Forum Topics RFT RFT Bear Case

Pinned straw:

Added one year ago

I agree with the comments made, but thought I would put a bear case.

Bear case #1. No large follow-on orders, revenues drop to the previous average.

Bear case #2. Large order does eventuate, but requires setting up a manufacturing capability in the USA. This goes poorly.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if #2 happened, although perhaps someone here knows about the US government incentives that de-risk this?


Held

Longpar5
Added one year ago

Also agree, and from my point of view, as a holder of RFT with a bullish outlook, I really like to see the bear case posted and its a great part of the strawman value prop.

I agree with you, something like your option b) feels like what is spooking the market to me. Catalysed by the new director Jitto Arulampalam coming on board with a history in banking, capital markets and corporate activity. Whether its expansion to the US who knows, could be something a bit more simple like raising working capital to accelerate and close the next round of fast charging contracts, or a new product. I would expect customers might be pushing for proof of capacity or some sort of financial incentive or penalty on availability/timing in the contracts - this might mean that RFT need to break their usual conservative capital management practices to be ready. Maybe I’m over egging it, they seem to have been able to access debt in the past.

like you say, an expansion could go wrong, but it could go very right too! In another market this would be a hot rumour, with people buying into the expansion potential! At the moment its “this could go wrong - sell”, another day its “how big could this be - buy buy buy”! All weighed up I think what we’re seeing is a long term buying opportunity, but there is enough signs of smoke around with the timing (ie. contracts coming to expiry), new director (feels like he’s in to do a job) and the share price action to make me nervous about some short term volatility. You’ll never get a great deal when its obvious!

I’m not sure about incentives for rectifier for moving to the US in great detail, however for their customers (Eg. tritium), manufacturing in the US with a higher percentage of US made components helps them qualify for IRA benefits. In a large expansion scenario for RFT, it potentially makes sense that there’s manufacturing in the US (Australia could also be an option as we are likely to qualify as a local under a deal with US) could make sense, while they current manufacturing could provide customers elsewhere. I didn’t think this would be necessary yet though, my notes from the strawman discussion say that Nicholas Yeoh did confirm they’ve been in talks about it.


33

BoredSaint
Added one year ago

Probably also doesn't help when Tritium's own future is also in doubt..

51ce7b457dc82b2a13cabc282664f779e381f8.png

Disc: Not held.

23

Wini
Added one year ago

@Llati @Longpar5, good conversation on potential capex if RFT does decide to expand manufacturing the US. This paragraph in the annual report is all we have to go off:

4a03c264e7eefa7a7a83527b5d5ba954052d57.png

The NEVI program forms part of Biden's "Build America, Buy America" funding to try and re-shore manufacturing the US. I think it's extremely important RFT is able to be compliant for their customers who would be looking to sell into the $7.5bn program. What this means in practice:

ccb7c958ec0cda74ebb3dc71ef6c00d6610018.png

So it may not be a requirement of RFT to expand manufacturing if customers are able to stay under the 55% threshold.

It's also worth considering how much capex could potentially be even if manufacturing was expanded. The total cost of the Malaysian expansion was ~$2.5m for land and buildings and another ~$2.7m in plant and equipment built up over the last few years. You would hope they could find suitable facilities in the US that wouldn't require the >12 months is took to build the Malaysian facility, which would drastically reduce the capex requirements and leave it closer to the cost of the plant and equipment.

What would change the economics is I suspect RFT's uses low cost Malaysian opex as a substitute for capex, so you would either see margins hit because of higher US cost base, or higher capex to automate the manufacturing process further.

But either way, I would view any US manufacturing expansion a huge positive for the business. I am sure the decision wouldn't be made on a whim, but rather after detailed discussions and likely contracts with key US customers to support the process.

35

RhinoInvestor
Added one year ago

Based on its current share price performanc, I'm guessing Tritium might have a bit of space in their new shed in Lebanon, Tennessee


e31727e09b5912a78d69df0de8e09949ae5754.png


DISC: Hold a small amount of DCFC and RFT IRL (... even smaller recently)

16

BoredSaint
Added one year ago

I just realised that RFT has a higher market cap than Tritium…

17

RhinoInvestor
Added one year ago

I saw they got a notice from the NASDAQ to get their share price up above $1 in the next 180 days ... https://investors.tritiumcharging.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tritium-receives-nasdaq-notice-regarding-minimum-bid-price. That was a trigger for sending the price even lower.

I just sold a May 2024 covered call for 5c on my DCFC holdings with a $1 strike price. Brokerage was an eye watering 10% of the proceeds.

At 24c a share, I've capped my upside at 4x and have received a 20% premium up front if the SP doesn't make it. Worst case its going to zero (but it was doing that whether I sold the option or not and I only lose 19c instead of 24c).

@Strawman did I make the right "asymmetric bet" or have I just polished a turd?

21

Strawman
Added one year ago

Haha, time will tell @RhinoInvestor!

I don't actually mind the use of covered calls when you're happy holding the underling anyway and think most of the upside is captured at be the strike price.

12