TLG Discussion 2022

[ACinEur]

100% I posted on here not that long ago it is time form MT to go…nothing against him personally, he just needs to be Head of Research and Exploration. And we need a real CEO who is capable of delivering. TLG is my worst performing holding by a very long way. One of those companies that ticks all the boxes, just not delivery.
One more Capital Raise will be the death kneel unfortunately, unless the proverbial rabbit can be pulled out of the hat.

 

[JNRB]

100% I posted on here not that long ago it is time form MT to go…nothing against him personally, he just needs to be Head of Research and Exploration. And we need a real CEO who is capable of delivering. TLG is my worst performing holding by a very long way. One of those companies that ticks all the boxes, just not delivery.
One more Capital Raise will be the death kneel unfortunately, unless the proverbial rabbit can be pulled out of the hat.

Yeah, Talga has transformed and grown a lot over the years. I think tou might be right.

 

[DAH]

100% I posted on here not that long ago it is time form MT to go…nothing against him personally, he just needs to be Head of Research and Exploration. And we need a real CEO who is capable of delivering. TLG is my worst performing holding by a very long way. One of those companies that ticks all the boxes, just not delivery.
One more Capital Raise will be the death kneel unfortunately, unless the proverbial rabbit can be pulled out of the hat.

I respect your opinion (like not long ago) but have to disagree. The fact you say it's your worst performing stock suggests you apportion poor SP performance with MT not being up to the task of running the company. As he has made pretty clear, his job isn't to focus on the sp, it's to progress the company forward and achieve long term growth. And no surprise that when you do that, the sp you desire follows. TLG are pre-revenue, they've dodged and weaved past numerous road blocks from all angles and have achieved a lot the past 12 months.

We can all easily list 10+ great outcomes the past 12 months. So like you I'm disappointed the sp sits where it is, but that's not an indication the company is failing. Way too many posters fail to see the company behind the sp. MT doesn't do anything if it's not in the long term best interests of the company.

Personally, my main and likely only critique of MT is that he got things wrong on permits and timelines. But it's easy for us to judge not knowing the full story. A lot of what's been happening is untested.

Anyway, my question is... what would a better leader have achieved? How would someone else have set the company up better for long term growth? Remember that no news doesn't mean it's bad news.

@cosors used an English word not long ago that I'm embarrassed to say I wasn't familiar with. But it suggested this is no longer an "if" but a "when" reality, and I totally agree.

 

[JNRB]

I respect your opinion (like not long ago) but have to disagree. The fact you say it's your worst performing stock suggests you apportion poor SP performance with MT not being up to the task of running the company. As he has made pretty clear, his job isn't to focus on the sp, it's to progress the company forward and achieve long term growth. And no surprise that when you do that, the sp you desire follows. TLG are pre-revenue, they've dodged and weaved past numerous road blocks from all angles and have achieved a lot the past 12 months.

We can all easily list 10+ great outcomes the past 12 months. So like you I'm disappointed the sp sits where it is, but that's not an indication the company is failing. Way too many posters fail to see the company behind the sp. MT doesn't do anything if it's not in the long term best interests of the company.

Personally, my main and likely only critique of MT is that he got things wrong on permits and timelines. But it's easy for us to judge not knowing the full story. A lot of what's been happening is untested.

Anyway, my question is... what would a better leader have achieved? How would someone else have set the company up better for long term growth? Remember that no news doesn't mean it's bad news.

@cosors used an English word not long ago that I'm embarrassed to say I wasn't familiar with. But it suggested this is no longer an "if" but a "when" reality, and I totally agree.

From my perspective, its not about being critical of MIT'S performance so far. It's about thinking about what the company will need going forwards. We are about to transition into a VERY different company to what Talga has been for the past 10+ years. Growing from an explorer/developer/technology researcher to a mature industrial materials and IP company operating multiple product lines in multiple locations around the globe. I think MT is still the one best suited to see us through the transition, but when we start getting to that sort of scale and complexiteit its naive to think that MT has that sort of experience. Yes a good board can help a lot, I still think at that point there will be better fits for CEO.

