Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Surface Transforms LSE:SCE London Ordinary Share GB0002892528 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.25p +1.82% 14.00p 13.50p 14.50p 14.00p 13.75p 13.75p 63,000 09:00:46
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Automobiles & Parts 0.7 -2.5 -2.4 - 15.96

Surface Transforms Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4126 to 4149 of 4150 messages
Chat Pages: 166  165  164  163  162  161  160  159  158  157  156  155  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
05/12/2017
10:24
Had a little dip to add to my holding.
spookies
29/11/2017
22:55
I stated in an earlier post directed at sate_uk that I was choosing to keep the faith. I am. However that faith is being tested. I couldn't make the AGM but I suspected as Longshanks reported it would be a more sombre affair. I think the reality is that other than the move into Knowsley being further advanced - that it doesn't feel like too much progess has been made on the OEM contracts. I suspect it will feel like this until right before an RNS announces a contract win (which correct me if I'm wrong Longshanks was exactly what you said at the July Investor day). I do wonder if this is just par for the course for gaining OEM contracts but it is so frustrating as a shareholder. Even more frustrating is that the VDA 6.3 certification story appears to be evolving - not a blanket coverage - but an individual award from each OEM and also two parts to the test. We've all been talking up the VDA 6.3 certification because it was stressed at the 2016 AGM - now it appears its significance is less - which saps confidence. People on this board have described this Company as a "jam tomorrow" Company and it is hard to argue against this view given past performance. Longshanks also mentions that Management whilst displaying frustation with OEM delays also appeared relaxed - perhaps in relation to the current cash balance and run rate. That is one criticism I feel I would have of the Company is at times the language is too relaxed - almost along the lines of we have missed one model of car but it is ok as we will be on for the next. I come back to - VDA 6.3 certification is subject to OEM timing as are contracts - but completing OEM cell 1 to as far as they can go without a specific contract in mind is. We should still expect an RNS in 2018 along the lines of "OEM cell 1 has been fitted out and commissioned as far as possible and now stands ready in anticipation of our first OEM contract. Management are fully confident that OEM Cell 1 and the Company could be audited by either OEM3 or OEM5 and receive the appropriate VDA 6.3 certification." Do you agree Longshanks or is this not how it is going to work. FS
fillspectre
29/11/2017
16:05
Many thanks from me also, much appreciated. Happy to hold for the long (but hopefully quicker than that!) haul given the large potential upside and the commitment to date from the various OEMs, which should translate into contracts at some point.
rivaldo
29/11/2017
09:39
ditto I couldn't make it yesterday, so many thanks to both of you Interesting comments regarding OEM5 and useful to have actual numbers for the AM production run.
timbo003
29/11/2017
09:30
Many thanks to Longshanks and Graham1TY for your reports from the AGM. Puts a much clearer picture of the importance/timing of the VDA completion.
bdaonion
29/11/2017
07:59
I agree with what you say GTY.The key issue is that there are two separate qualification processes for German OEMs. One is around testing the product on the model to meet performance criteria whilst the other is around ensuring the manufacturing process meets industry best practices including a fully documented audit trail.It was also clear that the VDA audit team will be a different group of people to those doing the product testing.The réticence of the BoD on when these qualifications will be met I felt was more to do with being wary of losing further credibility should the process be delayed into say Q3 2018.The important point was that once the statistical analysis required to satisfy the salt test has been completed, OEM 3 will be pushing to have remaining barriers (including the VDA 6.3 audit) completed quickly.As mentioned previously, there is still clear commitment from OEM3 to the relationship and both parties are working hard to ensure series nomination for the 2019 model.Unrelated to this but one snippet that DB raised was that OEM3 currently buy 100,000 CC disks p.a. rising in the near term to 160,000 disks. There is some evidence that Brembo/SGL will struggle to meet rising demand due to production constraints and a lack of investment in new facilities.
