Forum Topics AVA AVA Bull Case

Pinned straw:

Added 7 months ago

Ava Risk Group is in the business of protecting critical infrastructure and high-value sites from physical threats. It does this through smart fibre optic sensors, high-security access systems, and intelligent perimeter lighting and detection technologies. Its customers are governments, utilities, and large organisations that need to secure important assets.

The business has evolved a lot in recent years. It divested its logistics-focused services division (at a pretty incredible ROI, although the profits were essentially all paid out to investors rather than retained) and shifted focus to its in-house developed fibre-optic sensing tech.

This technology turns fibre optic cables into smart sensors that detect movement, digging, or climbing along a perimeter. It sends light through the cable and analyses microscopic changes in the reflected signal to classify activity in real time. (For the physics nerds: it uses Rayleigh backscatter and interferometry, with machine learning layered on top to turn raw signal data into actionable insights.)

The result is low power, high durability, and the ability to monitor long distances from a single system. Better yet, it can often be deployed over existing fibre infrastructure, avoiding the cost and disruption of new trenching.

That’s a big advantage over traditional perimeter security methods like fence-mounted vibration sensors, buried coaxial cables, or cameras, which usually require power at the sensing edge, have limited range, and are more prone to false alarms from weather or wildlife.

Alongside its core sensing business (Detect), Ava operates two other divisions: Access and Illuminate.

Access is all about high-security access control. Think biometric readers, encrypted smart locks, and secure systems for things like government buildings and prisons. Ava picked up this capability in 2014 through the acquisition of BQT Solutions. While Detect covers the perimeter, Access handles the internal entry points (doors, gates, restricted areas).

Then in 2022, Ava bought GJD Manufacturing, a UK-based business with expertise in perimeter lighting and detection. GJD makes things like motion sensors, ANPR cameras (for reading number plates), and IR and white-light illuminators -- hardware often used with CCTV to boost visibility and deterrence. Crucially, GJD tech allows you to trigger lighting or alarms in real time based on detection events, which ties in perfectly with Ava’s sensing capability. More recently, GJD released a LoRa-based wireless platform that can connect up to 500 devices without running cables, which is a big plus for complex sites.

Together, Detect, Access, and Illuminate make Ava a multi-layered security solutions provider. Think integrated systems that can detect, verify, and control access across some of the world’s highest-risk environments.

All of this sounds pretty compelling, but for a while Ava was really just a collection of standalone technologies. After the services divestment, it had some great IP but lacked cohesion. The segments operated more like parallel businesses. There wasn’t a unified go-to-market strategy. Internal systems and processes were a mess.

Then came Mal Maginnis. He joined as CEO in January 2023 and brought decades of defence and security experience. His job: get the machine working. That meant aligning products with customer use cases, building the sales and delivery backbone, and putting in place the systems needed to scale. Since then, Ava has become a much more focused business with a clearer strategy.

These changes take time. But it seems to be working. Revenue has grown steadily, hitting $30.2 million in FY24 (up from $28.6m in FY23) with FY25 forecast between $37 and $41 million.

More importantly, the quality of revenue is improving. Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) hit $2.4 million in H1 FY25, up 20% year-on-year. The company returned to positive EBITDA in the latest half, with a $1.7 million profit (a $2.6 million turnaround). Cash flow has stabilised, and a $4.3 million equity raise has help strengthen up the balance sheet.

A key thing to note is that the internal systems have now been overhauled, commercial reporting sharpened, and the go-to-market model rebuilt. The sales team, especially in North America and EMEA, has been beefed up. The business is now focused on high-value verticals like border security, transportation, telecommunications, and energy infrastructure.

Cross-selling and bundling are now at the core of the strategy. The aim is to combine sensing, locking, and lighting into end-to-end solutions. That makes deployment easier and the value proposition stronger. Existing customers and distribution channels are being used to expand into Europe, North America, and the Middle East. The product set has been mapped to real use cases (eg borders, transport, utilities) allowing Ava to pitch for larger, more complex jobs.

In short, Ava’s shifted from clever tech to real-world commercially viable solutions. The product suite is far more integrated, and we’re beginning to see early signs of faster top line growth and expanding operating margins.

And that's the key part of the thesis -- after two years of investing in internal systems, commercial teams, and product dev (which did weigh on margins), Ava now has the foundations for scale. Management believes the current cost base can support much higher revenue and we’re seeing early signs of operating leverage. H1 FY25 revenue was up 20% year-on-year, margins improved, and the business returned to EBITDA positive. It's a start, but we need to see this continue.

The hope is that earnings growth begins to outpace revenue growth, especially as recurring revenue lifts and more big contracts land. That growth is underpinned by a stronger product offering, growing list of reference sites, and deeper enterprise and government relationships. Larger customers bring longer sales cycles, but once Ava gets in, the revenue is stickier and more repeatable.

