project, combining 41 megawatts of wind with 15 megawatts of solar. The plant also has 2 megawatts of battery storage to help modulate supply and allow storage of excess energy in non-peak times. If we extrapolate the annual profit per megawatt of capacity of Kiata in 2018 of $152,353 and assign the same discount rate, we are left with a value for Kennedy of $83.6 million, or $41.8 million for Windlab’s 50% ownership.

Combined, this gives a value of $52.86M for these two projects. 

Asset management

Windlab’s asset management arm is perhaps the easiest to understand and value. Windlab leverages its expertise by providing ongoing management services to existing wind and solar farms, both that the company has an equity stake in, and to third party independent energy farms or resources. This side of the business is quickly growing, with revenue increasing by 27% in 2018 to $2.97 million, with profit before tax of $610,000, or $427,000 after tax assuming a 30% tax rate. The company signed a significant asset management contract in early 2019 for a solar farm, indicating that they are continuing to grow this business. Given both the significant growth of this area and the broader growth potential of the industry, a P/E ratio of 20 seems coservative, which would value Windlab’s asset management division at 8.5 million.

Software

Lastly, As Windlab has demonstrated ability to use Windscape to develop high-performing Windfarms, it seems only fair to give a value to the Windscape software itself. Windlab is continuing to use this software to identify projects into the future, and the company has proven that this software can provide the company with a significant edge on development projects.  While this is a difficult thing to do, $10,000,000 seems like a conservative valuation, considering both Windlab’s historical performance and the likely growth of the energy sector in the future.


Putting it all together

Area Value
Development Projects  $   38,677,000.00
Operating wind farms  $   52,770,000.00
Asset Management business  $     8,500,000.00
Windscape software  $   10,000,000.00
Cash  $   14,622,414.00
Liabilities -$   10,755,130.00
Total  $ 113,814,284.00
Shares outstanding (diluted) 73848070
Price  $                     1.54

If we add together the values as per the above calculations, we are left with a total value of $113.8 million for the company, or $1.54. As the company is currently trading around the $1.02 mark, this suggests the company is significantly undervalued at its current price. 

Aurora Labs


Aurora Labs is one of a long list of ASX pre-revenue IPO’s that achieved massive gains before crashing when the much-hyped revenue failed to materialize.  Listing in August 2016, the stock peaked at just under $4 in February 2017 for a nearly 20X return and then lost 90% of its value over the next year. Recently though, Aurora has been staging somewhat of a comeback. Their shares were trading at around 36 cents in September of this year when they began to release announcements regarding progress with their Large Format Printer. The market reacted with predictable over-exuberance and within a few weeks the stock was back over 90 cents. That investors have willingly jumped back into bed with a company like Aurora is a pretty sad indictment of the Australian small cap market. Aurora’s brief history on the ASX is a tale littered with failed targets, unclear communication and a steadfast refusal to own up to any of their mistakes. It is also a story worth knowing for anyone interested in investing in pre-revenue stocks.


Aurora labs was founded in August 2014 by David Budge, an engineer and product designer from WA when he posted on Facebook that he wanted to start a rocket company. The rocket idea didn’t last long, and the company quickly switched to 3D printing. If you are to believe the official company version of events, within 18 months of that Facebook post Aurora labs developed three separate revolutionary techniques for 3D metal printing with major implications for reducing costs, increasing speed and managing 3D printing software. What exactly these inventions were has never clearly been articulated, but with a message as enticing and marketable as this a public listing was inevitable and by June 2016 Aurora had launched their prospectus to raise $3.5 million.

While the prospectus was largely focused on returns far in the future, a key point in their initial pitch was their Small Format Printer. This printer was designed to be substantially cheaper than their competitors and was apparently already in beta testing with 31 secured pre-sales. The Small Format Printers price was listed in in the prospectus at between $40,000 and $43,000 USD each, so this was a significant amount of sales for such a young company.

The shares listed on the 12thof August 2016 at $0.20 cents and shot up in value quickly. In December 2016 they announced that they were shipping their first unit of the Small Format Printer to customers and by the 10th of February 2017 the share price had reached a staggering $3.93, representing returns of just under 1,900% since listing and a market capitalization of over $216 million. 