 

[BlackBeak]

From my perspective, its not about being critical of MIT'S performance so far. It's about thinking about what the company will need going forwards. We are about to transition into a VERY different company to what Talga has been for the past 10+ years. Growing from an explorer/developer/technology researcher to a mature industrial materials and IP company operating multiple product lines in multiple locations around the globe. I think MT is still the one best suited to see us through the transition, but when we start getting to that sort of scale and complexiteit its naive to think that MT has that sort of experience. Yes a good board can help a lot, I still think at that point there will be better fits for CEO.

Is that the same way Elon Musk failed to transition Tesla from start up to leader in the EV space? Or SpaceX from start-up to most efficient and leading rocket company and satellite internet provider? Or xAI from start up to a leading AI company?

I'm not saying MT is Elon, but wow, I can't believe people are trying to kick him out before we're even making revenue.

 

[BlackBeak]

From my perspective, its not about being critical of MIT'S performance so far. It's about thinking about what the company will need going forwards. We are about to transition into a VERY different company to what Talga has been for the past 10+ years. Growing from an explorer/developer/technology researcher to a mature industrial materials and IP company operating multiple product lines in multiple locations around the globe. I think MT is still the one best suited to see us through the transition, but when we start getting to that sort of scale and complexiteit its naive to think that MT has that sort of experience. Yes a good board can help a lot, I still think at that point there will be better fits for CEO.

MT also has so much intimate knowledge about the company, it's IP, the staff etc. He has the fire in his belly of a founder who is finally seeing all of his hard work coming to fruition, as we enter an exciting time.

Replacing him with someone who might have experience but is only interested in the title and their bonus might be good for the share price in the short term, but I trust MT for the long term.

Great example is Syrah. If we had another CEO, we could have made a similar, terrible deal that gave us a short term share price. But how's that working out for them now?

I know it sucks. I'm down a hell of a lot. But I blame an entire 0% of that on MT. I believe his long term thinking will get us better financing and deals and eventually a better share price, at the cost of short term share price pain, which I think is almost over. I'm fine with that.

I think replacing MT is a terrible idea.

 

[cosors]

Now I'm curious to see what Semmel has to say about Tesla

 

[ACinEur]

Well that got the conversation started

CEO’s who miss stated targets and fail to deliver, are and should be removed by company boards. Just as underperforming employees are performance managed.

We can agree to disagree. Talga have to the end of the FY to deliver they or they out of my portfolio.

 

[Semmel]

While I know your opinion of Musk, you wouldnt like my opinion of him very much Lets just say, I am sure he wouldnt have made the mistakes MT did with Talga.

MTs biggest mistake was to make Talga a punching ball of the Swedish judiciary (i.e legal and political system). I am talking this book since a few years already, but Talga should have made itself an independent revenue stream and market its technology aggressively. They didnt. They rather took the sleeping pills Sweden subscribed to them. Now, I am not sure they are able to wake up in time and play their cards well. I know thats some substantial accusation as a shareholder, but time is more valuable and more important than chacing the last bit of grant funding.

I dont think a to replace MT would work, he is still a good person at the right place. But he needs a fire lit under his buttochs. Talnode-C.. who knows when that is coming. But Talnode-R is now. They need to close a deals. Make a leap of faith. They need to bet the company on it and run with it, full speed. BTW, thats what Musk would do in this situation. He would have done it 3 years ago with Talnode-Si (is it still alive?). He would not have waited for Sweden to get its act together.

 

[Semmel]

I know it sucks. I'm down a hell of a lot. But I blame an entire 0% of that on MT. I believe his long term thinking will get us better financing and deals and eventually a better share price, at the cost of short term share price pain, which I think is almost over. I'm fine with that.

I dont think 0% is fair. Yes, local Sweden is fighting Talga tooth and nail to prevent it from building the mine. So thats not Talgas fault. There is simply nothing they could have done to prevent it. But there are two things that Talga could have done, and the fact they didnt do them makes it their responsibility.

1. Why was the detailed plan allowed to linger for so long at the bottom of the drawer? It should have been chased much sooner. It should have been on the radar between 2020 and 2025.
2. Why was there no development with Talnode-Si? I understand it has a graphite component, but Talgas mistake was to tie it to the graphite from the mine and dont find an alternative (less optimal maybe) source of graphite until the mine is ready. Big oversight in my opinion.

