Member Info for LuckyLaurie

Oh dear Spikeyj 🙈 what are you on about?

I’m not defending Michael Green’s history — ADME is a completely different company in a completely different sector, with a totally different asset profile.

But using his track record on a small-cap oil play to dismiss a resource-based valuation on EUA doesn’t stack up.

My point stands:

Analyst numbers (especially in paid-for notes) are almost always risk-weighted and deliberately conservative.

That’s industry practice — not a comment about Michael Green personally.

And it’s exactly why the 28p figure should be seen as the base case, not the ceiling.

Regardless of what any one analyst has done in the past, the underlying valuation argument for EUA is built on hard metrics:

   •   4Moz+ PGM resource at Monchetundra

   •   Significant nickel/copper/cobalt upside from Nyud + Western areas

   •   Full permits already in place

   •   Zero debt

   •   $2bn+ in-ground metal value using conservative assumptions

   •   Multiple monetisation pathways that aren’t modelled into the 28p figure at all

Those fundamentals don’t change based on who wrote the note.

So whether someone likes the analyst or not is irrelevant.

The assets themselves point to far more than 28p — which is why many of us see 40p–50p+ as a realistic reflection of EUA’s intrinsic value.

Great question Wilco-Roger

The 28p in the research note is the analyst safety-number, not the real valuation.

They never publish the true upside — they publish the number they’re confident they can hit, not the one that reflects full asset value.

Why? Because analysts load their models with every discount imaginable:

• Maximum country risk

• Maximum development risk

• Depressed metal prices

• High discount rates

• Zero value for strategic catalysts

• Zero optionality

• Zero for base-metal uplift

It’s the oldest trick in the book:

Undershoot the real valuation → look “right” later → protect yourself.

But when you strip out the artificial brakes and look at EUA’s actual fundamentals:

• 4Moz+ PGM at MT

• Significant nickel/copper/cobalt at Nyud + Western areas

• Fully permitted district

• $2bn+ in-ground resource value even on conservative assumptions

• Zero debt

• Multiple monetisation pathways ready to go

…you don’t get 28p.

You get 40p–50p+ without even trying.

So yes — the research note is conservative by design.

It’s the base case.

The real, asset-backed number is much higher, and that’s exactly why the rerate potential here is massive.

Let’s cut through the noise.

When you look at the assets and the macro backdrop, EUA is massively mispriced — and the coming geopolitical shift only strengthens the case.

1️⃣ Monchetundra = Multi-Billion Metals Inventory

Over 4Moz+ Pt/Pd/Au equivalent, plus major nickel, copper and cobalt credits.

Even using suppressed PGM pricing, you’re looking at $2bn+ in-ground value.

Yet the market is valuing EUA at pennies. It’s absurd.

2️⃣ Nyud + Western Areas Add Serious Base-Metal Firepower

Nickel grades stack up with global producers.

Copper and cobalt are back in strategic demand for EV, defence, and energy infrastructure.

On standard EV/resource multiples, EUA screens at 30p–60p today.

3️⃣ The Ceasefire/Peace Shift Is a Direct Market Catalyst

Whether people like it or not, any stabilisation or thawing in the geopolitical situation instantly increases the accessibility and strategic attractiveness of assets like EUA’s.

Funds that have been sitting on the sidelines re-enter fast.

This is exactly how sharp rerates start.

4️⃣ One Material RNS = Instant Normalisation

JV, carve-out, asset disposal, strategic partner — take your pick.

EUA is fully permitted, holds massive resources, has zero debt, and multiple monetisation routes.

You don’t need huge news for a big move — you just need clarity.

⭐ Bottom Line:

The maths alone puts EUA in the 40p–50p valuation zone.

With geopolitical pressure easing and multiple corporate catalysts still ahead,

this has all the hallmarks of the fastest rerate in the sector once the switch flips.

Qube have added ~1,400,000 shares to their short position with their last 2 increases 😂🤷‍♀️ or ~£1 Million they really are struggling to get to grips with their gambling but on a positive note, they are going to have to buy them all back at a much higher price 🥳

Missed a bit 🤏 👇

Happy to look at any hard numbers you’ve got on margins, JV economics or competitive threats. Until then, I’m basing my view on what’s actually in the RNS flow and company filings, not on the 2024 risk section frozen in time.

