Member Info for Hydro-Jen

Just another one in the sea of made up nonsense. There was never the slightest likelihood that 'analysing the results' of an investor presentation could lead to a material RNS. It clearly isn't a forum where sensitive information can be released.

Still, anyone who disagrees with such a preposterous suggestion must be a shorter etc.

One day he'll get something right, but only through sheer weigh of number of predictions/random guesses and I've no doubt at all that if that's the case he'll be all over his telling us he was right all the time.

I, like all other shareholders, obviously do hope he is ultimately right but in the meantime I can heartily recommend not engaging with people who are incapable of rational debate.

Are you on the wrong board? What's down 50%?

In my book the concept that anyone on these boards works for Helikon is beyond absurd. Way, way, way beyond.

While they may both be somewhat one-eyed I don't believe they are the same person. The former is generally civil and I think that is beyond the capabilities of the latter.

But it is definitely a good plan to not engage with anyone who demonstrates an inability to engage in rational debate.

100% correct. As the board oof Whitbread has clearly decided the fact that their name harks back to ancient history and has zero connection with their current business is of no importance at all.

I can see why AFC have done this but in no way whatsoever is it crucial t future success. I hope it didn't/won't waste too much management time or money.

There are FTSE 100 companies still operating under legacy names that have nothing to do with their business operations today. Irrelevant.

I'm trying to think of a subject other than a name change about which I could be more ambivalent. But it's not coming to me.

There was a time facilitated a useful, interesting and informative exchange of news and views. But that function has been destroyed by one person's inability to have a rational and civilised debate.

There is only one solution - don't engage.

I can heartily recommend declining to engage with people who are incapable of or unwilling to engage in sensible or rational debate.

Was hoping for an IM date

I do not engage with individuals unable to participate in rational debate.

I'll make this clear that this post has NOTHING SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH AFC BEING SHORTED but there was a market development yesterday which emphasise how important shorting can be to the markets.

Viceroy announced that it had take a material short position in Close Brothers and the shares tanked. Viceroy reckon that CB has misled the market regarding its exposure to car financing redress. Why dopes this matter? Well - Viceroy has previously taken short position in Wirecard and Home REIT which were exposed as frauds and therefore grotesquely valued. I was going to say overvalued but valued at all is the same thing in those cases. Tiger/Roble did the same thing with Quindell a few years ago.

If a firm is willing to do proper detailed research and come to the sorts of conclusions that Viceroy reached in those cases then there's no reason at all why they shouldn't be able to profit from that work and the only way of doing so is by shorting. The long-term effect of leaving frauds unexposed is more damaging overall.

It always takes two views to make a market work effectively and all serious market participants know that shorting enhances liquidity.

The thought that people on here are paid to spread doom is, however, beyond ridiculous.

As mentioned below in a thread on a different subject SHS accounts will be due soon (July is mentioned but they were published in mid-April last year).

I can't get over excited about some marginal shared income from renting out uneconomic, obsolete units using fuel from elsewhere. Every little helps, of course.

As promised to myself I will not be engaging with anyone incapable of debate

I don't think that's necessarily the case, Alde, re economics stacking up. I'd prefer, at this stage, to think that it demonstrates identifying potential over and above initial thoughts. Either view is possibly correct.

And although we clearly have other games in town I say we're done if the S&P Partner doesn't progress is because that would be a monumental lack of validation for the possibility of commercialising the cracker technology. If that fails at that stage I can't see a strong possibility (not nil) that the Komatsu R&D, Mahle Powertrain etc. will be different and the success of the fuel cells clearly rests on FAAS, which depends on the cracker.

The original timescale for revealing who the partner is was 6-9 months from the IM presentation in July 2025 so we really want to see an update within the next month, especially as JW raised the possibility of earlier disclosure a few weeks ago.

Of course it had to be announced to the market! That wasn't an optional PR move!!

That's equally simple. If the S&P partner pulls out then we're done. No reason at all at this point to think they will but it is, of course, possible.

This debate is very simply summarised.

The potential rewards here are very significant. As is usually the case when there are significant potential rewards on the horizon, the risks are commensurately high.

Anyone who can't acknowledge that as an absolute truth is just fooling themselves. If the risks were greatly lower/didn't exist then the price would not be where it is.

Or we could just divert this thread down an un-associated route instead.