Member Info for EnergyIQ

Has the horse bolted regarding diversification?

The HY Results are not looking promising.

It is interesting that I am dealing with a Private limited business in exactly the same sector with £14m revenue making pre-tax profit of £2.5m against eEnergy's financials reading £25.06m revenue with pre-tax losses of £9.5m. It proves that there is money to be made in this sector but perhaps not by eEnergy's methods.

Where lies the issue?

Edward Seaton you are correct as It has been altered on Companies House. It was previously listing him as a Director at the time of my note.

I still stand by my other comments which may be reflected by the continued price drop.

Company House does have him down in both roles, as Company Secretary and Director. It's not the biggest of issues but perhaps its indicative of the boards attention to detail that is more of a concern.

Also cash in the bank is fine as a war chest, but the lack of acquisitions and perhaps a bit of diversity away from the automotive sector is more of a concern. The company can't live in the past and just seems to lack direction, which is probably reflected in the share price.

How come there has been no RNS stating that on 16 Feb 2026 D J Forbes is no longer company secretary and Mr M. Ingrey-Counter has been appointed company secretary/Director of several subsidiaries and the main PLC. (8 days difference and no RNS issued)

Under the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Listing Rules (specifically UKLR 6.4), a listed company must notify an RIS of any changes to the board as soon as possible, and generally no later than the end of the business day following the decision.

If the new CEO (Sarah Matthew De Mers) can't organise this correctly how is the rest of the company going to perform. How much other information is not being correctly communicated?

Have I got this assumption wrong regarding the ruling?

Thanks in advance for any explanation.

Can I ask why anyone would acquire the Energy Management division (only) for >£30m when the entire group is only valued at £19.94m. Surely under rule 9, should an organisation wish to aggressively purchase the business, they would have to at a minimum, match the highest share price over the the past 12 months (which was 7.55p). This would value a group acquisition (not just a division) at £29.24m. This obviously is based on acceptance by 90% of the shareholding.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me,

Did I miss something in the Board Presentation, as I did not notice in their presentation anything about a drop in forecasted adjusted EBITDA figures for FY23?

Below is the profit warning issued yesterday and lodged by a Creditsafe.

"The Board is now expecting revenue and Adjusted EBITDA to be behind current market expectations for the current financial year with revenue of approximately £23 million (up c. 70% from £13.6 million in FY21) and Group Adjusted EBITDA of approximately £3.0 million (up c. 250% from £0.8 million in FY21). In FY23 the Board plans to increase operational investment, in particular through eCharge and onsite solar generation, to capitalise on enhanced long-term growth opportunities presented by the energy crisis. As a result, the Board expects lower Adjusted EBITDA margins in FY23 than current market expectations whilst still delivering improved margins over FY22."

As mentioned previously, in my opinion the Board of Directors have not performed well in a sector that we all know the company should be presently booming in. The group has an energy brokerage (Utility Team) with bureau capabilities, energy management (Beond), that can service Carbon Net Zero, SECR, ESOS, DECS & stricter EPC's opportunities, Solar, and EV charging. In this environment how can eEnergy not be performing?

This particular market has recently seen a Energy Group sale, sell for circa £120m with EBITDA circa £10m. Others have proven they can perform in this sector and poor performance cannot be down to Covid or the current energy crisis.

Again in my opinion I feel the Board have not bought well and are now paying the price for it. The "new" CFO Crisp Goldsmith who's previous role in the company included M&A strategy guided by Harvey Sinclair have in my opinion overpaid for companies such as Utility Team. "Clawback's" from energy suppliers may have been substantial due to client energy reductions, COT's, and customer bankruptcies. Although due diligence should have highlighted those risks in advance and price adjustment or deal structure amended to protect the eEnergy Group should have been put in place.

I fear that if a take-over does not come soon then things could be looking very gloomy for all the staff that work for the group.

This is rocket science after all.

This is a response to xxxAccountant that sent me the attached belligerent reply back on the 16th August after I tried to warn the investors regarding this stock.

"My god some people on here are full if sh$t. You’ve not been a CEO of anything and you certainly don’t talk like one I’ve worked with over the years. My group have bought into Eenergy. I worked with them for a bit, very impressive customer service, lovely team to work with and impressive software. Their sales pitch presentation was glossy and easy to understand. These guys will go far I am am convinced of that. In the right space at the right time. Over the next 12 months in this hellish energy environment, companies will turn to Eenergy, the only question for me is, do they have the capacity to support the growth"

I am sorry for those that have invested in Eenergy. As I mentioned previously the Board of Directors are not managing the company well. It was mentioned that the new FD who was installed in July would sort things out. However as he was promoted internally, he has been a serious contributor to the issues for the past 2 years and hence the company is going from worse to worse.

I would of said 3 months ago that an aggressive takeover would have been worth considering, but now as things are starting to unravel I wouldn't even consider it now.

A message to xxxAccountant. Sometimes it is better to listen and not try to belittle those around you that might know better.

Shandypants2,

Sorry for the tardy reply. I think everyone agrees on this platform that those working in the energy efficiency sector should be “flying along” with record sales/profits. So why isn't this happening?

It can be overstated that the revenue growth has tripled but at what cost? The board have acquired businesses through acquisitions and in my opinion were overpriced. The additions to the group will of course increase revenues as the positive statements being posted, but at the same time it also increases debt that needs to be serviced. These figures not so readily being highlighted.

Now that energy capped prices have been introduced, many suppliers have withdrawn their matrix prices used predominantly on SME based businesses. This means that the broker element of eEnergy will be struggle to book new business with suppliers, which will ultimately result in reduced revenue. Typically, on SME based customers (likely that UT has more SME customers than mid-market and I&C) they would receive 80% upfront payment from the supplier on signing the contract, with the remaining 20% being reconciled at the end of the fixed term (1-4 years depending on the contract). This results in the signing of new contracts being imperative to the income and overall stability of the company. As the Utility Team acquisition makes up a substantial proportion of the Groups revenue this would concern me even more.

I am sorry if my opinions are not what you wanted to hear. They are based on my knowledge of the energy market, which I have been involved in for the past 30 years, working as a CEO for both Limited and Plc businesses.

Most of you must have come across companies that are surrounded by hype. However results are eventually needed otherwise the crash will undoubtedly happen.

If you cant see the warning signs, then leave your money where it is and run with it.

I wish you all the best.

In my opinion there has been a lot of hype around Eenergy without the results to back it up.

The acquisition of Utility Team was a particularly poor investment in my opinion. To purchase a predominantly SME based energy brokerage (although there is a relatively low percentage T/O attributed to the consultancy side of the business), with the potential claw-backs, from energy suppliers due to post Covid business closures and COT's (change of tenancy), is a risky business. The price Eenergy paid again was in my opinion massively over the top at £11.5m initial consideration. In addition a further expected payment of £3m but with a contingency to make that a further £6.3m payment will be paid on reaching agreed targets.

Please also take note when you are gauging the increase in revenue for the Eenergy group. An extended accountancy period for Utility Team/Beond of 18months has been reported instead of 12 months, which has resulted in inflating the performance somewhat. EBITDA figures could also be misleading as Depreciation and Amortorisation of Intangibles have also inflated the EBITDA when compared to previous accounting periods.

It is going to take an awful long time for Eenergy to gain a return on this type of investment, especially when the overall group is reporting such low profits/losses.

I am sorry but I don't have any faith in the executive board and their reputation within the sector is anything but high, again in my opinion.

Sorry for the doom and gloom but facts are facts. Get your money out whilst you can.