This Betolar is indeed an interesting case, but watching the CEO stumble in the company presentation inevitably makes one wonder why these presentations aren’t handled by the company’s marketing management? Betolar also has a whole host of speakers, from the CFO to board representatives, but no marketing director, even though marketing plays a very central role in the business: if the growth targets are this ambitious, it requires really strong marketing expertise, but unfortunately, the company is currently failing to showcase that in any way.
6 Likes
The company presentation certainly left many questions. The technology was really well-presented. Even a basic user like me at least thought they understood something 
To me, it’s too good to be true. Or am I allowed to say that? I’ll wait, I’m sure I can still get it at a good price even after the listing.
4 Likes
I second the previous comment; the technology was explained understandably. The presentation content from the head of technology and his answers to audience questions were the best part of the whole presentation.
By the way, during the presentation, I asked four audience questions, including what (assumptions) the revenue growth target is based on and how it has been modeled, and why the company doesn’t have marketing management present in this presentation, even though marketing is, according to the CEO’s, chairman of the board’s, and CFO’s speeches, one of the key factors for the company’s future success. However, these were not addressed. Perhaps too difficult questions? Instead, a few rather flimsy questions got through, e.g., whether the company intends to stay in Kannonkoski - oh goodness…
Nevertheless, I will likely participate in the offering; there is so much strong potential and a convincing board and anchor investor group. Someone mentioned Nidoco a few comments earlier, which they don’t know, so for your information, it is one of the Ehrnrooth family’s investment companies.
7 Likes
A perfectly functional company presentation. The detailed quality of the content shows that the board and main owners include several old-school technology experts. The vocabulary is well-considered: scaling, AI, global, billion-dollar revenue, China also mentioned, etc.
Revenue is currently €0, with a target of €200M by 2026 and €1B by 2031. This brings to mind a few other listings. Sources of revenue: chemical royalties, license fees, Geoprime brand, expert services.
The goal is also to make cement-free GEOPRIME concrete a global brand that customers can use.
From a customer inquiry, a customized product would be ready in 4-7 months. Within 1-2 years, revenue should start accumulating at the million-euro level for the targets to be realistic. So, there’s still plenty of time to get on board with the moving concrete truck.
2 Likes
You know it, so I also wrote an IPO analysis on Betolar. Since my own substance knowledge in construction technology is at zero, I fortunately got help from my brother, who happens to be a Master of Science in Civil Engineering.
A valuation of 70 million with zero revenue is almost cheap when compared to Spinnova or Rivian! Jokes aside, these zero-revenue sky-high projections are always a bit wild cases, especially when the company hasn’t yet commercialized its concept.
In my eyes, Betolar’s biggest challenges are:
-
Just recently, in another offering, I stated that one shouldn’t pay attention to the CEO’s presentation, but here it was disturbing that the CEO didn’t seem prepared for the event at all and couldn’t really recall the company’s sales materials by heart - this is actually a bit concerning.
-
Betolar itself noted that another competitor has pricing challenges with its product - it’s clear that even for ecological reasons, people are not willing to pay double the price for concrete.
-
Products like Betolar’s are being developed more and more, as has been noted in this thread, and it’s difficult to see how AI could truly capture the market.
-
The target market is relatively small compared to Betolar’s ambitions, and Betolar would have to win a huge market share to achieve them.
I also have to say that when selling cement, you hear about platform economy from here, AI from there, and megatrends from over there, it gives a feeling that the people in the company are better at selling companies than the core business itself. At the same time, these are, in my opinion, pretty classic signs of a hype peak, at least regarding these terms.
It’s a bit like many other modern companies; it feels like hype words and a certain business model are being hyped precisely because they are so superior. However, superiority doesn’t come from the business model but more often from what the company does. For these and many other reasons, it’s not a go.
However, I hope I’m wrong and Betolar conquers the world, because I appreciate all companies that aim hard and high, but at the moment, this is more of a VC investment than a traditional stock market share.
46 Likes
Analyzed excellently!
Companies going public, such as Betolar, read this forum. It would be great if either the CEO or someone else from the company could come and comment on the forum, as this has happened on this forum, and that is a tremendously great thing.
4 Likes
Have you subscribed to Betolar’s share offering?
- Yes
- No
0
äänestäjää
It’s absolutely fantastic that Finland has companies working on solving such an important problem. However, I somewhat disagree with @Omavaraisuushaaste’s analogy, where the question is posed as: “it’s good for everyone to ask themselves if they want to pay twice as much for their home just because it’s more ecological?” This touches upon all the question marks regarding the development of emissions trading and various carbon taxes, which are under increasingly close scrutiny when mapping out the future.
