Member Info for Gitfinger

Explanation for the hard of thinking......

A company agrees to buy a product for £10Million.

That is the contract price.

If the vendor company delivers the product on specification, and on time, then £10M is the contractual entitlement.

If the customer pays the vendor £10M, but then the vendor gives the customer something with a value of £5.0M, then by definition, the customer has received a discount.

No matter which way this is played, the fact that the vendor has given £5.0M of assets to the customer means that it's balance sheet will have been reduced by the afore said £5.0M, and therefore, the sad fact is that this discount has been given at the shareholders expense, either by way of reduction in net asset value, or share dilution, which is what has happened in the case of AFC

M3

Absolute truth......explain in detail why you believe it's tosh.....

Daz......How very dare you!

You seem to be suggesting that ABB contracted to buy a unit for £4.0M, and that it was delivered meeting the performance criteria, but rather than taking the £4.0M which it was entitled to, AFC gave back £2.0M to ABB in the form of 10,000,000 shares.....but surely that means that the company only received value of £2.0M for the contract...that can't be right..... Next thing, you'll be telling me that the company agreed to give a discount on the first 10 units sold to ABB, and that there is no binding agreement for them to actually buy anything at all.....Get away with you!

Abusive because you're being told what you don't want to hear?

If you think anything I've posted is abusive, then it's not a case of thin skin, it's no skin......

Example....I challenged B3 to come up with any example of a collaboration which has been remotely long lived, and proved financially successful....was this abusive? NO......Was this asking a question that was impossible to answer honestly whilst not compromising your position? YES.......Did B3 respond.....NO.........Was the post deleted......YES......

There is a not so proud history of this tactic.....If a question is asked that cannot be answered with a positive spin, then firstly the question is ignored, secondly an attempt is made to discredit the poster, and thirdly the post is deleted.

So we have no answers on why ABB were given the £2.0M discount, why there has been a change of narrative in the RNS ref output, or any indication of long term fruitful relationships....

Crack on......Newtons law boys, every action and all that.......

Potential new investors

If (which you most certainly shouldn’t) you use the sentiment on this board as a barometer of the chances of success on this stock, just consider the way that the Ubers are behaving….repeated posts of the same drivel as a clear attempt to stifle free speech, and shut down any views other than their own. There are potentially two reasons for this, they are deliberately trying to perpetuate the myth that this company will be the road to future riches in order to entice the unwary, so that and artificially high share price is maintained so that they protect their investment, or they are completely utterly delusional loons with no self awareness, who cannot see that a combination of share price decline, the company’s continued inability to deliver an actual sale of anything on commercial terms, and long periods of radio silence does actually make anyone who behaves in the way they do look like a complete nut job.

Now let’s see what happens…deletion of this followed by an avalanche of drivel, I guess….

B3…..Ah, so your place in academia is obviously in connection with “fuel cell studies”……..How about you actually read what’s written before trying to manipulate things to fit your own agenda. I know quite welll what the component parts of a fuel cell are, and how they fit together, and have never confused electrodes with catalysts with membranes……All I said was that there was talk about IP ref membranes years ago (which there was) and that the company bought a croissant making machine…..OK, I omitted to expand on this and give a chapter and verse explanation of what it was for (it was actually for the production if the catalyst cake that again apparently had some magical properties and it’s own very valuable IP, apparently) and the robot was for stacking the component parts in order to make the cells (which ultimately didn’t work)……

Nice try……..oh, by the way, remember that the doubters have history on their side in any argument, so insofar as the company is concerned, it’s a case of the Ubers needing to prove the doubters wrong, which you are never going to be able to do, because you have absolutely no hard evidence to support your deluded position….

Off you go, back to academia, I’m sure you’ll find someone studying some kind of “studies” who really shouldn’t be there to impress / indoctrinate……

Jimmy an

Real information? Nope, just wishful thinking make believe…..if, by drowned out, you mean constantly posting the same testes time and time again, then wow, that really brings something to the party…..at least the doubters actually put a shift in and actually type something rather than just a cut and paste job…..that’s not difficult, and not praiseworthy…..should we all enter into a groundhog loop and post the same thing ad nfinitum?

B3

“Ok then, witless idiots with nothing else to do in their lives.”

How many test have you posed in the last 30 days?

“Hello Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle”

Or

“People in glass houses…..”

Oh, of course, you’re just fulfilling your civic duly to lift the veil of truth from the eyes of those who you very arrogantly believe are too feeble minded to think for themselves…..sounds like you’re a resident of academia with that kind of condescending thought process…..what is it, I bet it’s something with “studies” at the end, and probably something “eco” into the bargain..

