Commentary and opinion only...no links(!). In olden times I could rightly be accused of being in love with OE. But those days are long gone. If I hadn't remained convinced that the technology would gain significant market penetration, in both 2S and 4S applications, I would have sold all shares and moved on, consequently depriving myself of a fair amount of shareholder distress. Hopefully though, OE will best the competition, someday produce a positive bottom line, allow us all to forget the trying times, and provide a return sufficient to make the wait worthwhile. At the present moment those are just wishes. Current reality bites.
Following the Siemens announcement I sold 2/3's of my position. Do I feel lucky, having dodged several thousand dollars in loss since? Not really, as the sting from holding the remaining shares is enough to make a camper unhappy. While I entertain the idea of increasing my position again, my current opinion is to "hold", not trying to buy at the bottom, but to wait and see what unfolds over the short term. I would definitely not recommend this stock as a buy to any close friend. I can't see any analyst sticking his or her neck out with a "strong buy" at this point in time either. In a strange way, despite the success OE has had in gaining beachheads in the marine and cycle markets, the stock, IMO, still remains quite speculative. Why still so speculative? Why? Not because OCP technology is being leapfrogged by the competiton. Not because air quality has improved to the point where further reductions in pollutants are unnecessary. Not because inertia in the auto&marine&cycle industries has increased...and so on. Still so risky because the credibility and competence of management & board is an issue.
I cannot see major money coming into the stock until OE's BOD addresses this problem. Schlunke et al. are not believable. What was management thinking...not only failing to warn of greater than expected 1/2 year losses, but amazingly, giving guidance that losses could/would be less than was rumored? Didn't they learn anything from the convertible/Mercedes episode? The similarity is striking. In each case it seems that they figured that they had pretty much nailed down a deal so they confidently went forward, raising money via a floorless convertible to meet Mercedes's needs, and, most recently with an unnamed potential customer, announcing to the world that the company would approach breakeven for the 1/2 year if a deal(s) in progress were promptly consummated. Each episode a lesson in giving away negotiating leverage...and in exposing shareholders to unnecessary risk. Incredible! Yet I suppose a rationale might exist that makes such strategies justifiable, but for the life of me, I remain mystified...and frustrated...and pissed off.
Are they guys in Perth feeling so secure in their positions that they regard themselves as truly permanent employees? So insulated that maintaining a modicum of credibility with the investment community is not a priority?
Was I the only one who felt insulted by Schlunke's disingenuous comments in the most recent Western Australian article? Honesty, integrity...absent. The photo of a smiling CEO was just salt in the wound.
End of diatribe. I'm waiting for the board of directors to act. |