 

[curiousmagpie]

He has the fire in his belly

But he needs a fire lit under his buttochs

glad to see some different opinions on this

no one in the company should be above fair criticism and even more so when the company has underperformed in a bull market no less

I’ve said this before but the company needs to show greater transparency to regain trust.

instead of giving honest updates on progress (or lack thereof) anything inconvenient is ignored and treated with silence. how are shareholders supposed to interpret that any other way than failure?
Tal-Si silenced for 2 years. how can you assume anything other than not commercially viable?
SQM parternship. the governments fault again
any number for MOUs and LOIs that go nowhere
graphene - the original purpose of the graphite deposit. dead. have a look at some of the great sounding MOUs from 2015-2018. what happened. silence / pivot

now a new pivot to the US and recycling but they botched it. where are the tier 1 counterparties? Talga left with tier 5 hustlers. literal scrap metal dealers. given the talk it is honestly pathetic and the company should be embarrassed

to say that MT has played this 100% perfectly is deluded

after the options and scrap metal dealers debacle the emperor now has no clothes. there is no plan and no strategy

 

[BlackBeak]

I dont think 0% is fair. Yes, local Sweden is fighting Talga tooth and nail to prevent it from building the mine. So thats not Talgas fault. There is simply nothing they could have done to prevent it. But there are two things that Talga could have done, and the fact they didnt do them makes it their responsibility.

1. Why was the detailed plan allowed to linger for so long at the bottom of the drawer? It should have been chased much sooner. It should have been on the radar between 2020 and 2025.
2. Why was there no development with Talnode-Si? I understand it has a graphite component, but Talgas mistake was to tie it to the graphite from the mine and dont find an alternative (less optimal maybe) source of graphite until the mine is ready. Big oversight in my opinion.

My thoughts:
1. I've had this same feeling. But we aren't privy to daily operations. This probably was chased up using the channels available to us multiple times. It's been on the agenda item many many times, always at the bottom, and maybe Talga had nothing they could do about it. It's possible only with CRMA project designation this year that they've had the power to ask the government, as a CRMA project, to intervene because of how long it's taken. It's the first time the government has EVER used this power to take control of the detailed mining plan. I don't know if that would have been possible without CRMA status. So it's easy to be frustrated by how long it's taken, but I wouldn't be so confident there was anything they could have changed until this year.

2. I personally believe Talnode-Si is still there, just very stagnant, because it needs our mine. It's easy to say "we should have used another graphite feed instead of waiting for our mine". But let's remember, turning graphite into anode material is really hard. There's like 5 companies outside of China that know how to do it, Talga is one of them. But we knew how to turn OUR graphite into anode, because of the specific qualities of our graphite. I don't think it's just as simple as adding some other graphite and hey presto, anode!

I believe that's changed now. It sounds like they took what they learnt from our graphite, have adapted the processes and can now use recycled graphite. And after mentioning "other graphite sources" a few times, it seems this Talnode-R process could also now use alternative feedstocks. So it seems Talga has indeed done what you're demanding and have investigated how to do that. It's a big deal, again only 5 companies outside of China.

So, can Talnode-Si be made via the Talnode-R process? Not sure. Maybe. I'm sure if it's technically possible and commercially feasible, it will happen.

But also, in the process of doing the above and trying to diversify the feedstock, people are also calling for his head for continuously changing direction. He's doomed if he diversifies, he's doomed if he doesn't.

I think this is all a case of just being pissed off about where the share price is. I don't think MT has a magic wand to change the battery materials sentiment, or magically come up with these new processes overnight. Maybe with foresight he would have planned things differently if he knew these permit processes would take so long. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but given how much Sweden and EU have said about speeding up processes, maybe he believe them. Reality turned out differently.

 

[curiousmagpie]

the idea that they paused the development of a potentially high value product is nonsense.

if there was any interest in Tal-Si development would have continued regardless on status of the mine

they were looking for production sites 3 years ago. must be a severe lack of industrial zoned land in Germany

it either doesn’t work or no one is interested. competitors are way ahead.

everyone always looking for excuses to explain the lack of progress. why doesn’t the company explain it! because it’s bad news and they hide it. a very consistent pattern

over promise under deliver must be the company motto