My 2c on CVT for what it's worth....
The market obviously responded reasonably well with the announcement of Ted Pretty coming on as CEO, only to be ankle tapped by the lack luster quarterly. That aside, it's fair to say that from here CVT is a punt on Ted Pretty delivering on his strategy for the company. If you believe that he will be able to add value, execute contracts and get CVT going, then you are either holding or buying at present. If you think the technology is worthless and Ted has no hope in being able to monetise this, then you are out.
Iam prepared to back Ted in from here. We understand that he undertook a high level of DD prior to coming on with CVT, it's fair to say that he thinks the company has some good bones to work with. What is in his favour is that it won't take much for him to add value to the business and get some decent runs on the board. Ted being reportedly on of Australia's most well connected CEO's, if he can't make the most of those connections to add value to CVT, then I dare say not many people would be able to.
As much as we are all taking a hammering right now with the share price, it's important to keep a clear head about this and remember a few key points;
1. The company has +$10mil in the bank right now and based off current burn rate, would see us through until early next year. It's fair to say that Ted will have a good look at the business and see where he can trim costs further to ensure a lean ship sails this year.
2. We are still in the mix for the UK & Irish POK's to be awarded over the coming weeks / months.
3. We are still pushing forward with the Prime Tender contract & once the 'current state' can be finalized, we should expect to see some significant news flow to the market around the terms of the CVT contract etc.
4. We are actively engaging with the developer community (San Francisco meeting) and I would expect further engagement on this RSA trip currently underway, to see how CVT's products can be built into current operating systems of large enterprises. News flow around this progressing will be interesting for the company.
5. I presume that Ted will reach out to his contacts in the investor & business community once he is able to set his strategy for the company. This could throw up many interesting things...
There are obviously other things that the company has touched on over the past 6 months, however I believe the above are key, let along anything new that Ted Pretty will bring to the table once he sets his strategy for the business going forward. One thing is for sure, that Ted isn't going down without a fight & as far as I know he is a highly driven & motivated individual that is looking to carve out a name for himself in the Tech space.
For Ted, I dare say that failure is not an option as he has a reputation & too much pride on the line.
For what it's worth.... Iam sure if this gets passed by the upper house, a lot more Australian businesses will have to start taking their data security more seriously & with Ted Pretty being 'well connected', you never know what may eventuate...
http://www.copyright link/technolog...ication-laws-pass-lower-house-20170208-gu86w4
Mandatory data breach notification laws pass lower house
Technology industry groups have welcomed the passing of long-awaited mandatory data breach notification laws through the House of Representatives, but fears remain in business circles about unintended consequences.
The bill passed through the lower house with bipartisan support on Tuesday, having been on the government's agenda since early 2015, meaning organisations will have to reveal if their systems are compromised by cyber attack or technical failings.
President of tech industry peak body The Australian Computer Society Anthony Wong said the bill was a "critical step forward in the elevation of data protection and cyber security issues" at the enterprise level.
Under the proposed laws, if an organisation subject to the Privacy Act incurs an "eligible data breach", it will have to alert the Australian Information Commissioner and the people whose data has been compromised.
Eligible breaches are those in which there is unauthorised access, disclosure or loss of personal information held by an entity and that access, disclosure or loss is likely to result in "serious harm to any of the individuals to whom the information relates".
"As we transition to a digital economy, now more than ever the focus must be on ensuring Australia captures the opportunities of the information age, while protecting the rights of the individual," Mr Wong said.
"In an era of big data, the protection and privacy of personal information must be a primary consideration in the planning and construction of large scale ICT systems, not an afterthought."
Mr Wong said the laws would give individuals that share their information with businesses and government greater confidence, and would raise awareness of the threats of lax security.
"To deliver on the promise of this new legislation it is critical to recognise that cybersecurity is a collective responsibility, relevant at all levels of an organisation," he said.
Companies that are affected by the legislation included businesses with over $3 million in turnover, smaller firms that handle sensitive information and most government agencies.
The concept of a mandatory data reporting scheme first emerged in 2008 when the Australian Law Reform Commission reviewed Australia's privacy laws and recommended its introduction.
In 2013 such a scheme was recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and then again was recommended in February 2015 by the committee in response to the inquiry into the data retention bill.
At the time the government committed to implement mandatory data breach notification rules by December 2015, but this was pushed back when the first draft only became available for public consultation by that date.
Cyber security advisor Rachel Falk told The Australian Financial Review last month that she supported the legislation because it was important for organisations to be transparent about customer data, but that it was important that people did not become "over-sensitised" to breaches.
"It's important that mandatory data breach notification serves a purposes... but it's not about scaring the horses, it needs to be measured disclosure," she said.
"All of us as consumers should always be concerned about how our valuable data is being used."
Last year the Australian Industry Group said in response to the draft legislation that it could not understand why a scheme was needed at all.
"Ai Group understands the reasons why the bill has been drafted but we are not convinced of the need for the bill," it said
The business group argued that there were already privacy laws in place and that the legislative requirements could pose "an unreasonable compliance burden on businesses".
The Association of Data-driven Marketing and Advertising also came out against the bill, saying there was no evidence for its need and that voluntary breach notification guidelines had been effective.
It also said that the bill had the potential to cause "notification fatigue".