For now, it’s just about painting targets and participating in the “bumtsibum” (a Finnish colloquialism for a lively, often superficial event), but the world is constantly moving in a greener direction – which provides a tailwind. A positive aspect is that this is solely a share issue, and none of the current owners are selling. This reinforces the perception of the major owners’ commitment to the company.
I decided to subscribe; it’s the best ESG treat 
.
4 Likes
I partially agree. Betolar is roughly in the same phase as Spinnova was when it listed. Betolar’s anchor investors include Ahlström Invest, which, along with a couple of other anchor investors, is likely in it for the long haul rather than seeking quick profits. I’m still weighing whether to participate in 50/60 IPOs… Lamor, Kempower, Administer are in my pipeline, perhaps Aiforia as well…
1 Like
The presenter in the company introduction video froze quite a bit on several occasions; it’s a stressful situation, of course, but I almost closed my browser during the presentation. There was a long list of buzzwords repeated several times, but it wasn’t clearly explained to the viewer what concrete actions are being taken. I would have preferred a 5-minute video showing what is being produced, how, and how it differs from competitors’ current operations.
Scalability through AI is available, that much was clear, but it’s not enough to make an investment decision. In addition to the company introduction video, one would now have to read through written material to understand what it’s all about. I don’t think I have the time or interest this time around.
Maybe I’ll make a minimum subscription at the last minute, or maybe I won’t; it’s going to be a toss-up with this information.
The size of the public offering is very small, and over half of it has already been sold to anchor investors.
3 Likes
Reinforced concrete structures could be replaced with ferro-cement (ferrocement) structures. Ferro-cement has been widely used in boat building, and if I recall correctly, attempts were made in the 80s to introduce it into construction in Finland, but the cement industry seemed to have shot it down. As a method, building with ferro-cement differs from traditional concrete casting into a mold. Building with ferro-cement is more akin to shotcrete than traditional concrete casting into a mold.
Based on my gut feeling, the amount of cement in ferro-cement structures might be higher per cubic meter than in traditional structures, but the structures can be made significantly thinner, which affects the overall weight and volume of the structure and thus significantly reduces the total cement requirement. I believe this reduction in cement quantity was the primary reason why the cement industry once shot down ferro-cement.
Instead of greenwashing concrete and focusing on marginal gains, attention should be paid to reducing the use of cement and reinforcements. In this area, real environmental values would be achieved, and it wouldn’t even be difficult.
I have a negative view of Betolar’s business case. If the company were to truly develop a revolutionary construction method using an already well-known method (such as ferro-cement) and combining it with modern robotics or 3D printing and similar technologies, my attitude would be completely different. Now, in my opinion, an old, well-known method of reducing cement content is merely being combined with buzzwords.
Overall, tinkering with concrete raw materials can lead to very high cost risks if the properties of the mass “fail” in the final product.
7 Likes
This is my first post on the forum, although I have been reading for several years. Now, finally, a topic came up where I feel I can contribute something. Concrete technology is a subject I have worked with for several years, and I have written two theses on the topic. I do not work for a company that has any significant collaboration with Betolar, so my knowledge is based on concrete technology in general. If I have understood correctly, Betolar aims to create recipes for new binders for its customers using artificial intelligence, and to sell suitable chemicals for these, i.e., admixtures in terms of concrete technology. I personally do not believe that such AI-based recipes will work, because there are too many variables in factory conditions. This is explained in more detail below. Based on my current knowledge, I am not subscribing, nor will I invest later, unless some new significant information emerges.
Since concrete is just gray and hard for most people, I thought I would write a small summary of concrete and the materials used in it. I did not specifically mark the sources, but I dare say that all the presented facts are supported by the BY201 concrete technology textbook 2018. In my opinion, a basic understanding of concrete technology is quite essential for evaluating Betolar’s opportunities. Their concept may very well work for the production of paving stones, which has been mentioned, but I understand that the intention is to expand operations first to other rather simple products, and gradually to practically all concretes, which come in a huge variety of strength classes, consistencies, exposure classes, and colors. If concrete technology does not interest you, you can skip directly to the last paragraph, which contains the conclusions.