longshanks
29/11/2017
07:33
Further to Longshanks comments, let me try my stab at VDA6.3 DB said that SCE have not handled the issue of VDA with shareholders. It has taken on a life of its own and become too much of a focal point ( and being used as a marker for progress or delays). It is a “process”; test undertaken by each OEM separately. It is needed absolutely, but is different from the product quality test. So, I think DB said a disc could pass VDA but actually not be a good enough product, and vice versa. They might have a fabulous disc, that satisfies the OEM, but still need the VDA. So the VDA does not say “yup, the disc is great” and should not be used by shareholders as a proxy for whether the engineering and design of the disc is finished. As it is a process test, the OEMs will sign the VDA once the process is finalised. If they did the VDA test now, but before launch SCE tweaked the process, it would just have to be done again. That was my understanding. I think DB was trying to downplay ( not downplay, but reposition) the importance of the VDA. I did ask if the VDA will only be done when everything is pretty much ready to go, can shareholders look for the VDA as when an OEMis pretty much ready to go. He did not disagree. I am not sure that clarifies??? I suppose it places the VDA at a different place in the process. Rather than a process quality standard to be passed ASAP, and possibly holding up OEMs, it is something that will slot into place at the appropriate time. So, it is important, but do not focus on it or read too much into its exact date. And therefore the trading update the other day should not have focused on the VDA “delay”
graham1ty
28/11/2017
17:59
Thanks for the update longshanks. I try to remain optimistic but it would be no surprise to see further delays. It is just so frustrating.
albert_einstein
28/11/2017
16:44
I was able to attend too.The meeting was far more sobre than previous years; there were fewer PIs present but a full complement from the ST management team to chat with after the meeting.On the question of VDA 6.3 - I cleared up one question: both OEM3 and OEM5 will be carrying out separate audits. I don't see this as a major issue - but will wait for GTYs interpretation on VDA 6.3 before commenting.I do remain enthusiastic and can see the end game is definitely being played out. The board are frustrated to some extent by customers and their timing but with the new OEM cell 1 completing fully in the next 6-12 months and a clear cash runway through to 2020 with or without any OEM deal, they also seem somewhat relaxed.The company brokers have been working hard at widening the share register. There is a lot of institutional interest but unsurprisingly many would prefer to pay a 50% premium once a significant OEM nomination has been made.With OEM3 being a little slow to complete their processes, it was interesting to note that OEM5 is becoming a more significant customer. The BoD were extremely reluctant to give any timing estimates but I got a feeling that OEM5 is much further along the decision making process than we might presume.Separately I discussed with DB the Aston Martin deal and what might follow. The Valkyrie is otherwise known as the RB-001 and has a run of 125 cars. There is a race only model, RB-002, with 25 cars using carbon-carbon brakes and there is an interesting more commercial model coming, RB-003, with a run of 750 cars using carbon ceramic brakes. The RB-003 should be announced in the near future.
longshanks
28/11/2017
15:31
Rivaldo, AGM report to follow when I have time. They are, as always, upbeat. The factory move has gone well, cash will last until 2020, etc etc. A bit more explanation of why VDA approval is important, but for different reasons. OEM3 say they do the VDA test, when everything is ready to go ( do it earlier and might just have to repeat the exercise down the line). You either keep the faith or think enough is enough. Holders from 5/6 years ago ( inc me) have an average below 10p, and EIS benefits, so we will keep hanging on. More recent Placees at 16p, I am not so sure. My first AGM was 2012 and it makes sobering reading comparing the targets then, and the targets now. But I do think they are closer to the first big OEM order than ever before, but whether that is three months or three years, I am none the wiser
graham1ty
28/11/2017
15:25
Anyone go to the AGM? I see all resolutions were passed. And there was a presentation, which isn't up on the web site yet.