Meanwhile, recurring revenue is building. Multi-year support, monitoring, and upgrade contracts are adding predictability and smoothing cash flow.

This is the latest management guesstimate from February 2025:

e69ff82855e95bab23ef606d96bc76e5499294.png

This shows the business moving from modest top-line growth in FY24 toward a more profitable, scalable model over the next 12–24 months.

At 10.5 cents per share, Ava has a diluted market cap of about $30.5 million and an enterprise value of ~$27.9 million. That puts it at around 7× forward EBITDA on the low end of FY25 guidance. But that’s a little misleading because the business is subscale and right on the edge of breakeven. The cost base has been engineered to handle a lot more revenue. If that growth materialises, operating margins should expand meaningfully. If not, well, the economics would remain pretty average..

At scale, this should be a business delivering 10–15% net margins (at least). And that’s the bet: that Ava can grow into its cost base and scale profitably. If that happens, the upside is big in percentage terms. Even more so from a stock price perspective if success brings multiple expansion.

In that case, the stock is ridiculously cheap.

Of course, the risks are real. If growth stalls or costs creep back in, shares will likely languish under 10cps. But there does seem to be real asymmetry here -- more upside than downside.

The market clearly isn’t pricing in much success. Which, i suppose, is the opportunity.

So why the ‘meh’ valuation by Mr Market? Part of it is liquidity. Ava trades under $100k a day, which limits institutional participation and depresses multiples. But also, there’s a fair bit of market fatigue. Ava’s been talking up its potential for a while, and while revenue has grown, earnings haven’t really followed through..yet. The unexpected capital raise in FY24 probably dented confidence in the company’s ability to fund itself.

That’s why the next 6 to 12 months matter. The hard stuff has largely been done; internal systems, sales capability, product integration. Now Ava needs to execute. That means growing revenue and lifting margins in a visible, sustained way.

If Ava even gets close to its FY26 targets, a 25 cent share price looks entirely reasonable. Maybe more, if there’s real revenue momentum. If it doesn’t deliver, the stock likely goes nowhere.

So why to a lean towards an optimistic stance? Because business transformation takes time, usually longer than markets are willing to wait. Ava’s spent the last two years doing the boring but important work. That phase looks done. Now we’re seeing early signs of execution: revenue is rising, margins are improving, and EBITDA is in the black.

I’m also patient (stubborn? naive?) But what I see is forward momentum. Contracts with Telstra and UGL aren’t speculative pilots, they’re commercial validation. Moreover, the order book is growing and ARR is rising. They seem to reliably convert the sales backlog into cash flows.

I think there’s also a tailwind here. Whether it’s border control, energy infrastructure, or general geopolitical instability, the need for scalable, intelligent perimeter protection is only going up. Ava’s well-positioned to benefit.

So yes, it’s a bit of a turnaround story. And one I was admittedly too early with. But it’s a turnaround that’s showing signs of working.

Strong IP. Streamlined and rebuilt operations. Improving fundamentals. Potential for meaningful operating leverage. And a valuation that barely reflects any of it.

That’s the setup.

topowl
Added 7 months ago

Thanks for that @Strawman

What a post, that’s so much work !

Much appreciated !!

I wanted to pick your brain about the risks of a concentrated customer base and low insider ownership….

Where do these two things land in the mix with your thoughts on Ava?

20

jcmleng
Added 7 months ago

@Strawman, adding my appreciation to your and @DrPete's posts! Had 3 further questions to add to those from @topowl :

  1. You typically have a healthy cynicism for turnarounds ... (I love them!!) ! So it was surprising to see you back a turnaround, more so given what looks to be rather systemic issues. Why did this turnaround appeal more, I wonder, especially given @DrPete 's concerns around Mal's market-credibility?
  2. Where does Mal's market-credibility issue sit in your weighting/thoughts?


Discl: Not Held, on a mission to find a new company!

20

Strawman
Added 7 months ago

Thanks guys.

I’m not too concerned about customer concentration. They don’t break it down in detail, but given they operate across different industries and regions, it doesn’t seem like a major risk (happy to be corrected if I’ve missed something).

Mal doesn’t hold a huge number of shares, but he’s got performance rights that vest if the share price hits 40c by next January. That might be a stretch, and most of his earlier rights have lapsed without converting. Personally, I’d like to see him buying more on-market to show some added confidence.

The chairman, on the other hand, holds over 33 million shares, and the other directors have around 7 million combined — so there’s definitely some skin in the game at board level.

