Blink Charging (BLNK)

• The Bottom Line: Blink Charging is a classic “story stock,” fueled by the exciting narrative of the electric vehicle revolution, but a close look at its financials reveals a business that has consistently burned cash and diluted shareholders, making it a highly speculative bet rather than a sound investment.
• Key Takeaways:
• What it is: Blink Charging aims to be a leading owner, operator, and provider of electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment and networked charging services.
• Why it matters: The company represents a common dilemma for investors: a compelling growth story in a massive future market versus a long history of poor financial performance. It's a perfect case study in the difference between speculation and investing.
• The Value Investor's View: A value investor would be extremely cautious, focusing on the lack of profitability, non-existent economic moat, and severe shareholder dilution, all of which make establishing a reliable margin_of_safety nearly impossible.

Imagine it's the early 1900s, and the automobile is just starting to replace the horse and buggy. You see an incredible opportunity: these newfangled “cars” will need fuel. So, you decide to build a network of gasoline stations across the country. This is the simple, powerful story behind Blink Charging, but for the 21st century. Blink Charging is in the business of EV “gas stations.” They operate in a few different ways:

• Selling Hardware: They sell charging stations (called EVSEs - Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) directly to businesses, apartment complexes, and homeowners.
• Owning & Operating: In some cases, Blink retains ownership of the charger and collects revenue from drivers who use it, often sharing a portion with the property owner. This is similar to a vending machine model.
• Network Fees: They run the “Blink Network,” a cloud-based platform that allows property owners and drivers to manage charging sessions, process payments, and view usage data. They collect subscription fees for this service.

On the surface, this sounds like a fantastic business. As more EVs hit the road, the demand for charging will skyrocket. It seems like a classic “picks and shovels” play on a gold rush—you don't bet on a specific EV manufacturer, you bet on the infrastructure everyone will need. However, this is where the simple analogy to a gas station breaks down. Unlike gasoline, which is a standardized commodity controlled by a few large players, electricity is everywhere. And building a charging station is far less complex and capital-intensive than building a gas station with its underground tanks and environmental regulations. This fundamental difference is the key to understanding the challenges Blink faces.

“The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage.” - Warren Buffett

A value investor's job is to act like a detective, looking past the exciting headlines and scrutinizing the evidence. When we put Blink Charging under the magnifying glass, the compelling story begins to show some serious cracks. We must analyze the business, not the stock's story.

An economic moat is a durable competitive advantage that protects a company's profits from competitors, like a castle's moat protects it from invaders. Great long-term investments almost always have a wide, deep moat. Blink's moat, unfortunately, appears to be more of a shallow puddle. Consider the competition:

• Direct Competitors: Companies like ChargePoint and EVgo are larger and have more established networks.
• Automakers: Tesla has built its own proprietary and highly reliable Supercharger network, which it is now opening to other brands, creating a massive competitive threat.
• Utilities: Electric utility companies see EV charging as a natural extension of their business and have the capital and infrastructure to become major players.
• Hardware Giants: Large industrial and electrical equipment companies (like Siemens or ABB) can manufacture charging hardware efficiently at scale.

Blink has no significant proprietary technology, no major cost advantage, and weak brand loyalty (most drivers just want a charger that works, is available, and is reasonably priced). This intense competition leads to a brutal reality: zero pricing power. It's very difficult to raise prices and earn healthy profits when your customers have dozens of other options, including charging at home.

A story can be inspiring, but numbers don't lie. A review of Blink's financial statements over the years paints a concerning picture for any long-term investor. The central issue is a chronic lack of profitability. While revenues have grown impressively as EV adoption has increased, the company's losses have often grown right alongside them. This isn't just a case of a young company investing for growth; it points to a more fundamental problem with the business model's profitability, often referred to as “unit economics.” If you lose money on every charger you operate or sell, selling more of them just makes you lose money faster. A value investor looks for a clear path to sustainable, positive cash flow. For Blink, that path has been, and remains, foggy at best. The company has been in operation since 2009 ¹⁾ and has yet to post an annual profit. This long history of losses should give any prudent investor pause.