According to the traditional definition, concrete consists of water, cement (or generally a binder, which also includes slag and other admixtures), and aggregate, i.e., stone. In English, aggregate is further divided into parts, sand and gravel, which in Finnish are usually referred to as fine and coarse aggregate. The hardening of concrete is due to the hydration reaction of water and cement. The general requirement for water is purity. As a rule of thumb, it can be said that potable water is suitable for concrete. However, this is slightly incorrect, as for example, sugar in water can completely stop the hardening reaction. Salt in seawater, for example, does not inherently harm concrete, but its effects on steel corrosion make seawater unusable. For unreinforced concrete, salt is not harmful. The most important single factor affecting the final strength of concrete is the water-to-cement ratio. The less water in relation to cement, the harder the concrete. A too low water-to-cement ratio is also bad, as cement needs water to react. Of course, when using, for example, a different class of cement or very soft stone, the effect can be greater than the w/c ratio.
Cements are divided into CEM I-V classes according to how much portland cement they contain in relation to other materials, such as blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume. There are different types of portland cements, and their differences include ultimate strength, early strength, reaction time and heat, and color. Blast furnace slag acts as a hydraulic binder like cement. It is a waste product of the steel industry. The heat generation of slag’s reaction is lower compared to portland cement, as are its hardening speed and strength. Slag is used, for example, in massive castings where the temperature during the hardening of the structure must be prevented from rising too high. It is also more economical compared to pure cement. Slag has been widely used for a long time, and the novelty is only its ratio to portland cement.
Fly ash is a pozzolanic material that mainly affects the ultimate strength. A significant part of fly ash is considered a fine aggregate, and due to its round particle shape, it can be used to control the rheology of the mix. Silica fume is also a pozzolanic material that can increase the ultimate strength of concrete. Silica fume is usually a very fine material, and its particle size is often smaller than cigarette smoke. Pozzolans are currently considerably rarer as admixtures than slag, and they primarily affect strength development in the later stages. There are also other admixtures, but their use is relatively small, at least at present.
Aggregate is typically divided into fine and coarse. This division is typically examined with a grading curve, for which there are several different views on the optimal shape. The aggregate must be clean. In addition to particle size, the shape of the particles also has great significance. The ideal particle shape would be rounded or oval stones, which are mainly obtained from riverbed sand. At the other extreme is crushed aggregate, which has many sharp corners. This can be observed by pouring a bag of balls or cubes of the same size onto the floor. The cubes will remain in a pile, and their mobility will be worse. Different particle shapes and sizes are suitable for different uses. Self-compacting mixtures pumped into thin molds require much more from the stone than footings poured with a chute. The aggregate can also contain a significant amount of water. A normal concrete recipe can include 500-700 kg of stone, in which case, for example, 4% free moisture significantly increases the amount of water, modifying the water/cement ratio if this is not taken into account. Very dry stone, on the other hand, absorbs a small amount of water, which can reduce the water/cement ratio. The challenge is the variation in aggregate moisture within a batch of stone. In practice, drying or measuring the moisture of all stone batches going into the mill is very difficult to implement due to its slowness and energy intensiveness.
In addition to the three main components, admixtures are used in concrete to modify, add, or remove properties of the concrete. The most commonly used additive is a superplasticizer, which increases the workability of concrete without adding water. This can either increase workability, reduce the amount of water and cement, thereby saving cement and money, or only reduce the amount of water while the amount of cement and workability remain the same, resulting in harder concrete. Today, most superplasticizers are polycarboxylates. There are several different polycarboxylates, which can be used to adjust the efficiency of the plasticizer and the setting time of the cement. Another common admixture is an air-entraining agent, which creates small air bubbles in the concrete, improving the frost resistance of hardened concrete. An air-entraining agent can also stabilize a very fluid mix. Other admixtures include cold-weather concreting agents, which protect unhardened concrete from frost, shrinkage-reducing admixtures, and various colorants and stabilizers.
There are several methods for creating concrete recipes. Textbooks and schools teach the use of Nykänen’s monogram, which can get one quite far. Typically, however, the final adjustment always has to be done by testing and using experience. The difficulty of finding the right recipe depends heavily on the required properties of the concrete. A traditional footing concrete is considerably simpler to proportion than a P-number mix for a bridge. Similarly, different workability classes can require a lot of fine-tuning. Self-compacting concrete pumped into a mold from below can be very sensitive to segregation. In such cases, the problem may need to be solved by adjusting the aggregate, chemicals, or admixtures.Since the overall composition of concrete is very complex and full of various variables, I cannot envision a situation where a Betolar employee comes to a factory, types in the measured data into a program, and then the computer provides a recipe and instructions for manufacturing suitable additives specifically for that factory. Even in cement production alone, there are batch-specific changes that can affect the behavior of the mix. Of course, the main idea seemed to be using other binders instead of cement. In my opinion, this only complicates implementation, as the composition of waste streams is hardly controlled intrinsically. Of course, consistent production presumably produces fairly consistent waste, but I can’t assess that any further.