As is the story with many pre-revenue companies though, it was when the revenue was supposed to materialize that the wheels fell off. On their quarterly activities report on the 28th of April 2017 the company announced that they were now ready to focus on sales, as they had completed the necessary certifications and testing to sell the Small Format Printer internationally. Despite these assurances, cash flows from sales for the March to June period was only $103,000 and dropped to $6,000 for the next quarter. For a company whose product was apparently market leading with a strong order bank of pre-sales this made no sense. How could a company selling 3D printers for $40,000 USD each take revenue of only $6,000 a quarter when they apparently had an order bank of 30 pre-sales to fill?

Investors looking for an answer had to wait until November 2017, when the company finally admitted via a market update that the much-vaunted pre-sales had been sold at a fraction of the current prices. Instead of the $40,000 USD listed in the prospectus, the pre-sale prices were for prices between $7,000 and $9,000 AUD. Given the retail price had now risen to USD $49,999, Aurora labs was now deciding to cancel their pre-sales and refund the prospective customers their deposits.

It is hard to understand how Aurora got away with this announcement without a slap on the wrist from the ASX. Until this announcement Aurora had given no indication that their pre-sales were for anything less than their current proposed price, if anything they had worked hard to give the opposite impression.

The below is a direct screenshot from the prospectus, these two sentences come one after the other:


Any investor reading the above sentences would have naturally assumed the pre-sale prices were somewhere around $40,000 USD. In addition to this quote the pre-sales are mentioned on 6 other occasions in the prospectus, and not once is the fact that the pre-sales were sold at heavily discounted prices disclosed.
After listing, the company continued to mention pre-sales in their announcements. In a January 2017 announcement the company stated that:

For a product that’s main selling point is its cheapness compared to its competitors, how does a sale at less than 25% of the current market price indicate demand from “all corners of the globe?” It is the equivalent of a new phone company using sales of $200 smart phones as evidence for demand of an identical model at $800.

Another obvious question is why Aurora waited until November to dishonour their pre-sales. At the time of their prospectus their retail price was already considerably higher than the pre-sale prices, yet the company waited more than 12 months before deciding to cancel the pre-sale orders. The obvious explanation that they were keeping their pre-sales on the book as long as possible to maintain their share price is hard to overlook.

Even leaving the pre-sales aside, Aurora has made some dramatic promises regarding their Small Format Printer that have failed to materialize. In April 2017, the CEO David Budge gave a speech at an investors conference where he said:
A lot of investors took notice of this statement, as if true it meant the company was close to achieving annual revenue of $18 million USD a year from the Small Format Printer alone. 

However when their annual report for 2017 was released more than 15 months later, revenue was only $329,970, indicating sales of not even 1 device per month. In typical Australian small cap fashion, not only does the annual report fail to explain why sales were so far off this forecast, it doesn’t even acknowledge that this forecast was made.

You might be wondering at this point why I’m bothering to write about this. Another Micro Cap company played the PR game and managed to pump the share price to a ridiculous valuation with a bunch of promises that they never delivered on. Hardly a unique occurrence for the ASX. It matters because too often the companies getting funding on the ASX seem to be bad companies with good PR departments.  A central promise of capitalism is that money can be efficiently allocated from those with money to those who need it. At it’s best, the share market is an effective vehicle for getting money from investors into the hands of companies with great ideas and limited funds. The reality is every dollar spent funding or purchasing a stock of a hype company is a dollar not going to a legitimate pre-revenue company, and there are a lot of legitimate pre-revenue companies out there that desperately need money.

The tendency of companies to make wild predictions also puts pressure on other small business owners looking for investment to be equally optimistic. A friend of mine owns a growing business that has achieved impressive growth of around 40% a year for the last couple of years. Their latest forecasts for 2019 increases this growth to nearly 100% for FY18, yet investors so used to seeing forecasts like Aurora’s remain unimpressed and have asked if there are any ways to increase this. For the industry my friend is in, growth at more than 100% would likely have serious affects on his margins and risk profile, but this is a difficult point to make to investors habituated to start-ups promising multi-million dollar revenues in years.

As investors, we have a responsibility to be more critical when presented with the next slick presentation light on detail but big on promises. If this is asking too much then at the very least we need to ensure that executives of small companies are held accountable for their promises. When a CEO says that he is intending to sell 30 devices a month, he shouldn’t be able to release an annual report 15 months later showing total sales of less than 10 for the year without even bothering to address what went wrong.  And when that same CEO starts making chest beating announcements about their latest product, the market’s reaction should be a little more suspicious.

Latest Intelligence

spot_img
spot_img