Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
ImaninvesotorGMOOH (12) hindertondrive (7)
Hindertondrive (7) MECCANOHEAD (18) El.toro (20) LEGGOHEAD (26) STICKLEBRACKHEAD (29) Jalpa (32) the.buffalo (173) tm1978 (1458)
Look I have only ever manufactured an argument, and am clueless on engineering apart from my research on ORC which is slowly fading from my mind. I am looking at this from a judge's point of view which is highly important if an action is being considered ..........TS does not refer in his later words to volume production but initially launching Tony Stiff, Group Chief Executive Officer of Flowgroup plc, commented: "Receiving CE Type approval and initially launching the Flow boiler early in the year was good news, as were the completion of a successful fundraise, the significant increase in Flow Tony Stiff refers to the positives of The funding issue and why it is up in smoke Combination boiler update Following the announcement on the ECJ Ruling on VAT, we concentrated the vast majority of our resources on designing and initiating our cost reduction programme. We have also worked through the initial specifications of the Combination version of our boiler. However, in order to ensure that the design process is as efficient as possible, we will not accelerate the development cycle until we have the system version of the boiler in full production and installed in customer homes. Therefore, the timing for release of the Combination boiler will be determined and announced in 2016............................... I am pointing out how fraught all this is. It is not impossible but strong and watertight internal evidence is needed - which you state you are in possession of tm1978. You have initiated action with the FCA and SFO and have numbered references and are citing breach of the FSA from reading you past posts.
Did one substantially completed boiler roll off the production line on November 14 is what could be challenged ? Flow could argue all their boilers were prototypes in the sense that they were always subject to improvement and further change. Initiating volume production is somewhat different to the words 'we are now in volume production'. Semantics if you like, but this is how lawyers earn their huge fees. The word rolled off in the promotional material or RNS is indicative of more to come and volume but no numbers are mentioned. As for the functionality of the tech and it being fit for purpose - no performance figures were published so you would need internal evidence and only people from inside the company would have that. MCS is difficult to assess from a legal angle, advice needed there. Does anyone else get the feeling that Palm and Odier may have had a messy divorce. Alan asked them separately for further interest in funding, and they were always previously described as a couple. [IMHO]
Hope that has been helpful for the nerds and to save people having to search for mCHP announcements. So Flowgroup left everything open. I am the first to admit when I may have made a mistake and nobody has corrected me. The angst at Ipswich for an OVO sale is the type of employer and they seem to prefer Co-op. Staff may feel that they will run the facility down or not treat staff fairly. Obiviously closing the facility would entail redundancy expenditure and while this is possible this may not be OVO's plan, indeed they may want to keep everything and expand, possibly improve infrastructure, and change management - they have a flat style. My previous assertion that a sale last year and a complete sale as I termed it would entail taking on Jabil's expenses etc is clearly not so and I must have misread something somewhere - but would welcome other views. The companies remain separate in the group. Palm and Odier wanted to simplify and streamline the company and concentrate on its profitable part and to concentrate solely on energy and connected products. 2016 end of year losses : (8,197000) Products ( 670.000) battery (4,163,000) Energy TOTAL = (13,039,000) IMHO
9th Feb 17... MIES then amended FiTs to 15000 @1.3Kwe (200MW) so from 30,00 to 3500 and now upped to 15,000 to Arpril 19 so some success for consultation. 8th Feb...17 RNS.....Energy 270,000 end January (135,000 T/O) And 31st Dec 16.....9.2 Million headline cash and= 3.2M in energy trading account... Smart boiler ...316 ECO RF sold to end of '16 [ UK not economic so trials in Europe 'Over 1,000 working boilers have been manufactured so far and these will be deployed in Flow microCHP pilots in Europe and will also be used in a limited way in the UK.' [OPTION TO SELL EVERYTHING] 'The Board conclude and reiterate that our microCHP technology has the potential to be market-leading and that the work and investment that has been made in it should be preserved within the Group. However, the uncertainty around FiT means that it is not an optimum time to consider selling that part of the business and, as previously reported, there would be significant costs to be incurred should the Company wish to exit the business at this time. While conducting the strategic review, the Board received a number of approaches expressing interest in its Flow Energy business, which has continued to perform well in a dynamic and fast-changing market place. The Directors believe that, whilst subject to further due diligence, the terms of the indicative approaches for Flow Energy, which are being considered, could, if completed, provide sufficient funding for the microCHP business through to the point at which the technology is commercialised in Europe. As a result, the Board has concluded that the disposal of Flow Energy is something that it should actively pursue. Any disposal of the Flow Energy business would be conditional on shareholder approval. If the disposal of Flow Energy does not take place in the coming months, the Directors will consider a number of funding options for the Group, including selling a strategic stake in either its Flow Energy or microCHP businesses or through a placing. The Company looks forward to providing a further update in due course. [ 270,000 accounts end of Dec 16 ]
