Hope all are having a good night. Hoping anyone from here in Brisbane who attended can add to or correct any/all of the below.
I've done my best with this and apologies for not having the opportunity to go through all of these at the session, but the presentation ran long and I was due back at work. I have provided the entire list to management, so if I get any subsequent follow up I'll post them as well.
Lastly, apologies for formatting and the length. There was a lot to cover....
General
What is the likelihood of a share consolidation to give perception of a financially stable operation?
This wasn’t asked by me specifically and not sure if it was asked post me leaving. If anyone did ask directly, please fill in the blank. What was asked was the potential for a cash raising. Jack Hamilton (Chairman) commented on cash on hand, R&D grant, with expected revenue outside of any potential deals that may come through and said there’s roughly 12 months of funding there. He did not rule out a CR, although didn’t seem to indicate he was expecting one either.
Where does the company anticipate our future revenue will come from?
On slide 8 in the presentation pack, there’s a commercial pipeline diagram. The circles closest to the left represent those areas of focus closest to commercialisation. The larger the circle, the larger the expected potential revenue. Based on this and the areas of focus highlighted on the previous slide, and everything I heard today, the wettability of batteries looks to be the shortest path to market with the largest potential revenue. This also has the potential to be ‘drop in’ tech in the manufacture of batteries and was mentioned more than once that external parties are very interested in this.
Will it be sufficient to finance short to midterm objectives?
There was no mention of expected revenue, so I’m probably not going to speculate. I will say, in my opinion, if a wettability contract could be signed it would likely be one of many. The advantages of hydrophilic carbon are reduced manufacturing times and reduced defects. So in a nutshell, time & money. Very attractive to battery builders.
What opportunities are available to joint venture with development partners?
I wasn’t able to ask this question. That said, there was conversation about re-invigorating local and international relationships with companies we have worked with in the dx space (IMRA, etc.). This was encouraging, but honestly, not a highlight for me.
In batteries, I get the feeling they are open to JV’s, but they will be protecting the IP.
What does the company believe will be the best sales/revenue producing division moving forward?
I didn’t ask this specifically, but the heavy focus seems to be in batteries with the least barrier to market entry. With wettability being close to commercial viability, I’d suggest it will be the play.
Do we expect to develop product ourselves or outsource that requirement?
This depends on the products. The core Anteo technology remains the glue.
For dx, prepared conjugates for specific assays will be a difference in previous approaches to the market. The ability to stuff up preparation will be taken away from potential customers by having it ‘pre-mixed’ by Anteo.
For batteries, my understanding is the wettability is for enhanced manufacturing capabilities. So my assumption is the product will be prepared specifically for potential customer’s materials (assuming they may be unique). Slide 20 is relevant here.
The composites (silicon mixed into carbon) are where the current MTA comes in. We have shown (validated by Polaris) we can build generic composites with 20, 24, 30wt silicon which previously hasn’t been achievable. The MTA with a ‘large’ partner is to confirm our technology can be proven with their materials. In this sense, I’d suggest our technology will be sold to partners for inclusion in their product(s)
Are there plans for expansion of current staffing numbers and in what areas?
I didn’t ask this question, but with 12 months’ worth of cash I’d suggest not unless there is a deal or funded project that comes through during that time. I didn’t get the feeling it was a current concern for them. At this time, until any real developments, I’d say they are ‘right-sized’.
Question to CP – Would you remain permanently in the role of CEO if circumstances allowed for it?
I didn’t get the chance to ask this. Hoping someone else did. Hamilton thanked him for his contributions and commented on how lucky we were he was able to step in. Also reiterated the previous CEO left based on his family not wanting to relocate from WA.
Does ADO hold a position around offering or accepting exclusivity with a potential partner?
It was mentioned several times they are protecting the IP. Even with the ‘out-of-focus’ areas, the investment has been made to secure the IP. I didn’t get the feeling they were looking at offering exclusivity, and with the nature of the technology it may not be necessary. From what I can see, our product can interact with unique / proprietary materials. If someone already has a superior product, ours can make it more superior.
With regards to wettability, my hope is it becomes a standard that a majority of manufacturers take on as a matter of best practice.
Follow up: Do u rule it out entirely or willing to accept if it is truly lucrative? Ie. If as good as having 1, 2,3 or 4 other deals?
