Member Info for Hydro-Jen

If you act like a clown I'll call you one. It must be hard to have a debate as your big red nose will obstruct your airways.

Still no answer to the regularly posed question by me and others - point out one thing that we've said that is wrong.

I'll still say, Aldebaran (while ignoring the clown) that the most likely scenario for any fund raise, if needed, is the S&P partner taking a material stake.

In the last presentation one of the reasons JW cited for the anonymity was to reduce the likelihood of an opportunistic rival nipping in front of them and acquiring AFC. A business partnership doesn't remove that possibility - having a material stake would reduce the likelihood significantly

We all know we are within the 6-9 month period mentioned in the July '25 presentation to move into the next phase with the S&P partner and hopefully confirm who they are. That announcement comes when commercial terms are agreed - which would obviously be a significant step forward, and one which I would hope would produce a material uplift in value (that's 35 minutes into the presentation)

it was at the same point in the presentation that JW said that we 'are tentatively working with another partner around a JDA' . I'd really like to hear an update on that.

From 46 minutes in. You tell me how else it can be interpreted

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/meetings/investor-update-75

in the meantime CN contends that we could be at a market cap in less than 2 years time that (if we had a full listing) would see us established within the FTSE 100.

Yes he did. He speculated on what the value of a 10% holding might be in five years' time if he had looked to take the company private.

And your £5 per share is based on what exactly? Have you actually worked out what the market cap would be on that basis? I'll give you a clue - it's quite a lot.

It's a challenge I've posed to you before, CN, and one which has always been ignored. Other people have posted similar challenges to you and you have also ignored them.

Show me something I've said which has been wrong.

I post balanced views, including noting outstanding questions.

Not everything is positive (the share price movement over the last five years would be an example) and not everything is negative - I have posted many times about the potential.

You on the other hand have posted many times saying that things are factually true and many times you have been proven to be wrong (and have never acknowledged any of them). In fact I'm struggling to think of anything material that you have said that has proved to be right.

Now, the one thing that I would like you, very much , to be proved right about is the future growth in the value of my significant shareholding but even on that subject you ramp incessantly - e.g. saying multiple times that you see this priced at £5 per hare by the end of next year. There is no basis for that at all and as I have pointed out even the CEO implied that if all goes to plan we'll be nowhere near that valuation in five years.

Somebody make it make sense.

The chances of major institutional shareholders using ii and others is precisely nil. It just isn't what they do. if you want to believe differently that's up to you.

But even if you don't believe me - and I know what I'm talking about - the listen to JW talk about major shareholders in the last presentation. He mentioned that there were some that were not far below the notifiable level and suggested that some of those might be firms which had invested in business he'd run before joining AFC. Now, that is a clearly a very good thing but it's a long way from suggesting that 84% of the equity is in the hands of institutional investors - because it isn't. If it was then the liquidity of the share would be much more restricted than it actually is - again a point referred to by JW at the last presentation.

It's based on my knowledge of what those companies do!

Do you really think that, say, Interactive Investor is a major provider of corporate custodian services?

In any event, how does anyone get to 84%?

Go on then - link it.

The link I posted from the AFC website clearly identified that most of the notifiable (>3%) shareholders are firms that hold shares on behalf of retail clients.

You tell me how you get to 84%. I think you'd struggle to read your own name badge.

Five people have recommended a post saying that 84% of the company's equity is in institutional hands despite that 'fact' being demonstrable nonsense. Whether it is made up nonsense or just nonsense from a complete lack of understanding isn't entirely clear but here's absolutely no denying that it is most certainly nonsense.

No wonder it's so hard to have a sensible balanced debate.

Lord only knows where you get 84% from

https://www.afcenergy.com/investors/aim-rule-26/shareholders

All of those, bar Janus Henderson are retail investors

I blame the lack of financial education the national curriculum. The level of naive stupidity on display is truly mind boggling.

You are a lunatic. I've said what a good thing it would be if a major multi-national player takes a material equity stake on the back of extensive validation of our tech.

And you think that makes me a shorter?!

Absolute, full-on, unbridled, limitless idiocy.

You utter, utter fool. Nothing I've said there is remotely negative. Grow up man, for pity's sake.

That's what I said!

You're so obsessed with your stupid contention that I'm a shorter that you can't even read anymore

I believe that would need serious backing from the S&P Partner, and I'd think that is best is the form of a material equity stake.

Why? Because if I am a serious player (let's say a Tier One construction company) I'm not signing a 10-15 year agreement for crucial supply with a very small, loss making company. That's just basic risk management. If that partner does take an equity stake then that would be dilution but for a clear commercial purpose and I'd be fine with that.

Shorter - yadda yadda

Negative - yadda yadda

Personal abuse - yadda yadda

Well, it was quite exciting for a while...

Any thought re what may prompt a further rerating?

As I recall the trial with Brett was facilitated by subsidy - which was inevitable under the old regime as the products were clearly not commercial, nowhere near commercial.

It's definitely a positive that they are reporting on it recently; the best scenario is that they are in a queue ready to order units once the revised versions have gone through whatever testing and certification process is necessary - but I'd say the chances of that actually being confirmed imminently are small - not nil but small. Such confirmation is much more likely to come, if it does, much later in the year.

I'd say Siemens is abut as likely as Air Liquide - guessed at by your mate. That's not likely at all as it's not in the S&P 500

I'm talking about validation as a commercial prospect. We know it works, but then so did Bond's diamond encrusted chargers