I see this AI-driven concrete recipe formulation as somewhat similar to self-driving cars. They work well in a very limited environment, but their greatest benefit will only be realized if they work everywhere. Until then, this just seems like a very expensively priced dream. If, on the other hand, it turns out that AI cannot get recipes right significantly quickly, Betolar could undoubtedly use its good expertise in a more traditional way, i.e., consult concrete manufacturers personally and sell them suitable chemicals. However, there is nothing new or revolutionary in this.
88 Likes
In my opinion, many of these technical doubts have emerged. How do anchor investors, for example, then proceed? Do they not “test” such things with experts, or do they just rely on the company’s “word”?
Edit: This is also perhaps a general question, how do anchor investors make their decisions? Or is this just such an exceptional case that normal operating procedures do not apply?
5 Likes
Good clarification on a topic that is completely new to me.
Can you tell me what the reduction in CO2 emissions with this technology is based on? I understood that in Betolar’s case, less cement would be used, which I guess reduces CO2 emissions.
How would the pricing work for this? I haven’t seen or heard anything about it in the presentation. Is this a significantly more expensive way to produce concrete than the so-called normal way? Or does the concrete manufacturer achieve other savings this way, besides just a smaller amount of CO2?
2 Likes
I ended up subscribing to shares precisely because of the impressive group of anchor investors and also because none of the current owners are selling their shares. I trust that the anchor investors have done their homework at least reasonably well. This is an interesting case, however, and I believe it has the potential for great success if it goes well.
That being said, there is a lot of risk involved here. Time will tell whether this becomes a multi-bagger or if the money goes down the drain.
6 Likes
If I understood correctly, we are essentially operating in a restricted area here. A unique recipe is developed for each byproduct. This is done with the help of an AI tool. Then that recipe works at this factory for one substance, like slag. A different recipe is needed for another location. The recipe can then be in use for decades, and licensing fees are hoped for from it.
I really have to wonder how AI helps in recipe creation? This somehow smells like a money grab. It’s a good time for such listings on the stock exchange, and they’re sprinkling in some trendy words like “AI” and “CO2 reduction.” An engineering firm with a 1 billion euro turnover… yeah right.
2 Likes
The high CO2 emissions from concrete are based on cement. In the production of cement, calcium carbonate, or limestone, is heated with aggregate rich in silicon. One ton of limestone yields 440 kilograms of CO2 emissions and 560 kilograms of calcium oxide, which then continues to be processed with other substances. In addition, heating produces emissions, the amount of which largely depends on the heating method.
For example, blast furnace slag is produced in the steel industry regardless of whether it is used in cement or not. I haven’t delved into emission calculations, but one could conclude that using slag in concrete is not only carbon neutral but even negative, as it reduces the amount of cement. I am also not particularly familiar with geopolymers, so I cannot comment on their emissions. However, if their emissions are lower than those of cement, their use is, of course, reasonable.
I will also leave pricing questions to others. However, I can say that manufacturers have to pay for CO2 emissions, although I don’t know how much. So, if these emissions can be lowered, savings will be generated. I don’t know the price of slag, but since it is a waste stream from the steel industry, I would believe that at least the producer would even be willing to pay to get rid of it. Of course, introducing a new binder is currently very challenging, and as I understand it, Betolar’s main advantage is that they could shorten a process that normally takes weeks, probably months, to days, perhaps even hours.
@PoPe That’s how I’ve understood it as well. In my experience, however, recipes practically cannot remain unchanged for very long because changes occur in raw materials. Of course, if AI can make changes easily and ensure they work, then Betolar will be a huge goldmine.
edit. corrected the kilogram amounts for emissions and end products to be accurate.
6 Likes
Interestingly enough, the subscription offering wasn’t closed at 4:00 PM. (Lamor’s offering was closed). So, it seems the popularity wasn’t very high, which means those expecting quick profits will be disappointed? I think I’ll go ahead and remove my current subscription; my confidence in the company wasn’t high to begin with.
1 Like
Isn’t the problem the variation in slag and other substitute raw materials, and reliably measuring that variation? And thus, the repeatable optimization of the recipe, no matter how much AI or other cool stuff there is. Or can slag and other raw materials be profitably homogenized in advance?