Member Info for chippyjo

Alt you are the one who’s in a muddle.
Ford do publish all of the performance date spec and warranty information on all models.
Here’s Porsche as it’s a bit more interesting.
https://www.porsche.com/uk/models/911/911-models/carrera/
Scroll down.
As for date being from companies ten years ago, that’s tosh, Facebook have just changed corporate identity to Meta as it best describes their business model….Data!
In fact all of the bit tech companies value data almost above all else and would a prospective buyer commit to a unit without said Data. Can a public listed company provide preferential information to a customer and hide from shareholders? I don’t think so.
The stock market values data also, it provides guidance which the BOD can be reasonably judged in terms of performance and deliverables.

Alt because it’s price sensitive?
Still if you like they way the company is run then enjoy the rollercoaster.

A suitably targeted N protein and there is no more covid is my hope!

Alt, so the company could have published the final data in the PLACE metrics then….but didn’t.
ExE was a showcase but hardly stretching the boundaries of power and longevity compared to a commercial setting. Back up generation which is intermittent and low cycle should be ok but base load supplementation or sync generation in parallel to mains to supplement low local availability would need that longevity of output and reliability.
If there are unanswered questions about the product then the share price will suffer for it.
What happened with ABB in Estonia? Well reading between the lines they didn’t like the L series unit.

Kashdog, wasn’t it the case that variants mutated the spike and the whole point of Scov was it targeted both the spike and the the neuclocapsid? N protein doesn’t mutate quickly hence more effective over a longer period.
Agree the other elements of the business are interesting and probably the main business in the future but a huge income from Scov would help accelerate that work and carry forward to further trials

Alt, true that was pre Bond at inception. But what was the result of PLACE? He never told us, why?
Well the general excuse was it wasn’t necessary as the EV charger didn’t place such demands on the cell. But the tech should be able to provide baseload power or it’s hugely limiting the market potential.
This is the Bond problem, he never closes the loop as he doesn’t want to be judged against a quantifiable target. Does like a bunch of free shares for his trouble tho.

AimM Apple was nearly bankrupt before S Jobs returned.
Lawyers and accountants are not known for their creativity.

Alt, staggers said a lot in that post and you chose one bit.
Large companies rotate through CEOs to prevent a single minded vision, attitude or vision to prevent the company becoming a one man drive down the wrong path.
Bond has little to no interest in company comms, has little regard for shareholders and focuses as much on self benefit as company progression.
Simple point regarding ExE, all the other partners had advertising on the winners podium, AFC? Nowhere to be seen. That was the most visible place of the whole race.
AGM, the company hit behind covid when an online process could and should have been carried out.
Iain T left, why? Well comms isn’t the company way of doing things.
If the market had regular empirical updates on the tech and associations with partners then a trend that is quantifiable and investable would see a much stronger and more stable share price.
Agreements, MOUs and partnerships just disappear into the ether which makes you wonder if there was any real likelihood of them being realistic or sales producing in the first place. 50 qualified inquiries? Hmmmm

Good post staggers, part of the job of a good BOD is to develope products that will sell so they have to understand the market then propose to operate in.
There was ClorAlk failure and L series EV chargers that seems to be going the same way.
Building a successful company isn’t about throwing enough darts until one hits the dartboard.
As Croc said Bond C-

And the point of your question AimM?
A new CEO can brush the skeletons out of Bonds closet. Skeletons of projects passed, Kore, Southern, ClorAlk, HiRok…..
Bonds previous work history isn’t a glowing example of success so who really can bring home the shareholder bacon? Was Bond responsible for ABB or was that others in the organisation?
Big CEO money but small CEO success rate.

Your just an apologist, Bond has been carrot feeding investors for years. When is it feeding time? The ABB order isn’t a given if the S cell doesn’t meet the milestones technologically.

AimM would it be down if the harrier hanger was building units to for fill orders? I think not.
S is a year away if it meets technical suitability.
Bond could update on Hirok and alkamem, but doesn’t….

Come on Daz you didn’t take it personally did you?
One notable poster absent it seems

As has been said orders are required to sustain an increasing share price and not ones based on a non released prototype for 2023.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/03/european-stocks-record-highs-first-day-trading-2022-covid
All stocks rising as Omicron threat subsides….

Fiction like your £500m Mcap haggis. Guess your in for a unpleasant new year then

https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/1blocker-ad-blocker-privacy/id1365531024

Just installed free app 1blocker
Gets rid of the ads on this site and has improved the loading speed and user experience. Not affiliated just sick of the ads covering site content. Happy new year

Can we now say Bond didn’t meet share holder expectations at year end?

You can find 540M prem shares down the back of the sofa. GR trying for the first trillion share aim company…