That’s the only point I’ve really been making.

Continued…….👇

4️⃣ IP / “Chinese clone” risk

Totally agree IP is a real risk – I’ve never said it isn’t. The disagreement is about whether it’s unmitigated.

Eco’s protection isn’t just a magic powder recipe, it’s the whole system:

   •   GFRG formulation and fibre ratios

   •   Wall panel system design (spans, joints, details)

   •   Proven manufacturing process and plant layout

   •   Full TÜV-run test suite (fire, structure, thermal, acoustic, water, toxicity) tied to this system

   •   Embedded relationships via government-linked JVs and housing programmes

Could someone eventually reverse-engineer it? Yes, if they throw enough time and money at it. But:

   •   They’d still need to fund the plant

   •   Run their own long certification cycle

   •   Replicate quality and consistency at scale

   •   Then go and win government-backed housing contracts against an incumbent that’s already delivering

So yes, IP risk exists. No, it’s not “unmitigated” and it certainly isn’t a reason to pretend the current contracts don’t exist.

5️⃣ “Ramping” and share price targets

I’ve been very clear that my 60p–100p / 150p+ numbers are personal valuation views, not guaranteed outcomes. They’re based on:

   •   Existing contracts and rollouts

   •   Line-throughput assumptions

   •   Gross margin in the range the company has guided to

   •   A multiple that’s actually lower than what you’d expect for a proven, TÜV-validated, multi-country modular system at scale.

If you disagree, that’s fine – but then the constructive thing is to post your numbers:

   •   what revenue do you model from Chile / Senegal / Sudan / Albania / Canada,

   •   what margin,

   •   and what multiple?

Then the rest of the board can compare.

6️⃣ On the 2024 report risks

This is the bit that started the whole discussion.

Some of the 2024 risk wording has definitely been mitigated by the last six months:

   •   “Will the product be certified?” → now independently tested across EN/ISO/BS equivalents

   •   “Will they secure major contracts?” → Chile + JVs + Canada

   •   “Can they scale a factory model?” → multiple lines now deployed / in deployment with line-throughput guidance

   •   “Is there real demand?” → multi-country pipeline and government-level housing projects

Other risks – IP, JV governance, execution, working capital – clearly remain. We agree there.

So I’m not suggesting zero risk. I’m saying that calling Eco “just a story stock” as if none of this has changed is lazy analysis.

Happy to look at any hard numbers you’ve got on margins, JV economics or competitive threats. Until then, I’m basing my view on what’s actually in the RNS flow and company filin

Pickedpeck, I’ll pick these off one by one, because some of what you’ve said is fair and some of it is just framing.

1️⃣ “Story stock” vs “just a story stock”

I’ve never said Eco isn’t a story in the sense that the future matters – every growth company is.

What I’ve pushed back on is calling it “just” a story stock, as if there are no hard anchors:

   •   Signed Chile contract (~€420m)

   •   Executed JV in Senegal

   •   Funded 2-line deployment in Sudan

   •   Albania contract in build and paying

   •   Canada orders and factory strategy

   •   TÜV/EN/ISO test programme completed

   •   9× revenue growth and near break-even in the latest numbers

You can debate the valuation on that foundation, but pretending it’s still pre-contract, pre-revenue “blue sky only” is just out of date.

2️⃣ Margins – fair point, but it doesn’t change the thesis

You’re right to flag the gross margin number – the company itself talks about ~40% gross margin in the formal documents.

My “~70%” reference was shorthand to the higher-margin end of what’s been discussed around specific product/contract economics, not the blended group GM. To be precise, I should have framed that better.

But either way:

   •   40% gross margin for a modular system at this stage of rollout is very strong

   •   The valuation case doesn’t hang on 40 vs 70 – it hangs on:

      •   volume through lines,

      •   replication of the model country-by-country, and

      •   disciplined overheads.

So happy to accept the correction on how I labelled it, but it doesn’t really touch the core argument.

