Member Info for RealityChap

Dear oh dear.

I agree Melvin. But JW did say he thought it was undervalued based on revenue. As it stands we have no idea what revenue is being generated - it's blindingly obvious that the £4m figure in the last financial year was based on smoke and mirrors - so we need to know whether actual, recurring commercial revenue is actually a thing at all - he implied that it was.

I know that JW said march on the IM call but I'm not clear why that is a significant date. The company's financial year runs to the end of October. They are are not in the habit of releasing results other than as at then and at the mid point of the year - end of April. Last year the interim results were released in late July and the AGM was held in late April.

What am I missing? Why March?

More of Berkshire Hathaway's investments are in unlisted holdings than list ed these days. How many of those are relatively early stage and speculative in nature I wouldn't know.

Have we any idea why Geopura can place there products and we can't? One can only assume that it's cost related.

That's what it boils down to STAS. The CEO has told us that the fuel cell generators are uncompetitively priced -and correcting that is to a very large extent outside our control.

That JM/Bosch link has to eb a positive for the sector - but certainly not for Ceres! At least Bosch haven't just abandoned the idea

You may be right, CN - bound to happen sooner or later. But that isn't knowledge - do we know that there were patents in place for previous iterations?

It's odd really that when someone puts up a genuinely interesting and relevant link (not just to any old nonsense because it mentions the word 'hydrogen') hardly anyone on here shows any interest. I have no real idea what this means although my logical thought process suggests to me that key patents would be in place well before the product was available commercially and we have been 'ready to go' for a good few months now.

Anyone?

This, by the way Mr Brightfuture, is relevant debate (potentially). Not negative, not positive - just relevant.

Two ways of looking at this - probably more.

1. It's a massive loss of faith in the prospects of fuel cells playing a major part in energy supply transformation.

2. It is a big blow to a significant competitor that may help AFC

Nobody knows which. I'm pleasantly surprised that the immediate impact on our share price isn't greater.

Fact remains that the only thing that will restore our fortunes are big sales and as the fuel cells are not competitively priced (as confirmed by the CEO) on a capital expenditure basis, it seems the the cracker holds more obvious prospects. It's not clear what the short term prospects for its COMMERCIAL deployment are.

Interesting. Can anyone put it in context? it sounds relatively basic but the only cracker I could get close to explaining the science of would be a christmas cracker..

Still single figure handicap thanks. I'm pretty relaxed about life - I think it's your mate CN that might need help.

Any danger of a chat re the merits of and and concerns about AFC - or have you none?

Believe whatever you want to. You are so stubborn and one-eyed that there's no point trying to tell you anything that isn't hardwired into you, despite mountains of evidence that you are wrong on just about everything you have said re fuel cells. Will the cracker be our salvation? - I most certainly hope so.

Just double checked the RNS. My holding is bigger than those of either of Messrs Wilson or Bostock - so forgive me for not getting over-excited about them committing that much./ Positive yes, exciting no.

Only one thing makes this exciting - SALES - and lots of them. As of now we don't know of ANY genuinely commercial sales. Not one.

Stalker alert. I was on the golf course...! No game - I have a material shareholding and I want the share price to recover.

As for grudging positives that's exactly what the market did on the back of those share purchases. A flicker of excitement and then back to the slough of despond.

It's not a case of positive or negative - it's a case of sensible questions and analysis. The likes of CN posting that everything is constantly rosy are just delusional. The vast majority of my investments are in tracker funds - no point commenting on those really! I took a punt o this, probably for more than was sensible but not disatrous.

Simply not true.

Why do you think those questions are negative?

For the last four years or so we have had fuel cell units available for sale and we've sold 1 (for demo purposes) plus however many may have gone to a joint venture. Do you think a glossy brochure is going to solve that problem when the CEO has said explicitly that the units capital cost renders them uncompetitively priced?

I'd quite like to know if the new management is frittering money away on this sort of stuff because cash is draining from the business daily, and I'm not especially keen on yet another dilution. Is that not knowledge worth having?

There are some perfectly valid question to be asked here.

How much?

Why?

Was this ordered by the old regime?

Everyone is following my approach, based on Mark Twain's glorious quote:

'Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience'.

Night, night

For the avoidance of doubt I'll be cracking the champagne if and when we get actual commercial traction and the share price reacts appropriately