As for the turnaround, I don’t really see it as a classic turnaround story. It’s more a case of a business going all-in on new tech after spinning off a big part of their old business. It’s been a drawn-out couple of years as Mal has tried to reshape things, probably slower than the market expected (and slower than they originally suggested). The next 6–12 months feel pretty important.. if Mal doesn’t deliver close to what they’ve laid out, I’ll be marking down their credibility. Time will tell.

25

DrPete
Added 7 months ago

Sorry, yes, I underestimated "skin in the game". I hadn't understood that Pandon Holdings was also linked to the Chairman. So yes good to see significant holding there worth about $3.4m.

18

edgescape
Added 7 months ago

@jcmleng

Not sure if this could be termed a turnaround. It is more like a transformation from a services business gone horribly wrong!

I mean AVA looked like it was trying to rewrite the rulebook on business transformation in selling its top-performing services division so it can be more tech-focused and drive more business.

In the end it ended up selling more than it should and creating immense wealth destruction!

I think this has been spoken many times before but the previous management was incentivised to do this despite the overwhelming positives of keeping that division.

One obvious positive of keeping that division would be cross-sell opportunities on existing engagements

Anyway I'm glad I got out before that happened. Still watching from the sidelines as this is heavily followed here in Strawmn.

26

topowl
Added 7 months ago

Thanks for clearing that up @Strawman

Much appreciated.

Yes, good to see the chairman and board holding.

11

Bear77
Added 7 months ago

I agree that substantial skin in the game is usually a good thing, but you also have to look at the incentives of those who hold the most shares in terms of management and Board members. In AVA's case, the decisions they have made have been to pay dividends when they should have been reinvesting in the business and to award themselves very generous bonuses and incentive payments, particularly in late 2021 after the services business was sold off, so it could be argued, and I would argue, that those directors who had decent shareholdings prior to 2021 through to 2022 and beyond, acted more in their own self-interest than in the best interests of all shareholders and/or the best interests of the company over the longer term.

Plenty of insider share ownership usually results in superior capital allocation decisions by the management and Board, because they tend to run the business as owners rather than just as managers, but not so much in this case, and that's because they had other incentives. You know what Charlie Munger used to say about incentives and outcomes.

18

jcmleng
Added 7 months ago

@edgescape , @Strawman , both your not badging AVA as a turnaround gave me good food for thought in terms of what is and is not a turnaround situation. I ended up agreeing with myself that debating the definition was probably not value adding ..

As I was reading the posts, I compared AVA to my other "turnaround" companies - EML, AVH, EOS, CAT, and they had similar characteristics, plus minus. These companies were in a good spot, then something happened/did not happen which destroyed wealth (and boy, did these 4 companies destroy wealth for a long time), new management was brought in, a few "transformational" and/or back-to-basics things were done to get the company back to its former glory and beyond.

Regardless of definition, AVA does not cut it for me as it is missing one critical characteristic in turnaround situations that I look for, and that is management credibility. Need to have management which delivers as guided - a smart turnaround CEO would always under or "realistically" promise and over-deliver to regain back that lost credibility when wealth was destroyed. Mal sounds like the exact opposite - over promises and can't deliver ... that is an immediate deal-breaking red flag for me.

20

topowl
Added 7 months ago

Maybe it’s not about credibility — maybe it’s about accountability....aka skin in the game.

I’m fascinated by the psychology of it. Probably says more about me than the company.

Forget future options or long-winded incentive schemes — what do they hold right now? Because to me, that says everything.

Mal, for example, holds effectively nothing… but pulls $500k a year. And we’re supposed to take his outlook seriously?

Forget the chairman, forget the board — who are we actually listening to, and who are we being asked to believe?

Maybe that makes me cynical. Maybe grounded. Or maybe just someone who's been burned enough times to stop mistaking confidence for commitment.

Either way, when someone’s selling the dream, I want to see if they’ve actually bought in.

Skin in the game separates conviction from convenience. If your upside isn’t tied to the outcome, your opinion doesn’t carry much weight. It’s easy to sound bold when there’s no downside.

Yes I know, I don't just carry a red flag, I probably run quality control at the red flag factory...but that doesn't make me wrong....broke clock, two times a day and all that.

So when someone says “trust me,” I just say: how many shares do you own?

Ahhh, wouldn't it be easy if it all came down to one data point....alas

(p.s I'm still holding irl ....lol)

23

tomsmithidg
Added 7 months ago

Yeah that low share ownership, particularly as a percentage of annual salary, is a red flag for me, and I really don't like it. (only held in SM)

14

Bushmanpat
Added 7 months ago

From the latest Berkshire Hathaway meeting

It's easier to do stupid things with other people's money than it is with your own money.

Kinda sums up my thoughts on directors having skin in the game.

23