I think @RobW you are on the money with Banya sw / delisting on the way.

@RobW @Duffshot38

Given the track record you’ve got every right to be suspicious but let’s not forget Hanlon’s razor:

‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.’

My guess on how things have played out:

1/ Late last week and Monday Pointerra caught a bit of a bid. I’m guessing this was just a coincidence as other…erm…“quality” names (think brn, wbt, axe) were running pretty hard.

2/ Pointerra must have had something half-decent close to agreed and Ian (always watching the share price like a hawk…sigh…) did the right thing and went into a halt

3/ They obviously didn’t have enough detail to release a proper announcement. At this point they should have extended the halt or gone into voluntary suspension. It looks like they either tried to release something half baked or failed to release anything and the ASX has put a stop to it.

All in all I doubt this is a disaster / delisting situation.

No doubt Ian and Milan are also working flat out trying to convince the auditors that they are a going concern. We will find out soon if the auditor has signed off the half year accounts. That is a bigger risk wrt delisting imo.

Disclosure: I hold and am hugely biased

oh dear, not a great look.. I suspect there's a degree of Hanlon's razor at play @Hendy, but incompetence isn't much better than malice in terms of the end result.

Hopefully they're sitting on some spectacular news, because even the most die hard supporters won't hold the faith forever.

Such a shame, the company has some really valuable tech. It's the commercialisation/execution that's been the issue, and it reminds me of the line "growing yourself broke" -- the situation where you prioritise top line growth without an adequate capital base or reliable funding source in place. The payback is just too long on your growth investments, and the business runs out of cash before becoming self-sustaining. If that happens in a higher cost of capital environment, look out.

I do understand it though -- there's intense pressure from the market to grow, and cheap funding seemed like it would be around forever. The market opportunity was vast and obviously Pointerra wanted to capture as much share as it could before too many other similar products were developed. In a different world, where funding arrangements remained more favourable, or where their big US utility clients weren't cutting back on capex, it could have been a very different outcome.

I guess that's why you always have to manage your downside. No growth is justified if pursuing it presents an existential risk.

Anyway, we'll see what happens, but the company is fast running out of options (At least any that would be favourable to existing shareholders)

It just reinforces my view that management is struggling / out of depth.

I won't disagree with any of that - because I have a low opinion of 3DP's management also, and I won't invest in them, but just to clarify: Trading Halts have short time frames, as explained in the ASX-Listing-Rules-Chapter17.pdf - at 17.1 on pages 1701 and 1702, as shown below:

The example that the ASX give there directly below the rule that I've highlighted in blue is EXACTLY what happened here in Pointerra's case - except that the reason for the trading halt was an announcement regarding the award of a material contract rather than a major acquisition (a major acquisition being the reason used in the example above); Pointerra requested a trading halt on Monday afternoon, so they had to either make the announcement that lifted the trading halt on Monday afternoon or Tuesday, but by the commencement of normal trading on Wednesday morning at the very latest OR instead request a trading suspension because they need more time, and a trading suspension can continue indefinitely as long as they continue to pay their listing fees and do not break any of the other listing rules. If they do NOT request a trading suspension before the trading halt is due to expire (commencement of trading Wednesday in this case, and in the example given by the ASX above), then the ASX will AUTOMATICALLY roll them into a trading suspension. They ALWAYS do, at the START of the SECOND trading day after a trading halt has been called for if the company doesn't do anything, because a trading halt can not exceed one full trading day after it has been called for, and that full trading day was Tuesday.

So it's not so much that the ASX was all over them, it's just the way trading halts work. They are very short term, and if the company needs longer than the full day after the trading halt is called for, then a trading suspension is their only option. You can keep extending a trading suspension indefinitely, but not a trading halt.

To clarify further, with regard to the ASX's wording in today's announcement (on Wednesday):

It sounds like the ASX is saying that they wrote to or emailed Pointerra on Tuesday (27th Feb) requesting specified information, and they MAY have done that, however as I understand it, the listing rules REQUIRE 3DP to provide that information (details) about the "material contract award" on Tuesday, or before the opening of trading on Wednesday at the latest, because the impending disclosure of the details of the "material contract award" was the very reason that 3DP gave for their trading halt request on Monday afternoon, so the wording in the ASX's announcement on Wednesday (reproduced above) is that 3DP have failed to comply with that "requirement", not failed to comply with that "request", so I'm fairly sure this was automatic, based on the listing rules, rather than being the result of 3DP failing to respond to a "please explain" letter from the ASX. At this point at least.