One (no, actually 2) flies in the ointment

1. Lease deals aren’t on commercial terms at the moment because no money changes hands, but income is reflected as payment in kind, which cancels out the income elsewhere in the P&L……so calculating the income stream from those is easy……multiple leases times zero

2. ABB pipeline…..no tie in on that, so fundamental uncertainty….discount applicable on first 10 units (not quantified yet) so margins invariably hit…..

Ok, time to fess up…….all the basher crew are sat in an underground silo working for the lizard people, the directive is really simple, bash this disruptive technology until all of the companies involved go bust, that way we can keep the world reliant on the oil that we own, until we have perfected the fusion reactor we have nearly perfected……

Ok, the truth is out, happy now all you tin foil hat merchants……

Paid bashers…….really!

Every point made has a counterpoint........

Looks like Mr Touchy thought this needed removing.........

"ABB to develop high power EV charging solution in partnership with AFC Energy

Press release | Zurich, Switzerland | 2020-12-16

ABB has today announced the launch of a strategic partnership with AFC Energy to create the next generation of high power sustainable electric vehicle (EV) charging solutions for grid constrained locations

The collaboration between ABB and AFC Energy aims to support the delivery of the charging infrastructure required to meet this increasing demand. It will result in a new solution that will provide a secure, efficient, flexible and reliable local power supply, with zero emissions, and will be ready for deployment initially in the UK, Europe, United States and elsewhere, by the second half of 2021."

Yup, still waiting...............

By the way, this is from an ACTUAL ABB press release....

B3…..I’m not confusing anything with anything….the point I was making was that way back, the company was intent on having its own, bespoke technology which it owned the IP to. We now have units made of an amalgam of proprietary parts….

Maybe an amalgam of proprietary parts is the way to go, and if this route provides a saleable product then that’s fine….

M3…..cobbling together an amalgam of other peoples stuff isn’t development…..on the basis that way back, everyone (especially DW, we was actually massively pro the company, remember that?) got all moist about the IP that the company had secured ref the membrane, I think keeping on batting on about it now that they’re using someone else’s is actually quite justified, thank you very much!

Oh, the many and various trials, not on commercial terms, and any sign of commercial orders?..nope, still that simple….

I’m just thankful that I liquidated 90% on the Abramavich spike……talking of which, if his director buddies saw any future in the company, why did they all reduce, rather than increase their holdings, and also resign their directorship…..yes, I know you’re n to say that this took place under different leadership, but there is still the same underlying flawed DNA…..

And my residual 10% is probably greater than your 100%

M3……..true, history is littered with companies who have promised “the next big thing” and failed to deliver……actually, calling AFC an R&D company is possibly a tad generous…..they haven’t actually developed anything in their own right, have they ? The original spin was all about developing their own membrane (remember how excited some got when the company bought…I kid you not….a croissant making machine, and then …a robot…) look at the intubation now, sort of trialling proto products using other peoples membrane……doesn’t inspire confidence, does it?

Sad thing is, the death spiral decline we are seeing is costing us all money…..we all have to have a coping strategy for this…..some may go into denial, and continue to live in hope, someday get all bitter and twisted…..me, I just accept, and take comfort from the fact that the aggressive Uber gang must inwardly be feeling more than a little bit mugged off, even if they won’t admit it….

Skin getting a bit thin then B3, I see you’ve resorted to getting stuff removed on spurious grounds again…..

B3.....Well yes, I would say that, because its quite correct. As for Garonne, he is absolutely entitled to express his opinion on how the company conducts itself, and if you look at what's actually been delivered by comparison to what was promised, he does indeed have a point. The company goes through long periods of radio silence, and when something is released, the narrative is so shrouded with ambiguity that, if looked at in an even handed way, sometimes carries very little credibility. Now you may be totally happy with what you read in an RNS, or what you are told by people at your beloved AGM (the phrase "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" springs to mind) but others of a more analytical disposition prefer to see hard facts, of which there are very few (the only exception to this is of course disclosures in respect of directors remuneration which are very clear!). Just because someone's views don't sort your particular narrative doesn't mean that their views are wrong, until proven otherwise, or that they are in the employ of the Illuminati lizard people, it just means that their views are different......

Daz

Interesting point you raise. As you say, income recognition is completely different from invoicing, and in order for the income to be recognised, work must have been done, for which there will be a cost, so the company can recognise all the income it wants, but it will add absolutely noting to the bottom line. Unless, of course, the company decides to allocate some of the costs to the balance sheet as an asset, but at this point in time, I think there could be audit assurance issues if this were done (remember, the company was "in discussion" with the auditors" in connection with this years accounts, so I suspect that they will be on notice to consider any capital treatment of spend in this respect very carefully.

Shouldn't that read "200kw"?