PS skc: But hey! I trade the stock by the chart. Neither do I intend to marry it, nor do my grandkids need a bundle of Aussie shares - I hope they're well and truly on their way, scratching a living on their own, when I become late. I'm sure the crematorium people can do their job without assistance.
Even though I quoted you I definitely didn't mean you at all. Just a general comment.
(my back of an envelope calculations suggest that for an IV of $13 AKP would need to have an EPS of around 75c which would equate to a NPAT of about $20m - a hell of a turnaround from the current losses!)
For an investment to pay off in AKP (or any other early stage tech like this), it is unlikely that it's through earning revenue and making profits. Once they have shown enough that their technology works, a larger trade buyer will come at take it out at a price that is unrelated to earning or anything like that.
Read the latest announcement by Fred Bart - Chairman. He clearly states that the chip works, and so advises the ASX. If he's not telling the truth he's in huge trouble, unlikely for a fairly wealthy guy that would not be interested in going to jail.
ASX announcements are not gospel facts, and rarely anyone has ever gone to jail because what they announced turned out to be false. There are many ways to explain why things didn't work out as planned / initially stated. Not saying Fred Bart is lying... but just pointing out that "all ASX announcements are true" is not a logic that stands up.
I have always taken a punt with this stock, there were periods when I was definitely underwater. Point is, if this chip does what Fred Bart says it does, then it is a total game changer, worth god knows what.
It may or may not be a great technology that works. I guess my observation with these things is that ...
a). It's near impossible for the average punter (even if they are engineers in the same field) to get a handle on the scientific and commerical viability of the technology.
b). It's certainly not possible for the non-technical average punter (i.e. those Comsec fad traders) to assess and price the technology... yet it is their activities that set the market cap.
c). People buy the bluesky but don't price the probability of success.
That's the whole dot com boom in a nutshell... and it's replayed in micro segments all the time. Selected few will be winners, while the majority will amount to nothing.
The one thing that stood out to me from the list I posted above... is how little they are spending on R&D. If the application is potentially worth $billions, then the chance of this being discovered and developed in the hands of a company spending $2m a year in R&D is quite small. Not impossible, but small.
There are some ideas which don't make logical sense based on conventional thinking - Silicon Valley wouldn't exist based on your concepts. I'm not suggesting you invest in Audio Pixels - I'm not a licensed financial advisor. I'm just sure glad that I did. I'll post again in 3 months, whatever happens, and you can then either rubbish me or be very envious.
This is true to some extent. Silicon Valley buys concepts all the time. Australia has a relatively underdeveloped capital market for this. I met with a VC once who started a fund basically buying Australian tech companies and selling it to his US counterparts. It's a valuation arbitrage...
Please don't take anything posted here personally. It's just different opinions and different approaches to risk and reward. Good luck with your investment and do share more of your research on why you choose to back AKP.