3️⃣ JVs & “conflict of interest”

A JV with a key offtaker is not some exotic red flag – it’s standard practice in:

   •   autos,

   •   semiconductors,

   •   renewables,

   •   and plenty of building-materials businesses.

The reason is simple:

   •   Eco contributes tech, plant design, IP, know-how and certification

   •   Local partner contributes land, labour, regulatory access, political cover, funding etc.

   •   You share margin in exchange for much faster scale and lower capital intensity.

Of course the partner wants to keep their own costs under control – but Eco’s upside is:

   •   A slice of manufacturing margin

   •   High plant utilisation

   •   Strategic positioning in national housing programmes

If you’ve got specific numbers for Senegal, Sudan, Albania etc that contradict the economics Eco’s hinted at, post them – I’m open to seeing them. But saying “JV = must crush margin” just isn’t how these structures usually work.

Continued ……..

Continued:

…it is absolutely clear the company has moved into global industrial rollout mode.

A more realistic valuation now is:

⭐ 60p–100p near-term (based on secured strategies & rollouts)

⭐ 150p+ medium-term if execution continues

And even that does not price in:

• Additional African markets

• UK factory

• German entry

• Full Canada scale-up

• Arbitration upside

🟢 Bottom Line

My previous post was simply correcting misrepresentation of the reports.

This post reflects the post-report reality, where Eco has:

• Government contracts

• Multi-country factories

• Independent BS-equivalent testing

• African funding partners

• Canadian national entry

• European certification

• Near break-even financials

• A global rollout model already being executed

Anyone pretending Eco is “just a story stock” after this RNS sequence is ignoring the entire last six months of actual delivery.

Just to be clear — my last post was purely addressing the misrepresentation of the 2024 Annual Report and 2025 Interim Results, because certain posters were cherry-picking old “risk” wording and ignoring the actual numbers.

But since those reports were published, Eco has released a wave of RNS announcements that were not included in either report, and which completely transform the scale, pipeline, and valuation of the business.

Here’s the reality after the reports:

🇨🇱 Chile – 20,000 Homes (~€420m)

Government-level contract.

Eco becomes a national supplier.

7-year pipeline, factory deployment planned.

Massive structural visibility.

🇸🇳 Senegal – 5,000 Homes / 900,000 m² JV

Fully executed JV.

Factory mobilisation already underway.

Local partner funding committed.

This is the first half of a 10,000-home plan.

🇸🇩 Sudan – €5m Local Funding / 2 Production Lines

Two lines funded by the local partner.

Eco keeps ownership of the lines + 50% of profits.

Zero capex drain on Eco.

Instantly scalable hub for a huge region.

🇨🇦 Canada – Market Entry + Ontario Factory Planned

First order placed.

Showhouse = national regulatory demo centre.

Eco planning a Canadian production facility.

Huge national housing deficit (3.5m homes by 2030).

🇦🇱 Albania – Ahead of Schedule + First Payment Received

Groundworks complete.

Materials already produced.

€220k first payment received.

Negotiating 3–4 further blocks + larger villa development.

🌍 Global Production Strategy

RNS confirms:

• Fully automated manufacturing system

• Up to 6 homes/day per line

• Minimum two lines per country

• Phase 1 roll-out: Albania, Kosovo, Chile, Senegal, Sudan

• Phase 2: UK, Canada, Germany

• This is industrial replication at global scale

🔧 Independent EN/ISO/BS Testing (TÜV-accredited Lab)

Eco’s system passed:

• Fire resistance (EN 13501-2)

• Structural strength (ISO 604, ISO 527-5)

• Thermal conductivity (ISO 8302)

• Acoustic insulation (ISO 10140 / 717-1)

• Water absorption (ISO 62)

• CE/CPR conformity (CPR 305/2011)

This puts Eco among the most technically validated modular systems in Europe, not a speculative one.

📌 Combine this with what was already in the 2024 AR + 2025 Interims:

• 9× revenue growth (H1 2024 → H1 2025)

• ~70% gross margin

• Near break-even

• 42,000 m² produced in H1 alone

• CE Mark

• ISO 14001

• Multi-region revenue base (Albania, Kosovo, Chile, Canada)

Add the new RNS flow… and Eco is operating at a completely different scale to the one described in the old risk section.