Feb 17 and I paraphrase the mCHP news... .mCHP.... not economic in UK in the near term - due to uncertainty of FiT and manufacturing costs so roll out of boiler pilots in France Germany Italy Blegium. - if pilots successful then volume sales in 2018 ...and numbers.. 'Over 1,000 working boilers have been manufactured so far and these will be deployed in Flow microCHP pilots in Europe and will also be used in a limited way in the UK' [ 1000 working but omit to state fully functional as in last RNS description of the inventory stage 800 -They have been manufactured and suggests they have been produced in end form, but have they been fully completed to be fully functional] Definition of manufacture..... make (something) on a large scale using machinery. "firms who manufacture ball bearings" synonyms: make, produce, mass produce, build, construct, assemble, put together, create, fabricate, prefabricate, turn out, process, form, fashion, model, mould, shape, forge, engineer "the company manufactures laser printers"
16th Nov 16....[ Flow ECO RF launched in Sep '16 going to plan with good feedback from brand ambassadors.....but trouble ahead with this statement...] 'Due to the implications of this Consultation [ BEIS capping FiTs ], coupled with increasing manufacturing costs due to the fall in the value of Sterling against the Euro and US Dollar, in the Company's half year report announced on 5 September, we stated that we had initiated a strategic review of the microCHP business. We also announced that we had slowed down the production of the Flow microCHP boiler [ * reduction in production remainder of 2016 and majority of 2017 due to Sterling/production costs] and reduced the level of sales and marketing activity to offset the risks of carrying a large inventory of boilers that could be potentially uneconomic to support in the UK. Then two options considered if BEIS consultation on FiT went sour. OPTION 1 'This option prioritises the commercialisation and support of our technology in Europe ahead of the UK, and Flow is engaged in active discussions with French, Italian and German market players for the distribution of our technology. We would then re-focus on the UK market once the boiler economics are more favourable following cost reduction at volume manufacture. We will continue to explore the feasibility of this approach, both in terms of manufacturing, distribution logistics and financing.' OPTION 2 Sale or exit of the microCHP business 'In the event that the above approach is found not to be feasible the Board would explore the sale of the microCHP business to a third party. In the event that no sale is achieved, the remaining option would be to exit our microCHP business. This would have a material effect on Flowgroup both in terms of the strategic direction of the Group and also the cost to exit this part of the business.' and..UPDATE ON EUROPE As stated above, we have reduced production levels to a minimum and, as a result, we have now built up an inventory[ * suggests some complete some in parts ] of over 800 fully functional Flow microCHP boilers [ *this should read 'potentially fully functional' if some are not yet built - so confusing]. In order to recoup manufacturing costs, continue to learn from real-world installations and continue to create case studies and generate performance data, we will now increase our marketing to offer these for sale both in the UK and Europe **** Definition : Production inventory refers to your level of materials and supplies on hand for use in manufacturing production. This is different from work-in-process inventory, which is the value of goods in the middle of the production process, and finished goods inventory, which is the value of products to your customers. My comments in parentheses [*......] then goes on state first testing completed and name partner GRDF/ENGIE
I am still reading Biff as always, and although unsubstantiated, it is a building and very sad litany of complaint and irregularity to read and unexpected to me. ( I would rather have faced the rutting season in Tahiti, than face the truth of this news being confirmed) I always thought that the tests abroad would have been done independently by the firms, and did not realise Flow engineers would travel with. The half year 2016 report stated... *"Flow mCHP units successfully tested with Trillary in Italy ' [ 'units' suggests to me generating units rather than boilers this 'with' suggests combined testing ie with Flow engineer there - 'successfully tested' is not the same as writing tested with successful outcomes and might be somewhat misleading and I think I read it as successful outcomes] An ealrier RNS with news of first installs (was a photo blog link but now removed)...... 'These new customer installs were completed on time and to plan. The installed Flow boilers are performing in line with expectations, both heating the home and generating electricity. As previously announced, the Company will now continue with installations, ramping up over the next six months and aiming for higher volume sales in the winter months.' Going forward in time again to the '16 half year report (and threatened 50 million withdrawal of FiT funding) Since the proposed changes in the Feed-in Tariff regime would affect the viability of our microCHP technology platform, we have slowed installations down over the last few months while we await DECC's decision, with 37 units now installed and 328 units manufactured after solving minor design and production issues. Accelerating installations of Flow microCHP boilers now could potentially leave us with extremely high service costs for the units we have installed if we were not to continue with volume manufacture and installation due to the withdrawal of Feed-in Tariff support. We will, of course, update the market further when the Government's decision is published, with a more detailed analysis of the situation and our options. [**We are not told if the 37 are commercial installs or home testing but we learn there were design and production issues to overcome but unknown is whether this was the main body or the generating unit or both] I think it is useful to look at the timeline of events with mCHP to build up a clearer picture of what the company states was happening.
