The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Given that AFC wrote a blog about how grid balancing is very much a space AFC could play a role, I’m not sure you’re right Taskmaster. Whether they’re cost competitive remains to be seen but Hydrogen and batteries serve different purposes. Hydrogen is a better medium term energy store than batteries. Hydrogen suffers from greater energy losses through production and reversion to electricity but it holds energy for much longer once it’s produced.
This is very handy timing in terms of AFC’s case for grid balancing and car charging:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/14/national-grid-warns-of-short-supply-of-electricity-over-next-few-days?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Keeping the lights on is something the government might pay well for.
Fair point DW, but in the past, has AFC ever won a multi-unit contract (not an MOU etc.)? I know there have been a few failed JV projects agreed that didn’t then come to much but that’s different to winning a contract and not delivering on it and/or being paid for it.
A single, reasonably sized commercial contract will send this share flying. At the moment the SP undervalues the potential because it’s weighed down by the perceived risk. One reasonably sized contract will confirm AFC’s potential at the same time as it cuts perceived risk. Had hoped that contract would have been announced by now even with Covid but I’m still enjoying waking up each morning knowing I could win the lottery at 7am.
The last 8 or so days of trading has seen a remarkably smooth glide upwards in the SP. It’s a noticeably changed pattern compared with the spiky but generally downward path of the previous months. Let’s hope it continues and accelerates.
Early buyers at 23p in 2007 need to sell at about 55p for the investment to beat investing in a diversified passive fund over the same period. I still think there’s a pretty good chance we’ll get there in the next year. Covid must have made sales far harder but there’s no question that the company has a habit of overselling how close it is to significant commercial progress. The reason I’m invested is because AFC does now seem to be timing the development of great products just right for the projected market growth and gross margins are huge if Ceres’s latest accounts are anything to go by.
Not really, unless you have a short investment horizon. It is a risk though. Ultimately, AFC is a growth stock. It’s share price has very little to do with its Ebitda or NAV. ITM is off 6% today so we’re doing OK by comparison. US big tech stocks look like they’re in a big bubble. Will be interesting to see what happens if it is indeed popping today. Value stocks should do relatively well if and when the tech bubble pops. AFC isn’t in bubble territory given recent news so I’m not too worried and won’t sell myself. Anyway, I’m just another mug guessing what will happen next so please don’t take anything I say as much more than interested discussion.
The big question I’d like to ask the leadership is whether the Solid Cell (Due in 2022) will make the liquid cell redundant in most cases. If not, why not? It is going to have higher energy density and it will be mobile. Is it more expensive? If it does just have better specifications at the same price, then the fact we are selling the liquid cell at all is very good news in terms of the potential margins and competitive advantage of the solid cell.
Exactly Rooky. It’s impressive that the company have focused on some very strategic initial deals that will allow them to build up manufacturing capacity and brand awareness/trust at the same time. It’s hard to think of a better mix for the first three (semi) commercial contracts.
We’re still ticking along at roughly one contract a month since June. That’s more than enough for us to build momentum into the new year. This is great. Not a commercial game changer but yet more validation that AFC has a future.