That's trading halts. Now to trading suspensions - which 3DP are now in - If a company calls for a trading suspension then it has to give an expected timeframe, which can be days, weeks or months, but when the ASX move a company into a trading suspension either automatically (as in this case) or because they have issues with some aspect of a company's announcement(s) or behaviour and they have issued the company with a "please explain" letter and are awaiting a response from the company (likely NOT the case here, yet, but it could be the case if 3DP's first announcement - which we are still waiting for - is deficient in the view of the ASX), the ASX do not give any timeframe because the ball is in the company's court, and the ASX has no idea how long the company are going to take, and don't much care, as long as they aren't trading. In these cases it's all about market participants being able to trade in a fully informed market, so while a company is suspended from trading there are no concerns about that, because no trading is taking place. The ASX is prepared to give companies as long as they wish to take in these cases, because as long as they're not trading, there isn't much for the ASX to worry about in terms of that company.

In summary:

1. Trading Halts - can only last until the opening of the SECOND trading day after the trading halt is called for, no longer. It can be shorter, but not longer. Can not be extended.
2. Trading Suspensions - can last indefinitely. No time limits.

There is one further step, which is called "Removal from the official list", otherwise known as delisting, and it's usually permanent. It occurs when a company is taken over by another company or when a company doesn't pay their annual ASX listing fees within the required timeframe, or for other various reasons. A company going into voluntary administration doesn't mean they will get delisted immediately; there is a process when companies go broke, and it takes time, but a company in that situation would be suspended during that period before eventually being delisted. 3DP is not in that situation at this point in time.

So for all intents and purposes a trading halt and a trading suspension really aren't any different from each other, other than one has a short timeframe and the other doesn't have any limits in regards to time (except when a company is subsequently delisted - which is not applicable in this case at this point in time).

Excellent context @Bear77 and you may well be right @UlladullaDave

Periods of peak pessimism are interesting, so i'm very interested to see what they announce. One very significant contract with a near term rollout may prove to be a turning point in the company's fortunes.

Or, it could be insufficient and over-hyped.

We'll see!

Well, I can't think of one good reason to stay invested here. A board and management that has a tenuous grasp on basic governance and shareholder stewardship. Hard pass.

That's a fair assessment @thunderhead - and I note that they are still in that trading suspension one week later (05-March-2024). And they released their H1 report: 3DP-Half-Yearly-Report-and-Accounts-for-half-ended-31-Dec-2023.PDF ...which doesn't fill me with optimism. Especially the "Going Concern" section on pages 12 & 13:

The directors have a strategy - you'd hope so! - and that strategy relies on:

1. Revenue Growth;
2. Generating Positive Cashflow from Operations; and/or
3. Spending less

However, they note (at the bottom of page 12, reproduced above) that, "Should this not occur, or not occur on a sufficiently timely basis, there is a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern and therefore, the Company may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business."

That's a serious warning to jump ship if ever I heard one. For anyone still on the ship that is...

[And there is the fact that they are suspended from trading, so those who are in, are locked in, for now...]

I note that the auditors did not audit this report, they just reviewed it, however I have heard here that this is not uncommon with half year reports, the full year reports need to be fully audited, the half year reports, not so much.

I've also shown that "Comparatives" section (above) from page 13. Is it just me, or is that a lot of adjustments and reclassification of expenses?

I'm no accountant but that seems like a lot of number shuffling for such a small company.

They have a severe lack of traction with their business model (sales), resulting in a lack of cash, and the fact that they still have negative cashflow, so it's not getting better. And their losses are getting worse. Revenue for the half was down 36% on the p.c.p. and their operating loss after income tax for the half-year amounted to $4,584,490, which means they lost 45% more than they did in the p.c.p. (31 December 2022: $3,171,186 loss) and their costs are rising significantly as well: Non-cash expenses of $922,232 compared to $298,501 in the p.c.p. And what about this?! Negative Net Tangible Asset (NTA) Backing:

And that NEGATIVE $0.0046/share NTA is actually 9.2 times worse than it was when it was NEGATIVE $0.0005/share [0.0005 x 9.2 = 0.0046] twelve months ago.

Not much to like!

This Time It's Different – The 4 most dangerous words in the Investment world, according to investing pioneer Sir John Templeton.

Perhaps in this case the 7 most dangerous words could be: The next six months will be better.

They might be, but what if they're not?

@Bear77 - you are hitting several nails on their heads, as is typical.

The odds seem heavily stacked against anyone taking the other side of this.

Yeah, it might seem a bit heartless, in terms of "Hit 'em while they're down!", but I hope people point out the risks to me with some of my losers where I keep giving them more and more rope - like Swoop (SWP) which I STILL hold both here and in a real money portfolio. 3DP and SWP are chalk and cheese, but I make mistakes too, it's part of the process. It can be reduced but not entirely avoided. I think what we CAN avoid is riding these companies all the way into the ground (to zero). 3DP isn't far away from that now. Swoop is positioned a lot better, fundamentally. Technically they both look horrible, but I don't tend to put a lot of stock in technical analysis - as you know TH. 3DP just look horrible every which way I look at them.