Member Info for RealityChap

It's not phenomenal at all! That was supposed to be the year of delivery and by any reasonable standards it just wasn't!

We delivered:

One unit on trial to Acciona

One unit for demo purposes to Tamgo (it's over 15 months (RNS Sep 23) since we signed the distribution agreement and absolutely nothing has been distributed via Tamgo). Like every other apparently material RNS this company has released there were no numbers in there at all, no indication of scale and so the only thing we can judge it on is what has happened since - the square root of sod all!

£4m worth of units to a joint venture that we funded - and we have no clue as to whether those units are out earning cash

If a well established business delivered that percentage level of growth it could be reasonably described as phenomenal but that's the thing with percentages - any growth from a base of close to nil looks big when taken out of context.

Re ABB the original delivery date was roughly a year ago and you have no more idea than I do whether its eventual delivery is imminent or not. We hope so but we don't know.

Talking of ABB it's now over a year since this (see article below) was delivered (before the year of delivery!). Heard anything about it since? Any volume orders? You'll see in that article that the 200kw unit was scheduled for first operation later this year' - i.e. 2023, so we're way beyond the original contract date

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/afc-energy-validates-and-delivers-100kw-liquid-cooled-fuel-cell-s-series-to-abb-e-mobility

Sorry , Stas, but that's just laughable. These so called analysts have been pumping out these ludicrous targets for years now; Peel Hunt's 185p was a particular favourite. The only thing they have to analyse is company forecasts. Last year they were for £6m of income, that was reduced to £4m in a very inappropriate way in my book (just in an Investor Meets) and when it came in at roughly that number absolutely zero transparency was provided of how much of that was real commercial income, given that the bulk of it came from sales to a business in which AFC is a 50% shareholder. So, £4m of actual revenue? Unlikely! these bookers have absolutely zero credibility and are downright dangerous. I recall Haggis being adamant that they were the results of detailed discounted cash flow calculations but the question then was what cash flow? And that remains the question some years later.

AFC holders still own 100% of Hyamtec. As you know.

'being trialled??!!

The tech was being trialled years ago via Extreme E and the clearly useless power towers. Loads of very large firms - the likes of Vinci, Balfour Beatty, Keir etc. trialled them but orders? Still no sign of anything approaching material orders from Speedy, Tamgo, Acciona or anyone else. No doubt CN will be along in moment to claim that 136 orders from Nifty is very material - but it just isn't by any meaningful standards. Lord knows I, along with others, hope som significant orders arrive sometime before I'm in the grave but confidence has left this building.

I'm going over analysis...

What this board would really benefit from is a sensible discussion involving pros and cons and an acknowledgement that not everything is black and white. I've tried but when such posts are just shot down as having a specific agenda.

CN is the very definition of a narcissist. Utterly incapable of accepting that any view other than his own can have any possible validity and veering from that into outright fantasist when appointing himself as AFC's spokesman on LinkedIn. That's just an embarrassment.

So, Stas. CN posts multiple times pretty much every single day with unequivocally positive views that this company is going to become huge and make us all very rich. Why hasn't the share price reacted to that barrage of information (often misinformation)? Or does it only work with negative posts?

Barry. Do you think posts on this board really affect the shareprice?

Barry, if I could give you half a recommendation then I would! Totally agree that there is no point in CN blitzing the board with pretty much every reference he can find to ammonia and hydrogen without any attempt to see if they are actually relevant to AFC. It just becomes noise and dilutes the potential impact if such things that are actually relevant.

But re Helikon being active on this board? I don't believe that for a nanosecond. I really think it is just absolute nonsense.

Not via that link they're not. What I really crave, CN, what this board would actually be useful for - would be a sensible discussion. Despite the only thing that matters to any of us - the share price - is through the floor you are utterly adamant that all is well and it's just a matter of time until it explodes upwards. Now you may be right, and I hope you are, but do you not ever think that you might get more out of this if you were actually willing to enter into a civil debate?

And I'll give you an example. You posted week or so ago about all the sale that AFC have made as evidence for your case. And I responded, remarkably politely, with an analysis of those 'sales' you cited which put them into proper context. For a change you didn't come back with a mouthful of abuse - you just stayed silent. That's just a clear demonstration that you knew you were talking nonsense and that you couldn't put up any sort of case otherwise.

Why don't you go back to your embarrassing attempts to represent AFC on social media?

That ship has sailed Barry. CN is a consistently misleading ramper. Posts multiple irrelevant links with no attempt at analysis. It's a shame because old Kenny boy does post some interesting and potentially useful information but sifting for it among the dross, and worse, is not an appealing option.

You are right Stas, it didn't say partners to be announced soon in the presentation. I have read it somewhere although it is always possible that one of the dozen or so ramps a day that CN posts (and, yes, CN they are ramps - wild predictions of what WILL happen most certainly meet that definition) has seeped into my consciousness by osmosis - shame on me!

if the crackers are indeed 'available now' COMMERCIALLY - so not just for trial and/or refinement then I would expect, if they are as good and ground-breaking as we are led to believe, them to start flying off the shelves sooner rather than later. Whether manufacturing can be scaled to meet that inevitable demand I have no clue.

It did indeed say available now. It was also said, if memory serves, that announcement s re partners were pretty close to being made.

Now, logical thought and past experience suggest those partners are most likely to be trialling the kit with a view to refining design and operations rather than full on commercial adoptees, but we live in hope.

I don't think that suggested that we could just produce units to meet unforeseen opportunistic demand but, again, I'd love for that to be incorrect. After all, if the technology is as good as described and the units have actually been available on demand for quite a few weeks I'd like to have think we'd have sold one - but we haven't.

Now, some people will doubtless paint this as negative but where has unalloyed optimism and credence take us? It has taken us to c. 10p a share when every long term holder had reasonable expectations that there'd be a 0 on the end of that price by now and to a place where the vast majority of shareholders are under water, most very significantly so.

You forgot to add IMHO to this - which you have claimed previously means that such statements aren't ramping. Which can only mean that, by your own admission, you are ramping. As usual.

"This Technology will make the share price rise significantly"

I would presume we'd need CE marking before the cracker is 'ready to go' . We all know that's not five minutes of a job so reacting to apparent market opportunities where a solution is needed now can't be an option can it?

The rampers are pitiful. The constant bashers are pitiful. There is a middle way of actually having cogent discussions.

I'd say unsustainable rather than uninvestable. Clearly, if the balance doesn't begin to change then things won't look great

Even by the bizarre and wrong-headed standards of this board's views on shorting the suggestion that shorting should be hidden represents a new 'high'.

Can you imagine the fall out if a company that was heavily shorted goes bust (and it has happened) and that only becomes apparent after the event? There would be absolute outrage and quite rightly so.

The current regulatory requirements were introduced in the wake of the global financial crisis. It's worth noting that during the GFC shorting was curtailed because of the extraordinary conditions and the risks attached but any serious market participant would, rather than calling for the practice to be banned altogether, point out that it helps with both price discovery and liquidity. It does, after all, take two views to make a market.

The difference being they have reduced the ITM position and increased this one

For now, fundamental analysis really can't be a thing. There aren't enough metrics to base that on - earnings, profit etc. - hopefully they will come. That's why the pie in the sky targets from brokers are just that. We need real delivery of bulk, paid for orders across our product range. Until then we are priced on technicals (which are flaky) and potential, which bears the weight of past disappointments and sector influence.

I have my own scapegoat for the position I find myself in. Me.