1Semana
A company like this from your pen, I'm amazed. 😂 It sounds interesting and makes sense.
But since I always like to be skeptical, I have a few concerns.
Saving 50% on water is a great thing and the time saved, if it really works, makes it even more interesting.
But the question is, what does the product cost? How long can it be used? Are there any additional costs associated with its use? How much is actually needed?
Is the additional water consumption ultimately cheaper than the product?
But since I always like to be skeptical, I have a few concerns.
Saving 50% on water is a great thing and the time saved, if it really works, makes it even more interesting.
But the question is, what does the product cost? How long can it be used? Are there any additional costs associated with its use? How much is actually needed?
Is the additional water consumption ultimately cheaper than the product?
•
11
•
1Semana
@TradingHase
Haha, yes, I can totally understand the surprise! The fact that such a value comes from my pen caused raised eyebrows. But that's exactly why we have the dumbbell strategy: 95 % rock-solid fortress, 5 % absolute madness with gigantic leverage.
Your skepticism is the best life insurance in the stock market, so let's counter your absolutely justified questions directly with the hard facts:
On costs and the question "Is more water cheaper in the end?":
This is exactly where Desert Control's brilliant leverage lies, especially in the US market (California, Arizona). They often use a "Pay-As-You-Save" (PAYS) model. This means that the farmer often does not have to pay for the product in full in advance. Desert Control applies the LNC and the farmer pays with the money he saves through the lower water and electricity costs (for the pumps).
The calculation: in regions like California, where droughts are commonplace and water prices are skyrocketing, water is the biggest cost factor. If the farmer saves 50% water through LNC, he keeps part of the savings and Desert Control gets the rest. This means that LNC is always cheaper than the additional water consumption because it finances itself from the savings.
How long can it be used & are there additional costs?
It is not a "spray once and leave forever" miracle cure. The treatment with LNC lasts in the soil for around 3 to 5 years, depending on the stress, soil conditions and agricultural use. After that, a so-called "top-up" treatment must be carried out to maintain the sponge structure in the sand.
Additional costs: For the farmer, there are no ongoing fees for the product itself after application (apart from the PAYS contracts). He saves water and fertilizer from day 1, as the nutrients no longer seep into the sand but remain at the roots.
How much demand is there actually?
The market is astronomically large. We're not talking about a few withered front gardens here. We are talking about the survival of entire agricultural sectors. In the US state of California alone (the pantry of the USA), water shortages are threatening billion-dollar harvests of almonds, walnuts and dates. Then there is the entire Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia), where governments are spending huge sums to become self-sufficient and make deserts usable for agriculture. The demand for water-saving technologies is a multi-billion dollar market.
The bottom line is that the demand is there, the product works (otherwise the PAYS contracts wouldn't exist), and the problem of water scarcity is getting worse every year. The only question - and this is the risk in this bet - is: Will Desert Control manage to build enough machines and close the contracts in time before they run out of capital?
This is precisely why it is a bet and not a classic investment.
Haha, yes, I can totally understand the surprise! The fact that such a value comes from my pen caused raised eyebrows. But that's exactly why we have the dumbbell strategy: 95 % rock-solid fortress, 5 % absolute madness with gigantic leverage.
Your skepticism is the best life insurance in the stock market, so let's counter your absolutely justified questions directly with the hard facts:
On costs and the question "Is more water cheaper in the end?":
This is exactly where Desert Control's brilliant leverage lies, especially in the US market (California, Arizona). They often use a "Pay-As-You-Save" (PAYS) model. This means that the farmer often does not have to pay for the product in full in advance. Desert Control applies the LNC and the farmer pays with the money he saves through the lower water and electricity costs (for the pumps).
The calculation: in regions like California, where droughts are commonplace and water prices are skyrocketing, water is the biggest cost factor. If the farmer saves 50% water through LNC, he keeps part of the savings and Desert Control gets the rest. This means that LNC is always cheaper than the additional water consumption because it finances itself from the savings.
How long can it be used & are there additional costs?
It is not a "spray once and leave forever" miracle cure. The treatment with LNC lasts in the soil for around 3 to 5 years, depending on the stress, soil conditions and agricultural use. After that, a so-called "top-up" treatment must be carried out to maintain the sponge structure in the sand.
Additional costs: For the farmer, there are no ongoing fees for the product itself after application (apart from the PAYS contracts). He saves water and fertilizer from day 1, as the nutrients no longer seep into the sand but remain at the roots.
How much demand is there actually?
The market is astronomically large. We're not talking about a few withered front gardens here. We are talking about the survival of entire agricultural sectors. In the US state of California alone (the pantry of the USA), water shortages are threatening billion-dollar harvests of almonds, walnuts and dates. Then there is the entire Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia), where governments are spending huge sums to become self-sufficient and make deserts usable for agriculture. The demand for water-saving technologies is a multi-billion dollar market.
The bottom line is that the demand is there, the product works (otherwise the PAYS contracts wouldn't exist), and the problem of water scarcity is getting worse every year. The only question - and this is the risk in this bet - is: Will Desert Control manage to build enough machines and close the contracts in time before they run out of capital?
This is precisely why it is a bet and not a classic investment.
•
11
•1Semana
@Raketentoni Do they build their machines themselves or is it contract work?
••