I feel you there, @skaex

I'll share some more detailed thoughts when I get a chance, but my take is that several issues have hit at once, none of which, in my view, undermine the long-term earnings power of the business. We're talking about a slowdown from a major customer, a heavy and perhaps longer than expected investment cycle, and the distraction of a family rift.

But overall, the business hasn’t gone backwards in terms of revenue, which remains steady, and one of the major divisions is actually growing strongly. They've built capacity to support double their current revenue. Maybe that growth doesn't materialise, but after 23 years, they seem to have a solid grasp of demand dynamics.

If this were a private business, I doubt the owners would be too concerned. It's always been a lumpy business that needs regular, material capital investment, both for growth and upkeep. Sure, no one loves a dip in profit, but as I said on the call, there's a big difference between cyclical and structural issues. I don’t see evidence of the latter unless you think management is fundamentally not up to the task, which I don’t, though I get why some might.

I’ll admit I probably give management more benefit of the doubt than most, which is an odd blind spot given my usual cynicism. It’s a bias that has cost me before.

But I also know how messy and uncertain running a real business can be. Too often, we investors assume malice or incompetence when it's really just a mix of tough breaks and everyday challenges, made worse by the pressure to appease short-term investors.

Think Hanlon’s Razor (never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or just difficulty). And remember, the cover-up is often worse than the misstep. Sometimes things go awry, but rather than own it and move on, management tries to sugar-coat it, and that’s where the trouble starts.

Anyway, like I said, I'm probably being too generous. I do hold a modest position which means I'm far from unbiased. Keen to hear what others think.

@skaex I think you are right to be frustrated like all LBL shareholders have been over the last few years, but to be fair to management from the point of view of communication and a clear sense of direction, I feel like the provision of 2H guidance was their attempt to do that.

As far as I am aware the business has never provided firm numerical short term guidance, so the fact they did after the 1H report was probably them admitting shareholders needed greater clarity.

They reiterated that guidance with the US expansion announcement the other week, and I thought they gave a good qualitative update on the recovery for the business in the meeting.

Sorry, I'm with @skaex, I found the session to be just more of the same. I don't doubt their sincerity and honesty but truly, would you blindly follow these guys into battle? I wouldn't; there's no zeal, no passion and there wasn't any major change to the tactics which have delivered a very lack-lustre result these past 5 or 6 years. The hyperbole has not been delivered, and I suspect Wayne is now gun shy on providing meaningful outlook.

Any lame business can try and buy their way to scale; the really good ones do it on organic growth and that’s what is lacking here. Gateway looks like a good acquisition – but isn’t this a bit like going to the dances with your best mate and his girlfriend hoping she will introduce you to others?

And to achieve organic growth, you need a technology leading product/service (or close to), an absolutely compelling story, chock full of believable benefits that are fully accepted by the market AND magnetic, almost zealous like, leadership who can ethically and easily convince staff and potential customers.

On the above 4 criteria I now think the LBL score is 0/4 – heck, isn’t that what the market is telling us.

Tick-tock, I personally don’t have the time for LBL to deliver.  

What is really hurting Laserbond is the poor performance of their Products Division. They are "economically dependent" in Wayne Hooper's words on two customers and one in particular has significantly reduced orders. The impression I got from Wayne is although they are making some headway in the Middle East this division is not expected to perform well in the short to medium term while they focus on optimising the local Services Division. It is possible competition in overseas markets is hurting the Products Division. Competition seems less of a problem in the Australian market. This is from Credence Research:

The laser cladding market is highly competitive, with several leading players focusing on innovation, technological advancements, and strategic partnerships to maintain their market positions. Companies such as LaserBond Limited, IPG Photonics Corporation, OC Oerlikon Management AG, and Jenoptik are key players driving growth in the market by offering advanced laser cladding solutions for various industries, including aerospace, automotive, and energy.

I think a fundamental problem with management is they are too conservative. They have been too slow recuiting staff and this has lead to a bottle neck in production. They were slow optimising to a modular cladding cell in the Technology Division and this has hurt sales. They are now too slow diversifying away from their OEM concentration in the Products Division and are possibly getting out competed by overseas competition in this space. This is a reactive management who take too little risk. Yes they have been prudent with capital but it has harmed the growth of the company. I think some of their wounds are self inflicted.

Having said that it looks like the Services Division is going to have a strong 2H and FY26. Wayne said there is "great growth" here. This will probably be reflected in the share price moving forwards and selling down here is a mistake in my opinion.

Laserbond management exist in the old world of prudence and ponderous decision making. The modern investor is impatient and greedy. Modern capitalism is cutthroat.

Held and holding.

Thanks, many things in life come before investing.

Just to be clear, it wasn't me who was involved the accident. Was just the first on the scene. Pretty intense if I'm being honest.

Thanks to all the kind wishes though, and sorry for not making that clearer.

Well done @Strawman. Not an easy job but super important. When I was 17 I had a motorcycle accident in the forrest behind the Iraqi embassy residence in Canberra and didn't get help for 2 hours with a broken femure (snapped thigh bone). People didn't leap to my rescue. Four of my school mates had a car accident on the same afternoon so half the science class was in Woden Valley Hospital that day. Two other motorcyclists from my year at school had fatal accidents around that time. 1000cc motorcycles, V8's and teenagers don't mix. Ironic that I ended up working 20 years in road camera enforcement! 1971 was the most dangerous year to be driving by a factor of 4 compared to today.

That sounds super painful @actionman, and probably the longest 2 hours of your life!

I have been quietly hoping self driving vehicles would be the norm before my kids were old enough to drive. I'll trust AI over an undeveloped frontal cortex when it comes to driving anyway :)

Yeah, gonna be interesting to see how the algorithm that decides whether to 'drive over the toddler in the road' or 'swerve your car into oncoming semi-trailer to avoid toddler' comes down in the real world, and then where the liability for that self driving car's 'decision' is attributed.

I think the algorithm just locks up the brakes in that situation @tomsmithidg - which is also what I would do, as driving into oncoming traffic is likely to cause multiple fatalities.

@Bear77 , just jamming on the brakes would likely mean hitting the toddler (for my scenario), issue is the same for humans deciding in a split second, but my point is that there needs to be an algorithm written to say that 'if x then y', raises a lot of issues including around ethics and liability. Don't even get me started on remote driving systems getting hacked. Lots of ethical and legal concerns to get sorted before I would want to see self driving cars hitting Australian roads.