FBR 4.35% 2.4¢ fbr ltd

Hi Hokey, I think most of us understand that when a company's...

  1. 350 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 249
    Hi Hokey,

    I think most of us understand that when a company's product does not satisfy its warranty and/or does not conform to the relevant codes by which it's held, that company will be liable for all damages accrued, present and until it is fixed (If stipulated in the contract).

    In my opinion, you're raising a fairly shallow argument when comparing the NZ building's structural nonconformance, the current construction companies in WA and FBR.

    My take is: The whole point of FBR's new model -WaaS - through the HX (a robot that builds one or more structure/s from a 3D CAD model that conforms to relevant building standards and structural warranty's) is that it can provide the principal contractor or developer far more accurate times frames, faster turnarounds, Usage/Waste information on tender compared to competitors. Then the HX 'theoretically' should be able to achieve this with minimal variations to the estimate. As I have stated previously, WB (or other manufac) will be the ones liable for the block's conformance, though FBR would be the ones generally required to fix the structural issue on site (unless FBR established a clause in their block distribution agreement whereby those damaged are entirely the responsibility of WB/other). In the same way that if you go to Harvey Norman and buy a Lenovo Laptop, if the Lenovo Laptop is found to have a defect in the future (through no fault of your own), it would be Lenovo that is liable for the damages and to fix the problem while Harvey Norman would act as the intermediary between the parties.

    FBR will be liable for the conformance and structural integrity of the 'wall' under relevant codes.

    Let's hope the Pivac's haven't wasted the past 15 years developing the Hadrian X to finally conclude that it can't build a wall and guarantee it lasts X amount of years under established conditions.

    If that was the case, wouldn't they be obliged to divulge that information to the ASX at least some point in the past couple of years since they've been listed? Or does the ASX regularly allow Ponzi schemes?

    So from your multiple perspectives in the past month or two I've gathered: 1. FBR can't achieve success unless they either give the HX to an OEM that mass produces/distributes on a royalty basis
    2. WaaS can't work unless the HX is mass produced by someone?

    So all in all, FBR apparently aren't achieving rapid success unless they establish an efficient way to mass manufacture the HX. It's almost like the blog suggests that FBR have documented the construction of the 2 Hadrian's and have established a plan of using 'highly specialized contract manufacturers' for modules and parts before the HX is put together on the continent of operation. This ensures that FBR have control and visibility to guarantee that the materials/parts used in the construction of the HX are of the standard they need to ensure the overall conformance of the HX from start to finish, when it's contracted to build a wall.
 
watchlist Created with Sketch. Add FBR (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
Last
2.4¢
Change
0.001(4.35%)
Mkt cap ! $106.5M
Open High Low Value Volume
2.3¢ 2.4¢ 2.3¢ $9.072K 382.3K

Buyers (Bids)

No. Vol. Price($)
12 3695895 2.3¢
 

Sellers (Offers)

Price($) Vol. No.
2.4¢ 2119811 11
View Market Depth
Last trade - 16.10pm 28/03/2024 (20 minute delay) ?
Last
2.4¢
  Change
0.001 ( 2.17 %)
Open High Low Volume
2.4¢ 2.4¢ 2.3¢ 619630
Last updated 15.46pm 28/03/2024 ?
FBR (ASX) Chart
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.