rivaldo
27/11/2017
16:44
FS Unfortunately I don't have the time to attend the AGM. Sate
sate_uk
25/11/2017
13:14
Sate_uk - I was the shareholder sandwiched between Kevin Johnson and Professor Clark (one of the founders) - so off to your right. When I went to Stanlow it was Julio Faria that hosted me in his office. I too have the same hope for Surface Transforms - that I want it to be success for the personnel employed by the Company not just myself. It is not a great investment strategy I know - but this is the only Company I am in anyway emotionally connected with. Someone posted on here once "and another UK manufacturing industry is born" - and I thought they are of same mind as myself. More than ever post Brexit we need every bit of manufacturing Industry we can get. Good quality jobs for people turning out high quality high margin products - not subsistence living on paper thin margins. This Company certainly ticks the high barrier to entry box. Happy to discuss any aspect of Surface Transforms with you on this bulletin board. Are you attending the 2017 AGM on Tuesday? FS
fillspectre
24/11/2017
12:33
FS 30 April 2014, I went too. Going around the table former director/founder sat to my right, to my left was a shareholder, to their left was the nomad, another shareholder then a non shareholder then BD and KJ and I think another shareholder. I also remember nice sandwiches. I enjoyed the visit and wanted to visit the new place but was busy last time although I have an open invitation if I am ever nearby, which is unfortunately rare. I have followed their progress and I just want them to succeed, not just because I am a shareholder but I want them to achieve what they set out to do because I think they deserve the success. Sate
sate_uk
23/11/2017
22:31
Sate_uk - with the sentiments you have expressed below I sense you have been a very long term investor just like I have. Following this Company has taught me many things - I just wasn't asking myself the right questions to begin with. I did actually visit the Company when it was based at the Stanlow refinery complex because I used to pass it on my daily commute. Back then there was talk of rocket components and train brakes as well as car brakes. I'd have to consult the records but I'm thinking when I first got involved the total shares issued numbered comfortably less than twenty million. Fast forward a few years and I attended an investor day in April 2014 at Ellesmere Port. There were only nine attendees, two of whom were from Cantor Fitzgerald and a third guy who represented people in the City. David Bundred stated at that meeting that he was yet to regard Surface Transforms as a "quality Company". I came away from that meeting believing without question that David Bundred was doing absolutely the right thing in focusing the Company on car brakes. I also appreciated his statement about Surface Transforms not yet being a "quality Company" - I could see for myself the essential core of the business processes were established but that there was plenty of room for improvement. The new Knowsley facility will be a quantum leap forward. I do share a concern though about a future dilution but David Bundred has stated that ST are still confident in their numbers until they get to the cash break even point. I also, like you, think this Company is perennially undervalued and that you could never accuse ST Management of talking up the share price. I have watched some Companies in AIM put out RNS announcements that contain positive statements but not necessarily news about booked contracts and the price takes off. These very often loss making Companies go on then to have a fund raise capitalising on the recently bouyant share price. One could say who can blame them! Shareholders in ST are at least getting a part share in a factory that is turning out a quality product to some well respected names in the Car Industry. Physical assets exist in Knowsley. I also hang onto Kevin's comment at the 2016 AGM about the market for Carbon ceramic disc brakes not being a zero sum game - to gain a market share does not necessarily mean stealing clients from a competitor. If it helps you Sate_uk I too am choosing to keep the faith. FS
fillspectre
23/11/2017
10:40
My issue with all of this is that the long term shareholders who have been supporting the company for so long to keep the company running by providing its working capital and capital expenditure can see the long term potential but I don't think the share price adequately reflects this view. I can understand that the price is continuously eroded by the additional issue of shares but the perceived value should still be reflected in the share price. Of course as soon as the first contract is signed the share price will no doubt rocket and there is no reason to believe the current manufacturing capability is not adequate. I think we will all eventually be relatively happy with the share price but it will never be great without dividends which will only come around once they have secured considerable orders and have sufficient cash available for their working capital and future capital expenditure. Once we get to that stage I think I will finally be satisfied about my original investment. Until then we have a few more years to wait but after 14 years it won't seem that long. Sate
sate_uk
23/11/2017
07:16
PS OEM 3 = Porsche :)
toffeeman
23/11/2017
00:03
Longshanks, Toffeeman - I accept your prognosis around the naming of OEM3. I wouldn't want you to think I am obsessing about OEM3's name entering the public domain. My questions to David Bundred are more about the progress of the fit out of the OEM production line, the specificity versus generic nature of the production line and VDA 6.3 certification. The issue of the aerospace offset is minor in nature but I don't like RNS announcements to miss out giving progress on issues previously deemed important enough to cite in an earlier RNS announcement. To paraphrase the Highwayman's cry - I was hoping that Surface Transforms would literally "stand ready to deliver" with the first OEM production line. In other words they would complete the install, commission and gain certification independent of when the OEM contracts turn up. The question in my mind used to be - which comes first the production capability or the contract? - and this was very much settled for me at the 2016 AGM - the production capability of course! Whether ST are building the OEM production line disconnected from progress on a specific contract or whether there are very good technical reasons why the completion of the OEM production line and the signing of the first OEM contract by necessity have to run in parallel I'm trying to ensure I understand. The bottom line is that I trust that David Bundred is guiding ST towards gaining this first major OEM contract by doing all the right things and building all the right relationships. Things of this much value are going to take time. The other thing I am confident of is that when the contract comes it will be an enormous validation of STs potential - because the OEM will have done everything in their power to assure themselves ST are going to deliver to required quality and timeframe. FS
fillspectre
22/11/2017
16:41
Hi FS - I remember you well.There is nothing wrong overall with the questions you raise and yes, it is terribly important that shareholders should feel confident to challenge the company and its management.However I would caution against losing sight of the forest by concentrating too heavily on the trees.Whilst it would help raise the profile of ST to be able to name the OEMs that they are working with and might attract more retail interest - it would only be a transitory effect.The key milestone we are waiting for is the nomination by OEM3 for series supply. Not only because it releases OEM2 & OEM4 to also nominate ST but because the company will - overnight - transition from having an order book of £1-2m to one of £12-15m.With that secured revenue - the company becomes a very different investment. If it was Lada behind the contract or Maserati - it wouldn't matter because it is the numbers and timing that really count.For the same reason I am not overly interested in whether they have managed to get some offset deal with the aerospace supplier or not. It is the start of production on that contract that matters. Again the program and aircraft in question whilst ostensibly cloaked in anonymity are actually well known. That gives me confidence production will happen - it is just a matter of when.