I don’t think they’d rule it out, but I doubt they would do it indefinitely. They don’t need to, imho. Once again, didn’t get to ask the question unfortunately.
How close are we to significant earnings?
Timelines were discussed, but nothing was committed to. I had a bit of a go at them in suggesting they need to make themselves more accountable by suggesting timelines. Why would I invest in a company not willing to hold themselves accountable? They took it on board, but not sure it will result in suggested timeframes for significant revenue.
A call out to those going to subsequent meetings to reiterate this point.
Timeframes for a marketable product, or are we looking at further testing before we may have a marketable product?
I think for wettability they are close to having a commercially viable product. They will continue to use external partners for validation of internal testing. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something in market within 12 months. (my opinion)
Barriers to entry still exist in the POCT market. I think they are a ways off here from any significant revenue, but the potential customers they are talking to now are in the development phase of products, so if we’re included in any of their assays, we will be in the original approvals, not asking an established product to be re-approved.
What is the current cash burn rate and what priority is it for management? Is there a CR in our near future?
Jack Hamilton commented on cash on hand, R&D grant, with expected revenue outside of any potential deals that may come through and said there’s roughly 12 months of funding there. He did not rule out a CR, although didn’t seem to indicate he was expecting one either.
POC Devices
Can we get a general update on where the POC and diagnostic devices sit from a priority perspective against the battery technology?
Slide 7 & 8 cover this off. My take is the battery tech has the priority at the moment, with some effort going back into revitalising relationships in the dx space.
More specifically, how are things with Atomo, DMTC, Ellume, anyone else relevant?
Atomo and Ellume seem to be in a reasonable place. DMTC wasn’t discussed.
Batteries
Does ADO plan to keep the patents / IP and go it alone, or will we seek a JV partner?
I believe the intent is to keep the patents. Even with a JV partner, the IP/Patents of the core technology should remain with ADO. Where unique composites are created for specific customers, I’d assume the IP would belong to them, but without AnteoCoat, I don’t believe it could be recreated. I suspect these will be contractual decisions we may never know the actual details of.
Who finances the development for exclusive use of the end product in either scenario?
Suggesting the customer, as how else will we get paid?
Given the stated extensive market segments for Anteocoat, has the Polaris third-party consulting strategy provided a template to expand out opportunities?
They stated they would continue to use partners to validate in-house results. That said, I don’t know if I go as far as to say it’s a templated approach. I did ask if Polaris has assisted in ‘marketing’ our product based on the positive results. The response was a little hedged in that they said they will look to leverage the relationsips.
How are the National Phases on the following progressing:
WO2015021509 CONJUGATING MOLECULES TO PARTICLES.
WO2017083938 METHOD OF CONTROLLED COMPETITIVE EXCHANGE
WO2017027931 FUNCTIONAL COATING
I wasn’t able to ask about these, but I have sent them to management for a response. I’ll provide any feedback upon receipt.
On cycle efficiency: did the level at which this fell away, reduce further or stabilise?
They had only tested cycle efficiency up to about 50 cycles and not more than 100. They realise they need to go past 1000, however right now they want to look at first-cycle efficiency and early trend before they expand testing cycles. They are also testing multiple composites for the most effective cycling results. To answer the question, more data required to fully answer this one.
How does this subsequent efficiency compare with a 100% graphite reference cell?
They created a 10wt % composite and a 30wt % composite tested. The first cycle efficiency charts were significantly different. That said, there was not a comparison discussed to a 100% graphite cell, only the current commercially viable si composite at 6% which showed a similar pattern to the 10wt % composite.
What (if any) significance is the progress to the full pouch cell?
Slide 18 of 40 covers this off. I don’t recall or have anything in my notes expanding on this.
The success with getting a working 30wt.% silicon anode is noted. How does this compare with the best that has been achieved with silicon using conventional binding techniques?
The best commercially viable si composite sits at about 6%. The cycle efficiency needs improvement, specifically in first cycle. This is where the two likely differ the most, although without higher volume of cycles, this can’t be determined yet.
Have these results been presented to prospective parties of interest?
This is what has led to the MTA, as we were able to have 30wt % in its generic form verified by Polaris. They now want to see if we can reproduce similar results with their proprietary materials. (I may be using incorrect terminology here)
