I agree with all of your point about a short being temporary noise, however i am curious about your risk measure of 9 ut of 10.
There are several listed companies out there that have yet to prove that the technology they provide is even working, that they have managed to at all break-even or face other issues of a similar nature. I do agree that the company has to prove they can permanently break-even.
Just take a look at some of the Biotek companies, Polight, atlantic sapphire, bergen carbon solutions etc.
Elliptic labs at this point in time has managed to sell their technology to several of the largest smartphone OEMs and has now also created a new product for the market that can increase revenue. The adaption by several smartphone customers in 2024, and the contracts announced in 2025 already secure another 30 smartphone launches, almost half of the launched volume in 2024. The revenue is spread out between many different OEMS and is differentiated by customers, but not yet by product. Hopefully this will improve with the new product.
In the laptop OEM there is the lack of differentiation of revenue by only having one paying customer, here there is luckily more differentiation when it comes to product as they offer several different solutions.
The risks are valid and important, but a risk measure of 9 seems high compared to other companies that are listed. Elabs has net current assets of 170.M, taking that away from the market cap you price the EV at about 800 Mnok, when they are proving growth in sales and we know that already launched products will continue to provide a baseline in the coming quarters. Given that we can assume between 20-25 Mnok of revenue in Q4 from shipped units, the broader adaptation from lenovo in the new X9 series, the launch of yoga products with seamless and with HPD, a risk measure of 9 seems out of order. I would say maybe a risk measure of 6-7 seems appropriate, comparing it to other alternatives out there.