How a management team uses a company's money (capital allocation) is one of the most critical determinants of long-term shareholder returns. When a company doesn't generate its own cash from operations, it has to get money from somewhere else. For Blink, the primary source has been the public markets. They have funded their operations by repeatedly issuing new shares of stock. This is called shareholder dilution. Think of it like a pizza. If you own one of eight slices, you own 12.5% of the pizza. If the cook keeps adding four more slices to the pizza to pay for the ingredients, your single slice is now just one of twelve. You own only 8.3% of the pizza. Even if the pizza gets a little bigger, your piece of it has shrunk. This is precisely what has happened to long-term Blink shareholders. The number of outstanding shares has exploded over the years, meaning each individual share represents a much smaller piece of the company. This makes it incredibly difficult for the stock price to appreciate in a sustainable way, as any business progress has to be spread across a much larger number of shares.

Let's move beyond the narrative and apply some fundamental analysis tools. Since Blink is not profitable, traditional metrics like the P/E Ratio are useless. We have to dig deeper.

The bull case for Blink rests almost entirely on its rapid revenue growth. But growth without profit is like running faster and faster on a treadmill—it's a lot of activity, but you're not actually going anywhere. Let's look at a simplified example of their financial trajectory over several years:

²⁾ A value investor sees this table and immediately becomes concerned. The growth is not “scaling” to profitability. Instead, the cost of achieving that growth is immense, leading to bigger and bigger holes in the company's pocket.

Gross Margin is a crucial metric. It tells you how much profit a company makes from selling its product or service, before accounting for overhead costs like R&D, marketing, and executive salaries. Gross Profit = Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) If a company has very low or negative gross margins, it's nearly impossible for it to ever become profitable. For years, Blink struggled with this. If a charging station costs them $8,000 in parts and labor, and they sell it for $7,500, they have a negative gross margin. While their margins have recently turned positive and are improving, they remain very thin for a business with high operational and R&D costs. This is the first and most difficult hurdle they must clear on the path to profitability.

How much should you pay for a business that loses money? This is the central valuation question for Blink. With no earnings, analysts often turn to the Price-to-Sales (P/S) ratio. But even this can be dangerously misleading. A high P/S ratio implies that investors expect the company to eventually become highly profitable. But as we've seen, Blink's path to profitability is fraught with challenges. From a value investing perspective, the goal is to buy a business for less than its conservatively calculated intrinsic_value. Intrinsic value is the discounted value of all the cash a business can be expected to generate in the future. With Blink, trying to project future cash flows is an exercise in pure speculation.

• Will they ever become profitable?
• If so, when?
• What will their margins look like in a hyper-competitive industry?

Without credible answers to these questions, calculating a reliable intrinsic value is impossible. Without a reliable intrinsic value, you cannot have a margin_of_safety. You are no longer investing; you are gambling on a story.

To crystallize these concepts, let's compare Blink Charging to a fictional, “boring” but successful company: “Reliable Power Co.,” a regulated utility.

This comparison highlights the fundamental difference. A value investor prefers the predictability and tangible cash generation of Reliable Power Co., even if its growth is slower. The risk of permanent capital loss with a story stock like Blink is simply too high.

To be fair, every investment has two sides. It's crucial to understand the arguments of those who are optimistic about the company.

• Massive Market Growth: The transition to EVs is a multi-trillion dollar global shift. The Total Addressable Market (TAM) for charging infrastructure is undeniably enormous.
• Government Support: Governments worldwide, including the U.S. with its Inflation Reduction Act, are providing subsidies and grants to build out EV charging networks, which could provide a significant tailwind.
• Network Effects: Bulls believe that as Blink's network grows, it could create a “network effect,” where more chargers attract more drivers, which in turn makes locations more willing to install Blink chargers.
• Scaling to Profitability: The optimistic view is that the current losses are simply investments in growth, and once the network reaches a critical mass, high-margin software and service revenues will lead to significant profits.

• Brutal Competition: The industry is a “red ocean” of competition with no clear long-term winners. The lack of a moat means that even if the industry proves profitable, Blink may not be one of the companies that captures those profits.
• Commoditized Business: EV charging is becoming a commodity service. It will be difficult to differentiate on anything other than price and location, which is a recipe for low margins.
• A History of Poor Execution: A track record of over a decade of unprofitability and cash burn is hard to ignore. As the saying goes, “turnarounds seldom turn.”
• Persistent Dilution: The business model has been dependent on capital markets, not internal cash flow. There is a high risk that this dilution will continue, eroding any potential gains for shareholders.
• Valuation Risk: Even after significant price drops from its peak, the stock may not be “cheap.” A price drop doesn't make a bad business a good investment. The intrinsic value could still be substantially lower.

• speculation_vs_investing
• economic_moat
• margin_of_safety
• intrinsic_value
• share_dilution
• circle_of_competence
• growth_trap