RNS announcements:

• Chile contract (~€420m)

• Senegal 5,000-home phase

• Sudan 2-line funded expansion

• Canada factory strategy

• Albania contract momentum

• EN/ISO/BS-equivalent independent testing

• Global two-lines-per-country model

…it is absolutely

People quoting the old 2024 “risk” section are missing the entire point.

Eco today is not the business described in that paragraph — the 2024 AR + 2025 Interims show a company that’s already executing at scale.

Here are the facts the detractors avoid:

• Revenues exploding:

H1 2025 = €1.8m (already > full-year 2024)

Up 9× vs H1 2024.

• Industrial production:

42,000 sqm made in 6 months (single shift).

~70% gross margin.

Loss cut from €1.1m → €0.062m (basically break-even).

• Certifications that change everything:

• CE Mark = full EU access

• ISO 14001

• Chilean gov’t testing passed

You don’t get these unless the product is credible and scalable.

• Not one customer — FOUR regions active:

🇦🇱 Albania – €2.2m block + multiple more lined up

🇨🇱 Chile – gov’t show homes completed

🇪🇺 Europe – CE Mark opens all 27 states

🇨🇦 Canada – panels supplied for evaluation/pilots

This is already a global footprint.

• Arbitration:

Fully funded.

Eco keeps 25% of net proceeds.

A free bonus — not the core valuation.

Share Price Reality:

At 16p, the market is pricing Eco like it hasn’t delivered anything.

But it has:

• 9× revenue growth

• 70% margins

• Near break-even

• Global traction

• Multiple regions

• Major certification

• Real contracts

• Real production

• Zero value assigned to the funded arbitration

With everything we now know, a realistic valuation is:

35p–50p - based purely on execution already delivered.

Eco is no longer a “story stock”.

Eco is a certified, revenue-generating, multi-region manufacturer massively undervalued by the current SP.

Far2L8, you’re missing the 300 MW APAC, 120 MW Uniper Humber H2ub® and many more which all shows the actual disconnect with the current SP, we should be at least £3.50 now!

If you want to see how absurdly cheap ITM is right now, just look at the £/MW implied valuation versus its peers.

It’s not even close.

1️⃣ ITM’s Current Implied £/MW Valuation:

Market cap (approx): ~£400–500m

Forward project selections in last 12 months:

   •   710 MW Germany (Stablegrid)

   •   300 MW APAC

   •   120 MW Uniper Humber H2ub®

   •   Large UK project (Poseidon)

   •   Westnetz NEPTUNE V

   •   Deutsche Bahn collaboration

That’s well over 1,200 MW of major project selections before adding Hydropulse’s future plant deployments.

At £450m market cap / 1,200 MW:

👉 ITM implied valuation ≈ £0.37 per MW

Thirty-seven pence per megawatt of global infrastructure selection.

This is laughable.

You can’t even buy a paperclip for that!

2️⃣ Now Compare to Peers (Europe & U.S.)

Electrolyser companies globally trade at:

£3–£10 per MW (low-end peers)

£15–£25 per MW (mid-tier competitors)

£40–£70 per MW (premium U.S. names with far smaller pipelines)

That’s 10x → 200x ITM’s implied MW valuation.

And most of those peers:

❌ don’t have multi-GW manufacturing capacity

❌ don’t have 25 years of PEM R&D

❌ don’t have 680 MW German grid-balancing pre-FEED

❌ don’t have a Deutsche Bahn partnership

❌ don’t have a 300 MW APAC win

❌ don’t have a recurring-revenue hydrogen arm (Hydropulse)

❌ aren’t net cash generative

❌ don’t have £205m+ cash on the balance sheet

Yet they trade at 10x–100x the valuation per MW.

3️⃣ Germany’s 710 MW Alone Breaks the Model

If we only value ITM at the low-end peer level of £5/MW:

710 MW × £5/MW = £3.55 implied valuation.

If valued at mid-tier peers (~£15/MW):

710 MW × £15/MW = £10.6 implied valuation.

ITM market cap today: ~£450m

The difference is staggering.