When I rang the products division they were reasonably open that the combi was more or less only on the drawing board. Like you I am vague and cannot confirm exactly the date - before or after the funding. I invested (not greatly) in the funding for the combi but it had the affect of confirming to me that the system boiler must have been well up and running. It gave me confidence. Nigel Canham bought in on joining at quite a high price in the mid to high thirties and 40k I think. This also gave me confidence, but Tony Stiff's buying boosted my confidence more - but it did dry up for some time : the difficult period until the new set up and again another fraught period I did not buy any shares in the new placing - to me it was a bad deal with the company loaded with so much more debt. I must have bought in later as it dropped below the penny, and yes I correct myself I did re-invest what I had sold from selling from the 2p point when the leak happened. None of the institutional investors bought more shares in the new set up - I think am I correct ? They knew the possibilities of growth - they possibly new the other offer or possibly not. I phoned Aviva to find out their situation with Flowgroup and they were quite helpful but not really - by all accounts their investment was leveraged within funds - but may have been told it might have be a direct investment from them (less likely I would have thought) - very vague information.The only person to invest heavily was Tony Stiff and he outmatched others in the 120K BOD support in the offer . What motivation he had I do not know ? To lower his average I suppose. It must have impressed Palm and co, and certainly his job looked insecure to me, and he invested possibly after knowing the possibility of salaries being restructured and commissions cut. I would need to check timelines and RNS's but I think scaling back came later.
Further refinement to tech, scaling down, slowing - Result share price fall. �25 million funding would never have happened - Catch 22. It would have been unethical to have raised money for FE if the tech needed much further work and the prospects of market looked forlorn without informing shareholders. A grey area of possibility possibly arises if the tech had realistic chances for success [ Which was the stated company mantra ] Funding for the never materialized combi, or for whatever, came much much later, and by all accounts, much too late with energy doing very well on the surface, but about to meet with unseen, unexpected problems which would destabilise it.
Important to separate emotion from fact, and consider the facts and weigh up both sides; examine the things we know, and try try to get best matches for the things we do not know. The black and white case set out miserably before us, and that containing lighter and darker shades of grey. In this difficult exercise of imponderables I am trying to smooth some very large stones. Why did Adrian Hutchings cut free and not keep some loose contact within Flowgroup - surely he would have desired some influence on its direction and to keep a loose connection. He had a nine percent ownership of Energetix/Flow - did that register on the owners list and what happened to his shares ? It was rumoured he might have been selling after the first launch. Peter Richardson left we believe because he felt the job did not fit his competencies correctly - or did he feel uncomfortable with the task ahead ? Only he could tell us. Did Tony Stiff accept within his job tenure a poisoned chalice of an unrefined still incomplete tech and not yet fit for purpose ? Was the products division a runaway train that could not be derailed - too many jobs too much investor reliance on its success ? Could Tony Stiff had slowed the train back in 2013 and cut back on the products division in a period of assessment ? Could he not have told shareholders that the tech needed to be free from FiT (Hutchings contended it could) and therefore a scaling down and a slowing of going to market was necessary to give further concentration on refining that tech in order to achieve this added safety, and independence from subsidy. Might he not have at this time put forward a �25 million share funding to launch Energy Supply from a position of strength, and to have sold the new direction in a message of buttressing safety in support of risk ? If the tech failed further work he could have ditched it later retaining a war chest of energy. An independent energy asset sale was surely never realistically on the table last year, with the clouds of GB energy, Government threats, impact of lack of undersea storage - but the main storm of dismantling Ipswich. Flow products was a poisonous devaluing add on for a complete sale. The institutional investors were consulted (would have been a closed period) Shareholders were only told that the funding deal plus 60% expected growth in the year far exceeded third party offers. Tony Stiff bough approx 13 million new shares within the new relationship - the majority in September last year. A month later FE was in trouble meeting its green levies and needed an extension. Surely Tony must have been aware of this, and Alan was brought in. Why did he buy those shares ? Was he made a promise of financial support which was broken or delayed ? Was he pushed, or did he resign due to the plan to cramp growth ?