longshanks
22/11/2017
08:15
Just like Apple won't permit IQE to use their name in RNS announcements But everyone knows the names of the OEMs - so publishing any one of them will have no effect on the share price.
toffeeman
21/11/2017
23:52
Longshanks - you were absolutely right about David Bundred being approachable. David has already replied to my email. He can't answer my questions prior to the AGM. The specific questions I have asked he has suggested that he gets Kevin to weave the answers into the AGM presentation where they can. I have asked some quite detailed questions in addition to the two I published on this bulletin board. Post AGM on the 28th November I can ring him when all the answers are in the public domain. So those attending the AGM will possibly benefit from the questions I have already posed as the presentation may be expanded to cover them if they are not covered already. . Longshanks - I was the chap sat in front of you at the Investor presentation in July. I agree with your statement that Surface Transforms is transitioning to a long term value investing stock. I also liked your write up from the July Investor day when you described the new furnace as standing ready to spin "carbon gold" or words to that effect. However, no matter how much I like the product, the story and the Management - it is important to ask some challenging questions. David has said he welcomes the questions and has no problem with them. . I still think that there is a benefit to be gained in Surface Transforms' standing amongst the wider retail investor community when the name of OEM3 is officially publicised. Think of it like this - you may know who they are - but at the moment OEM3 does not want Surface Transforms to mention them by name in relation to contract discussions. When OEM3 allows its name to be directly associated with Surface Transforms in official announcements it will be a material change to the current state of affairs. It will be a progression of sorts. FS
fillspectre
21/11/2017
11:01
Thanks for the reply Longshanks. Still holding all of my chips.
quemaster
21/11/2017
07:55
FS - everyone who is anyone knows the names of the OEMs involved.Personally I don't think revealing the names will do anything. The "market" is waiting for OEM nominations for series supply and the numbers involved; not who is making those nominations.Currently you have a company with a turnover of £1.5m p.a. and significant losses as it invests in growth. Within two years there is an increasing likelihood that turnover will be £17m p.a. and profits running at approx £6m p.a.Some on here doubt the story, have got tired of the process. Some have cashed in their chips and some are wishing they had when confidence was last in the ascendant. This is investing at its most natural and raw state. We all crave certainty, and yet we also crave megatastic returns. The company is transitioning from one that appeals to speculation to one that appeals to long term value investing. Currently there is still plenty of speculative opportunity but within two years that will most likely change.I don't as yet know if I will be able to attend the AGM. I normally do and report back, but this year I am particularly busy. I recommend that if you can, you do attend and meet the BoD yourself. They are very approachable and refreshingly candid.
longshanks
21/11/2017
06:58
As I understand it the audit team will be coming from the parent organisation to OEM3 and not OEM3 itself.In terms of scale, whilst OEM5 would be an important customer, its initial indicative requirements are less than 20% of those coming from the group companies of OEM3.Whether OEM5 requires a separate audit or not is unclear but I believe that qualification to supply one German automotive OEM would qualify SCE to supply others.
longshanks
Chat Pages: 166  165  164  163  162  161  160  159  158  157  156  155  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:41 V: D:20171216 05:31:18