Hi Jacob,
You have asked about the probability of SMU being a takeover "target."
Well, such a move certainly couldn't come as unfriendly, as existing management holds over 30% of the outstanding shares.
At the moment, I would conclude that the shares have too much upside potential (that is important...remember, I used the word *potential*), for management to conclude that a sale made sense. I am assuming, of course, that ITS (inflatable tubular structures) can overcome the latent difficulty of marketing a "not invented here" product through the first tier suppliers.
As you know from my earlier post, in my view that is the *only* reason that the "curtain" is even currently under development, as the first tiers would certainly prefer to utilize their own designs for protection, thus mitigating the necessity to either buy or license the ITS technology from Simula. Assuming the auto companies *demand* the better protection that Simula's products provide (and I do believe that is likely, though the only hard evidence of that fact at the moment is BMW and the recent NHTSA and National Insurance Institute commentary), Simula's long-term appreciation potential so far exceeds any takeover premium achievable now as to make a company sale very short-sighted.
However, should Simula continue to find that marketing ITS remains difficult (perhaps in the next year or so, assuming that no contracts are added), I think your question has significantly greater pertinence.
We will just have to wait and see, Jacob. But, I can tell you absolutely (at least in my mind!), that if Simula signs two or three (or perhaps even more) ITS agreements within the six months that follow the new Standard 201 Regs due to be printed in the Federal Register, that the stock will reward you...within a period of several years...beyond your wildest dreams of avarice.
Give it a year, Jacob. Then you will know.
Have a great weekend. |