I have been weighing everything up and re-reading back posts particularly from tm1978. There is a lot of discontent from certain posters that things were not done correctly at Flowgroup. As a shareholder I was disappointed with the lack of updates or information coming from these ongoing trials abroad and the results thereof. The fact is we still have had no company feedback from these trials, and as a lot of investors stayed loyal to Flow in the hope that these would be successful, it just seems to me, disrespectful of the company not to have informed us of the results and exactly what happened. I do not want to hear it from posters, or make my own conclusions, I want to hear it from the company. As I remember we were also promised more regular updates on the state of energy supply which were not forthcoming. Energy supply has become challenging and this explains to a degree this side of the business, but the boiler that initially underpinned the business, had positive feedback from Engie on first report - so what changed things, and why were not given the courtesy of final feedback ? I have written a lot on here recently, and a lot more than I intended, and these were my views, and I do not claim to be an expert. I do have a lot more views on energy supply but there seem of little interest to anyone, so I am not encouraged to expand them. I will keep reading and may occasionally contribute but not on this previous level. Some of the posters have made serious allegations, which I am reading with an open mind, but these are raising concerns in my mind, and I await verification. I have supported the company claims up to now because I believed the RNS's, and I am sure others did also, but should they be proven to be untrue in a material way, I will adjust my views accordingly.
Maybe Teddyboy2 was connected to Tony and was working with him and the name slipped out - but my feeling about it is more that he did it to get a bit of reaction - he was quite a humorist at times. I was challenged to write on here during the podcast and I certainly would not have fallen for that. Easy to get someone to write for you they would have said, or was I rather basking a little in my new found identity ? Remember TB2 is just a name on a forum. Yes since that day I have been tagged as Tony Stiff - it did not bother me that much, in fact it gave my postings a bit more cred and punch. I have a very curious mind, and really wanted to uncover who these various posters were who seemed to be derailing the Flow message. I have a good ability at picking and unraveling things - I would have made a good detective - I also have a very good ability to predict things, and my brother shared this with me to a lesser extent. I have benefited financially from my future forecasts. As far as my Flow losses - well I got too emotionally involved with the company and could not let go. I also have a conscience, and when I did contemplate selling that day of the fall the day of the results, I thought of all the little investors who had read my positives - and selling my large amount would have affected them. In a way I felt like the captain on a burning ship, and my duty was simply to go down. This feeling was only 30% I am not that loyal to anonymous posters, but yes I am of the Sean generation, and was brought up with a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and of duty. I still feel loyal to them today. You Biff, have Roger written all over you - but anyway, nothing wrong with that - the old stags have eventually to give way to the younger fitter and with that special energy.
