Member Info for Hydro-Jen

That's the whole point. We're all aligned in what we want to happen (II don't believe for a second there are multiple shorters on here, and I'm most certainly not one of them). We all have opinions but when they are totally one-eyed and unbalanced then they stifle constructive (there's an irony) debate rather than facilitating it.

Anyway, we're up - but we have to hope that there's a concrete (maybe even tarmac...) reason for that in the offing rather than yet another false dawn.

Well, I judge it as meaningless waffle. So there you go.

And endless ramping via regurgitated AI generated waffle is helpful?

The point is that a two way debate can actually be helpful.

Just sticking with one view constantly and rubbishing perfectly reasonable views that may not be 100% in agreement destroys debate and analysis to nobody's benefit

As my original purchase was at £1.60 i think i camn safely say that we will not see an all time high anytime soon! I am slightly in profit but you can see that has taken a fair bit of averaging down!!

That's a really interesting development. The government body taking an equity stake is one that has made me jump back a bit. It's obviously dilutive but the jump in the share price demonstrates that not all dilutive fund raises are necessarily bad news for existing shareholders. This one represents a clear vote of confidence in the business.

We know that sooner or later, if AFC is to really gear up its production then funds will be needed. The hope is that at that stage the necessary funds will be raised from a position of strength rather than being required to keep the lights on as has been the case historically. Whether a fund raise come from existing shareholders, the S&P Partner or a similar subscriber or via government it is the reason for it and the use it will be put to which will determine whether it is value creating or destroying for us.

You lost me at 'of bin'

Thanks Mr GPT

I think it's inconceivable that we will end the JV with SDY. For all their struggles they are the leading plat hirer to the construction sector so if we exited what would we replace them with? We don't have the network to do it ourselves and our model is clearly built on leasing rather than equipment sales direct to users.

I doubt it Daz, my guess would be that we didn't meet them either given we were offering generators priced as if they were made in solid gold.

Speedy's travails are of obvious concern to us as they can be regarded as a bellwether of the construction industry. When one looks at the awful history of its share price it seems pretty clear that it isn't in an especially lucrative sector and/or doesn't hold the whip hand in negotiations.

Yes, exclusive.

But I'd put the issues SDY are having as being industry wide rather than specific to them. The concern is whether renting equipment ever makes any money because a simple look at SDY's share price history is not encouraging. And that's in a period when several of their competitors have gone.

Speedy has been an absolutely dire investment for many, many years. Now at a 12 year low.

Did well for about a year before mid 2007 (when it reached 350p) and has been downhill all the way since then. It probably demonstrates just how hard it is to make money in their line of work.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/SDY/speedy-hire-plc/company-page

It's not a matter of opinion at all! We can't increase profitability until we have profits to increase - that's really not complex!!

We are still a long way from being in a position where the words 'increase profitability' can be used with credibility

For what purpose?

The key thing here is what development might make it appropriate for the partner to be named. Clearly they don't want that to happen yet so what changes that and when?

I was always a bit puzzled at the suggestion that the partner didn't want to be named for fear that a competitor could nip in and steal a march as I'd have thought such concerns would be readily alleviated via a legal exclusivity agreement, which must surely be in place anyway as part of the development funding - but no reason not to believe what we were told on that score.

My suspicion on that point (totally unfounded) was that perhaps they have more partnerships with other H2 market participants and they don't want to be seen as having a scattergun approach or that the potential embarrassment from being associated with a project that may or may not come to fruition might be best avoided.

Anyway, that's just speculation, and probably wrong but when we are experiencing a (natural) news vacuum speculation does tend to fill the gap! What changes matters?

That could be an actual real life move to commerciality because that would clearly be a market sensitive development that would have to be announced to the market and anonymity couldn't survive that. That doesn't appear imminent given the additional development advised in the recent IM call. So the other (positive) option is that development has moved onto such a point that the company is happy for its name to be associated with it. That may not mean immediate commerciality but it would be a decent indication that the probability of that had increased significantly, so hopefully a boost all round.

Whatever the current and future situation is I'd rather see it sooner rather than later. We've gone beyond the initial 6-9 months indicated schedule now and as the IM Call had JW suggesting the reveal might be sooner than expected there's a bit of a minor timing disconnect at present. Not one to panic about but given where we are...

There is absolutely no reason at all why the 16th would be a significant date in this context. None at all.

Anyone paying any attention knows all the things listed. And anyone with an iota of common sense knows full well the there is no guarantee that any or all of them will come to fruition. We hope they all do so, obviously.

Just sticking it into AI repeatedly and regurgitating whatever it spews out does not change the fact that the risks are high and until we start to get meaningful commercial orders those risks will not reduce materially.

AI certainly has its uses and doubtless they will develop further.

Definitley well worth checking its output for utter nonsense before taking it at face value though.

No reply. How odd.