The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
B3….difference is I run a very successful business…..what do you do, teach some kind of eco “studies” or something at a red brick former poly? Run a business, you couldn’t run a bath…..
At least my spokes, rims and tyres would be part of an assemble that would work, and I wouldn’t have to give a 50% discount….
B3
should R&D be done for free? Errr...yes. If you own the IP to the product, and you're hoping to sell the product, then shouldn't you foot the bill for the R&D for that product?
Now if it were a case that a company had an agreement to buy your product at a significant discount if they prove commercially viable, and you give them a 50% discount in the form of shares in your company (never mind the dilution folks), then I suppose there could be an argument for them to pay a bit towards the R&D cost....oh, yes, of course that's what happened, isn't it?
Noj
Those of a cynical disposition could take the view that the cells will never be anything other than trickle chargers, which is unfortunately totally at odds with the original USP which was the ability to provide an on demand supply. Ask yourself this, if the thing is reliant on batteries to store the charge, then why not just cut out the middle man and simply charge the battery directly? Surely it’s got to be cheaper and more efficient to have a battery array on the back of a lorry which is recharged offsite than having to continually deliver whopping great tanks of H2 to the trickle charger….
Noj.......Ahhh, I'd completely forgotten that the amazing tower of power has a low centre of gravity because of the inclusion of a whole load of batteries that it shouldn't really need if it was able to operate as an on demand supply, rather than a glorified trickle charger....
Garonne
You're completely wrong there......the company does absolutely loads of market reseach....its always researching what the next big thing is going to be so they're ready to spin off in a new direction when no one wants the current iteration they are touting...
Surf
I hear what you say, and believe it or not, am hopeful that this time is different, but the problem many long term holders have is that this company has a long and not so proud history of painting an overly optimistic view of their progress and the fear is that this time will simply be a case of history repeating itself. Leopards and spots, and all that.
I personally don't believe that AB is the problem, after all he's only the (admittedly massively overpaid) front end of an R&D company which has as a whole failed to deliver the marketable products, which really isn't down to him. The continued "jam tomorrow" mantra pushed out is irksome, but if it is the case that tings are proving more difficult to develop than anticipated what else can he do? admit this fact to the world and watch the share price tank, or be a bit economical and try to keep the balls up in the air? I say we need to be thankful that old rhino hide is still in harness, otherwise who knows where the share price would be...
B3
If you disagree with the stance a particular poster takes, then should you not be able to provide evidence to support your stance? Your view is that the company is well on track for delivery of a truly commercial product, but that stance flies in the face of the complete litany of over promising and rose tinted view of the situation as promoted by the company and lapped up by the converted, I'm simply asking you to provide some form of evidence to support your stance.
you wont though, because we know that you can't.....
B3.
Yup, you win, we all know that AB hasn’t said that each of the last 9 years has been transformational. You got us there, but what we do know is that over those 9 years he has failed to deliver a single product that has been proven to be saleable or commercially viable. You challenge others to provide proof in support of their statements, I challenge you to provide proof of delivery of a single product on truly commercial terms.
Bright
Huge hire companies can struggle to sell a commercially non viable product as well.
The largest construction companies may well be committed to net zero, but there are many ways of achieving this, but lets not forget, being committed to something and actually achieving it are two different things, especially if going off on a quixotic tilting at windmills drive for net zero costs the shareholders.
Basically, the most salient word in your last post is the word
IF
And that's the key to the whole debate.
Daz
Theses no doubt that the terms of the JV will be agreed, no matter how skewed in Speedy’s favour simply because it’s an absolute buyers market, because AFC are desperate to be seen to be selling something / anything, and this is just another smoke and mirrors way of keeping the balls in the air….my prediction for the form of this JV will be that AFC will sell a number of units into the JV, Speedy will put in an equal amount “in kind” (just like the muppets testing the kettle boilers did, so that it didn’t cost them anything) and then lo and behold, Speedy get a share option off the back of it (a bit like the ABB compensation)….ubers will get all moist about sales (with no thought about whether the “sales” actually generate bottom line) and tout the share option as a great tie in with a top flight company and the catalyst for jam tomorrow….but we won’t know anything about how it’s all panning out until 21 months after the kick off, by which time it will have withered on the vine…..but that will be fine and dandy, because we’ll be closer to developing the holy grail, and ABB will have bought their discounted 10 units at a knock down loss leading price, so all good then…..