To question is not to defend. You had some connection with the tech and the company - I as an investor, did not. We are different animals. As far as the trolls I suspected they were more shorters than actual employees, or motivated personally as there was so much anti-Stiff. My only complaint to the admin of this board was in relation to being referred to as Tony Stiff which I could tolerate up to a point, but as I was invested in Flow I did sense it could do me pecuniary damage. Whether Tony Stiff also raised a complaint I do not know, but I suspect not. I do believe Tony Stiff could have taken the matter further against tm1978 and brought an action. I could not because my reputation, my name had not been defamed. The fact he failed to take such action, which I would have done had I been in his position, raised doubts in my mind as to why and why he would not want to. Yes there were many duplicating trolls and I raised this with the admin of this board in my enquiry. I was also looking into the possibility of tm1978 became connected to an ex-director of Flow Products. His new business page took down pictures after I had referred to them on here which was very strange. I considered tm1978 to be him or his wife [ I may have been completely wrong]. I was making quite a lot of enquiries and investigating my contentions on this forum. I was warned off these investigations by the admin of LSE and told I would be removed if I continUed posting in such a manner and that the boards were not the vehicle for such. I believed that that someone I was investigating, possibly contacted LSE with some sort of warning or threat. [ IMHO]
I am not defending the company at all, I am looking at this from two sides. I was an investor, and I believed, as I am sure as others did, what I read in RNS's, about historical facts. My losses 85-90k [ the sum includes my partner's losses which I have indemnified, are somewhat less than a quarter] and I still have loans realting to pay back for another two years. My other recent much larger loss was nothing to do with Flowgroup, but unfortunately, my lack of funds due to my Flow losses impinged, and was a large contributory factor, in that downfall.
Now Engie have the actual mCHP and this all looks very solid and promising and that is how I read it.......... RNS..... As announced previously, a large European utility has been testing our Flow microCHP boiler. The first phase of these tests is now complete and we are pleased to be in a positon to be able to announce that the company we have been working with is Gaz r�seau distribution France (GRDF), the French gas distributor and a branch of ENGIE, which employs 154,950 people worldwide, achieved revenues of �69.9 billion in 2015, and which provides individuals, cities and businesses with efficient and innovative solutions to take on the challenges of energy's transition to a low-carbon economy. We are delighted with the findings from GRDF's testing of the performance of our technology. GRDF checked the performance of our microCHP boiler as specified and analysed the technology to confirm that it was relevant for the French market. For both these objectives, our technology met GRDF's criteria. GRDF also noted that we had a clear advantage on performance against competing technologies when measured in time from switch-on to generation of electricity, thereby giving an advantage in the heating market where heating systems cycle throughout daily operation. ......
RNS.....During the term of the LOI, Flow and Trillary will conduct trials of Flow's microCHP PRODUCT, evaluate Flow Products' digital in-home sales and management platform, Flow BiT, and develop the terms of a distribution agreement for the Italian market. It is planned that the distribution agreement would include commercial terms, business models, remote services and connectivity plus logistics, technical support, training, installation and service, and a further statement will be made if and when this is concluded. Any commercial agreement would include a two year exclusivity clause.......................... Michele Gubert, CEO of Trillary, added: "With the brand Rete Crisalide (Crisalide Network), we are recognised as an expert focusing on the development of the Italian microCHP market since 2011. Italy is the third largest European boiler market with more than 600,000 annual boiler sales. However, microCHP sales are still at a low volume due to existing high product costs. With this LOI we are entering into a strong collaboration with Flow in order to potentially introduce the Flow boiler into the Italian market at an affordable price for customers and potentially drive much higher sales. We intend to replicate the Flow Brand Ambassador model and also leverage our existing partnerships with natural gas and LPG distributors. We believe, as Flow does, that the Flow boiler could change heating and energy markets forever."............................ [ The RNS curiously refers to product (I highlighted in CAPS) and not boiler - so this suggests to my mind that possibly the scroll only is being tested, possibly in an Italian boiler. Flow are there managing things, and might they have been given access to a small factory - you tell me specheads ]
I admire your intentions jalpa, and do have an open mind, and you are actually doing something finally, which is admirable. I phoned Jabil around the time they closed and I asked about the Flow production line and they would tell me nothing, nada, but nobody does these days - nobody takes responsibility. I do believe you have to rattle the top branches and start nearer the top. Postings are circumstantial and very loose. If there has been as you suggest a wide scale fraud - why have the employees remained so silent and why would a BOD ever entertain such a deception, if it is proven on such a scale. The bones of this business was the boiler why invest 50 million in a tech that has intrinsic failings. I cannot see all this happening. There may be shades of grey, but black and white as you state - it would be worse than the Hitler diaries or the no pig farm scandal. I am not buying into that - I need to touch the wounds and see some real evidence and investors know little of the tech, or even balance sheets, and are as always partially blind.
I have no memory of Cirrus Optimum, and apologies for my deviation - the blinding heat took me to Africa. one RNS details 800 fully functioning mCHP boilers so this is the company claim and very clearly stated. Clear evidence to bear must be brought to rebut this, for any successful claim.