A humble and educated view about Vertical present status.
One must marvel at the sheer elegance of Vertical’s overarching strategy, which appears to distill down to a single, breathtakingly brilliant maneuver: relentless capital injection. Do correct me if my humble interpretation strays from the mark; indeed, I devoutly hope that it does.
In practice, this translates to the delightful prospect of equity dilution for those foolish enough to be current shareholders. One cannot help but ponder the logic of remaining aboard a vessel while watching one’s capital evaporate, when a far more refined gentleman might simply step aside, allow the treasury to bleed, and return at a later date to collect a significantly larger stake for a fraction of the cost. Why not cut one’s losses and return later—assuming, of course, that the endeavor achieves flight at all?
Vertical’s strategic vision is truly a masterclass in divergent thinking—most notably in their fascinating decision to eschew the pursuit of new customers altogether. In an industry where public commitments serve as the very currency of credibility—one need only glance at the commendable efforts of Joby or Eve—Vertical appears content to operate in peaceful obscurity.
What the venture sorely lacks, amongst other things, is basic credibility and manufacturing infrastructure. Might one humbly suggest a joint venture with an established original equipment manufacturer, akin to Joby’s judicious alliance with Toyota? It seems a rather obvious win-win proposition. Are we truly to believe there is a total dearth of British aerospace enterprises—BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Babcock, Marshall, or even regional peers like Airbus and Leonardo—who might view such a partnership with favor?
To rely entirely on equity dilution while the company’s market valuation remains firmly grounded is not merely uninspired; it actively erodes our investment. A series of progressive, highly publicized strategic partnerships would achieve wonders for investor confidence. (Yes, Vertical: public commitments do, occasionally, cause share prices to appreciate.) Furthermore, if executive management harbors such unwavering faith in their trajectory, one wonders why their conviction is so rarely accompanied by the open-market purchase of their own stock.
This delightfully retro, low-profile public relations approach is producing predictably nonexistent returns. The business model is desperately in need of revision, if I may speak so boldly.
Allow me to offer a few modest suggestions for the board’s consideration:
Respect the Capital: Refrain, if possible, from treating existing shareholders as an infinite treasury.
Demonstrate Genuine Conviction: Management ought to align their fortunes with our own. Reduce baseline salaries, accept equity-based compensation tied strictly to milestone achievements, and purchase stock in the open market. Real commitment is forged in financial risk, not eloquent press releases.
Forge Strategic Alliances: Secure established industrial and aerospace partners without delay.
Embrace Transparency: Make progress, milestones, and strategic achievements consistently public.
Cultivate a Modern Public Presence: Engage in cost-effective outreach—workshops, media appearances, podcast engagements, and academic collaborations. Silence is rarely mistaken for genius.
Demystify the Certification Pathway: Clearly publish the regulatory milestones and progress updates.
Publicize High-Level Engagements: Ensure meetings with government and European aviation authorities are appropriately highlighted.
After all, one can only sell equity to a market that is aware of one's existence. Do try to make yourselves visible; the shareholders would be immensely obliged.
Is this truly so complex a concept to grasp? I assure you, a biennial appearance at Farnborough is hardly sufficient.