Just watched the recent AVA interview with Mal and while there were a few more "We"s - they were still outnumbered by the "I"s @Bushmanpat - still it's hard to come away from that interview without a more positive view on AVA's future, especially with the fixed cost base and all additional revenue falling through to the bottom line now, which, while it's obviously not that simple, is still a pretty good indication that they may well be at a positive inflection point.

While I'm not going to buy any AVA on Monday - I'm going to stay on the sidelines and watch their next couple of reports to see if the rhetoric is matched by results - my cold view on AVA could be thawing a little.

On the one hand, it's good that Mal knows he's part of a team ("We") however on the other hand, he gave plenty of kudos to various groups of AVA employees at various times in the interview - so he clearly knows that the company is only as good as the whole team - and using the "I" instead of "We" a number of times did show me that he understands that the buck stops with him and that he is ultimately responsible for both the strategic direction the company takes as well as the implementation of those plans.

It was good to hear Mal call out what he had underestimated when he took over, and why he was more bullish than he should have been on what they could achieve - in terms of timelines. So - infrastructure program cycles (length of), and how they did lose work as they turned over employees, and that work had to be replaced, but that he's been happy with the team members since August last year and he's very happy with their performance at this point in time given the size of the company and the nature of the industries in which they operate.

So - yes, there are positives. However, I originally bought into AVA after doing some research and then watching one of the Rob Broomfield interviews here on SM a couple of years ago - which pushed me over the line, and while I did actually make money on AVA, that was only because I got out early shortly after they started turning pear-shaped. So I have since learned not to rush out and buy shares straight after watching an interview with a company's CEO or MD - or even a very sensible and convincing CFO like SXE's Chris Douglass - because it's their job to sell the story and accentuate the positives - and our job to uncover the negatives - as best we can.

So while I maintain that prior to Mal joining AVA the company's track record of capital allocation was actually woeful, I do feel like they should return to one of my watchlists now - I'm not buying back in yet, I want to see the results on the board first in terms of decent profit growth on good revenue growth with decent margins, but yeah, I'll be watching them again now at least.

I appreciated that in this interview it wasn't all hype and positive spin, there was honest discussion about the failure of the industry to sell themselves to their addressable market, Mal's previous underappreciation of infrastructure investment program cycles and how long they can take, and how turning over two thirds of a sales team can have significant impacts on your work tender pipeline. Plus some other stuff.

Positives included that Mal understands investors are going to be impatient and he's not obsessed with the share price, he's focusing on what he should be focusing on and letting the share price do whatever it's going to do, as good management should. Revenue, profits and margins. And not giving stuff away. As Jason Dixon at EGL said last year (and I'm paraphrasing a little), we make good gear and we're allowed to charge for it; We don't need to give it away.

Mal making sure that his sales staff know that margins must be maintained and good business practices need to be followed, even if it means losing some sales, is good to hear!

So - he's saying all the right stuff. And now I just want to see that translate into some consistent financial results. Which will obviously take time.

Nope wasn't asked mate, ran out of time before mine was asked too.

I guess there’s no point asking.

It’s a question that really answers itself.

Sorry if I missed any questions.. time got away from me. Bad time management on my part.

I honestly think very few questions are off-limits, as long as they’re reasonable and asked with respect (which I always aim for). But like @topowl said, some questions just don’t get you far.

It’s a tricky game -- we’re trying to assess a whole bunch of things from the outside, based mostly on the explanations of someone who, while highly knowledgeable, is also massively incentivised to present the best possible picture.

That’s why I pay close attention to those little off-the-cuff remarks -- they can be surprisingly revealing. And it's why I try to create a safe, relaxed space rather than going in too hard(even if it probably comes across a little sycophantic at times). That’s usually when people let their guard down a little and you catch some useful nuggets.

At the end of the day though, a lot of it comes down to trust..and that’s something each of us has to weigh up in our own way.

honestly, I think you nailed it @Strawman

i think your approach to these i/v’s is spot on.

much appreciated

Yes @Strawman, I agree with the general sentiment from the other SM members on this forum. The meeting was of value and while some harder questions were not forthcoming, I think with a confident and similarly cautious CEO like Mel softly, softly and watch for small clues is probably the right option.

He is a very confident CEO that has that certain "my way or the highway" aura. Sort of works when real focus is needed to get the desired outcomes already communicated to the market. As long as Mel continues to say follow my lead and pushes a strong, unwavering vision and lives that vision himself, then I think $AVA had a chance to kick some real goals.

Most fascinating for me were these 2 points:

1. The number of references to how well AVA engages with the big boys ( Honeywell, UGL eyc) and how they are now using them as solid referees. Which leads to my second point and something I raised on the forum last week re possible takeover.

2. Mel tiptoed around the possibility of a potential predator with the immediate response being, I don't want to comment on that. However he went on a deflective run after that statement which, in a roundabout way seemed to say the Board looks at all of these things favourably. (That's my reading between the lines take when listening live).

I'm already an investor IRL, albeit showing current loss, but I'm happy to hold long-term and also to take a stake again in my SM portfolio.

Thanks for the meeting @Strawman

@Strawman putting you on the spot: nearly a year ago you suggested FY25 was a "do or die year" for you.

With reporting to date suggesting another disappointing year, and three downward revisions of guidance, have you changed your stance?

I'm not sure I'd say FY25 is looking to be disappointing in an absolute sense.@Rocket6 ..just relative to initial (and, it seems, overly optimistic) guidance.

After all, revenue grew 20% in the first half, with a positive operating profit, and they should take second half revenue from $16m in the pcp to $18-21m, which is anywhere between 12 and 30% growth.

Not as high as we were led to expect initially, but not a tragedy. And certainly not given we're seeing wins with more important customers, and without costs bloating out.

Maybe I'm being naive, but Im still willing to entertain the notion that while Mal and co got a little hubristic with their outlook, sales will continue to build. It's just taking longer than expected (it's probably not a goood.comparison, but the turn around of Catapult took a lot longer than was initially hoped too. I guess I'm just ok with a weaker than hoped pace so long as the general trajectory is in the right direction).

Still, it is make or break in the near term. It'll be tough to justify a hold if growth doesn't start to accelerate.soon.

Nicely put @Strawman, makes sense! My suggesting 'another disappointing year' might be a tad harsh in fairness -- lets see how H2 pans out.

I am keeping an eye on them; particularly interested in their costs reported in the annual report. I find they aren't very transparent in their reporting, despite reporting quarterly and at H1, a good eg. of a business where the annual report is required to have a proper look under the bonnet (at least in my view).