Member Info for Hydro-Jen

TO PH

I wish to question whether Peel Hunt have exercised appropriate supervision over the way in which shareholders and the market have been kept informed regarding the progress, or otherwise, of AFC Energy PLC's business.

It seems very clear to me that information provided via the Regulatory News Service has been inaccurate in a number of instances or omitted in many others and that the overall picture provided has been misleading.

My understanding is that part of Peel Hunt's responsibilities as Nominated Adviser to the Company is to determine which developments would be considered to be price sensitive and verify the information provided to the market.

I cannot see that level of oversight has been provided in respect of the following (and would stress that these are only examples; there are more).

1. The existence of a £27m 'order book' as was highlighted on several; occasions by the company’s former Chief Executive. It seems absolutely clear that there is no such order book, using that phrase in any accepted sense.

2. The status of the company's 'order' from ABB first highlighted in November 2021. That order has never been fulfilled and it is unclear whether it is still valid. If the original order was considered to be price sensitive news then serious doubts about whether it remains in place must, by definition, also be price sensitive but there have been no further announcements

3. The company's income last year, which was stated as being c. £4.0m was shrouded in doubt as it appeared (I can only surmise) that most was via the joint venture with Speedy Hire plc. It therefore appears that at least some of that amount was merely moved from one company to another rather than being genuine income. While that may meet accounting standards I cannot see it as being open.

The company has announced numerous partnerships, joint ventures etc. over a long period of time which have been identified as being price sensitive and therefore subject to formal announcements. To pick just one the announcement made on 1 December 2021 - but the disappearance (and the new CEO all but confirmed this without being specific at the presentation this morning) of these prospects must surely also be price sensitive.

Investors in AIM companies accept that they are high risk, they accept that dilution is an ever-present risk; that is clear. I do not believe, however, that the risks accepted should include being grossly misled over an extended period and I cannot conclude that anything other than that has been the case at this company.

PH RESPONSE

We thank you for raising your concerns. We confirm that we are taking the points raised seriously and will consider these further, including with the company as appropriate.

You will appreciate however that we are subject to strict confidentiality and regulatory obligations, and so we are unable to provide you with any further information.

I have done and would encourage others to do so. But this opst got side-tracked from a very current issue - the competence, effectiveness and cost of the NEDs

Can you not distinguish between bearish and posting sensible views? I'll give you a challenge - point to one thing I have said that isn't reasonable. Just one.

And, of course, their gibberish was promoted by the likes of the absurd Haggis who insisted, with all his usual charm, time and again that it was based on solid discounted cash flow calculations, despite the fact that there has never been and was never likely to be anything that represented meaningful cash flow of any sort.

It's obvious, Daz, what Peel Hunt did to come up with their stupid target price. They just swallowed everything that management told them and performed absolutely no critical analysis of any sort.

It was an absolutely disgraceful abrogation of any kind of professionalism and it is made worse by them bleating on very regularly about the poor state of the small cap market when this sort of behaviour is one of the prime reasons for its serious and ongoing demise.

All markets are built on trust and that sort of nonsense actively destroys it.

I offered CN a charity bet that we had sold nothing to Niftylift but weirdly no response. I'd be happy offering the same bet here bit as I've filtered him I won't see a response - not that there's be one,

Well, if they did reduce their short via market activity we'll be seeing another material reduction shortly when the new shares are approved/admitted

You really could start an argument in an empty phone box.

You have posted with an obvious implication that they have taken a decision to reduce their exposure.

I've pointed out that they haven't and that's that. It turns out you can be wrong after all. Yet again...

Well, there you go

Already covered days ago. No market activity, just dilution for share issue

These are the non-executive directors and their dates of appointment

Dr Gerald Agnew, 9/9/19

Dr Monika Biddulph 3/12/21

Gary Bullard 15/4/21

Duncan Neale 1/8/23

I don't know what they do bring to the business but I do know that the Chairman and NEDs have a clear responsibility to challenge the executive directors and senior management on strategy, planning and policy-making.

We can probably give Mr Neale a bit of slack given his later appointment but I would like to know what the others have done since they were appointed in respect of that specific responsibility. Either they have failed to provide adequate oversight of previous executive management or they have challenged and been ignored.

There is also a very clear question as to whether a loss making business of this size really needs 4 (expensive) NEDs.

I will certainly be considering voting against their reappointments when the opportunity arises.

It would be unusual for any business to be so specific in disclosing its margin. And presumably if the likes of BB or Keir come knocking then it will be very negotiable anyway

My life and mood is much enhanced this morning by extensive use of filtering.

Absolutely agree - move on from Bond - history. But let's not put a single ounce of faith in anything Peel Hunt say because they haze zero credibility and they are still very much here. They are part of the problem with the smallcap market being in the state it is in.

Not probably... No change in their position other than as affected by issue of shares

PH's ludicrous target price history (remember 195p based on discounted cash flow calcs?!) can only mean that they just believed everything Bond said. Because they certainly can't have analysed the cost of equipment and concluded that we'd sell any.

We in the dark punters have an excuse for that - as alleged professionals, they don't.

That particular weirdo posts absolutely nothing of any relevance whatsoever. Ever.

Revenue would be great....but I'll settle for one cast iron contract that promises it on the reasonably near future. I suppose one could argue that supporting Tamgo in Extreme H must be worth something - but it's a back to the future moment

One might have thought hat after being utterly humiliated last week when it was 100% demonstrated that he understood absolutely nothing he might have the self-awareness to just back off from insulting people for a little while...but no.

I've asked you before, but never manage to post anything that indicates I am not truthful. And that is because there is no such thing to post. Why they used that picture? I don't know. Why you continually insult people who make perfectly valid points - only you know.