And that’s only one project.

Not the whole pipeline.

4️⃣ Why the Disconnect Exists

Because the market is still pricing ITM like the 2022 “reset year”.

Meanwhile:

   •   Cash rebuilt

   •   Costs slashed (40% iridium reduction)

   •   Net cash generative in H2 FY25

   •   Hydropulse adds recurring earnings

   •   MEGA projects landing across three continents

   •   Germany just validated ITM at national infrastructure scale

This is not a “story stock”.

It’s a deeply undervalued global significant leader with a pipeline that dwarfs its valuation.

5️⃣ Simple Takeaway

ITM is trading at £0.37/MW.

Peers trade at £3–£70/MW.

That is the clearest valuation mismatch anywhere on AIM.

And with today’s 710 MW announcement, that gap is now mathematically indefensible.

The re-rate isn’t a question of if but it’s just a matter of when.

£5+++

Qube are trying to trade their way out of their nightmare position and hoping to create a tree shake in the process, unfortunately for them they are dealing with strong holders who know the true value of their shares.

🐮🛻 🛻

Cattle Trucked

Fair enough to want forecasts — but let's not miss the forest for the trees. TÜV-verified, €420m contract signed, and multiple regions opening up That's called execution, not speculation. The real story now is how fast this scales.

Who knows, we could see Eco helping UK Government Targets

Solo1, thanks for confirming your conversation, I have emailed them and as yet not received a reply but always happy to be corrected.

I’m not here to spread bull 🐂 💩 just taking facts as presented.

Maybe they will RNS it then?

Obviously if I hear back I’m happy to update the board.

Thanks again

JMUK26,

Thanks for the detailed breakdown - genuinely appreciate you taking the time to explain it properly. You clearly know your stuff from a construction standpoint.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting TUV was "above" BS EN standards, only that having certification from such a recognised global body gives significant confidence - especially when the product's being rolled out at national-government level contracts worth hundreds of millions.

But the key takeaway for me remains that Eco have passed the relevant European standards via TUV — that's already a high bar, and the commercial traction speaks volumes.

All good discussion though - nice to have proper technical insight on here instead of the usual noise.

I’ve already reached out to the company but haven’t had a reply, so for now I’ll stick to what’s confirmed through an official RNS.

Solo1, if you have received a response, it would be helpful if you shared it so everyone’s working from facts, not assumptions.

Happy to update when the company confirms — until then, let’s keep it real and stick to verified info.

Solo1, you really should read the actual RNS before shouting in caps.

Eco Buildings (AIM: ECOB) confirmed on 22 October 2025 (RNS 4375E) that the initial 50% deposit of €12.75 million has been received from the Chilean Government’s flagship housing programme — now covering 1,214 homes in the accelerated first-year tranche.

That’s straight from the London Stock Exchange announcement — not hearsay.

Add to that, Eco has now completed TÜV-certified EN & ISO testing, equivalent to full British Standards, making it UK-ready just as the Government pushes for 1.5 million new homes. With major contracts already in Chile, the EU and Canada, Eco Buildings is certified, funded, and scaling fast.

This is no longer just a “story stock” — it’s a TÜV-verified, revenue-backed, multi-billion-pound growth story in motion.

I have Solo1 🫡 maybe Read the RNS 🥱

Every multi-bagger starts as a “story stock” — right before the numbers explode.

Eco Buildings (AIM: ECOB) isn’t just telling a story — it’s executing.

🔥 €420M Chile contract secured — €12.75M already banked (50% upfront)

🔥 €534M+ contracted pipeline including UK & EU projects

🔥 Factory expansion fully funded from existing contracts

🔥 Certified and approved across Europe & Latin America

Profit margins on modular builds are highly scalable — once production ramps, fixed costs drop and PBT soars. This is exactly the phase ECOB is entering now.

With a £25M market cap vs hundreds of millions in secured revenue, it’s massively undervalued.

This isn’t just potential — it’s execution, certification, and cashflow.

The “story” is now turning into a multi-billion-pound reality.

Time for a serious re-rate 🚀💚