Member Info for TheT

Yes, good news indeed.

But, re "Labour's continued interference" - I think you should be careful what you (might) wish for. The last govt completely trashed the home solar panel market and I rather suspect that a return to a govt of that persuasion or Reform would not be one conducive to the renewable sector.

The current status quo, where electricity is paid to all sources at a price set by the marginal cost provider (now, virtually always electricity generated by gas powered generators), thereby enabling legacy wind farms not subject to CFD contracts to receive (excessive) windfall profits, is wholly inappropriate and all governments, of whatever persuasion, would seek to change this (but, in some cases, would go a lot further - as I said, be careful what you wish for).

"Sadly our UK Government still aren't prioritising Hydrogen as an alternative fuel source, irrespective of how much you ramp or brown nose on LinkedIn."

I take it the recent UK govt £40m equity stake in and grant of C. £46m to ITM Power passed you by, w4ttsy

That told you neon!

"May" is doing an extraordinary amount of heavy lifting, CY. I look forward to your posts, the vast majority, if not all, (I considered) to be insightful and well argued. On your comment to neon, I would say you are wide of the mark, but this is neither the place or time to debate further [more's the pity, (civilised) debate on such matters is crucial in functioning democracies].

Https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/20/fire-experts-losing-sleep-over-growing-hazard-of-lithium-ion-batteries

I suspect the price of IKA's SSB offering is too high for retail applications (e.g. cycles, etc.), but to power military drones, tooled-up with high explosive, this would appear to be a no brainer?

To put some more "colour" on the premium over the 01-May closing price, i.e. the day before the offer was made, TP ICAP's closing price that day was 255.50p. Yesterday's close, with no bid, was 311.50p, a gain of ~ 22%. TP ICAP operates in a similar market place, and both share prices (but not the underlying core businesses) were adversely affected (by the general market sell-off) following the US stance on tariffs.

Applying that 22% gain to ALPH, and you get a price of c. £33.50. Measured against that price, the bid premium drops to 27% - hardly exceptional to gain full control of a company, and one which is generating substantial cash year-on-year and has zero debt. This looks an absolute steal for Corpay Inc.

Will a rival bid emerge? Potential interested parties have had plenty of time to work out what a fair price and also a maximum price might look like. Alternatively, hopefully a sufficient number of the larger institutional holders do not back the take-over at this price. For sure, the price will retrace, possibly below £30 per share, but in the long-run (five to ten years), I feel strongly that they will be rewarded for their patience.

What would be helpful is for ALPH to publish a trading update for the last half-year, which they have done in the past at this time (check RNSs). That way, shareholders will be in a much better position to judge for themselves whether a sale price of £42.50 is "fair" or is fundamentally undervaluing the company, rather than relying on the Board (who, do not forget, have their own interests to consider - e.g. positions on the main board, etc.??).

Am disappointed, to be honest. Not sure that it is such a "fair" value. The premiums cited reflect, in part, weakness caused by the "tariff tantrum". earlier in the year. And that presupposes that it was already "fairly" valued.

For all the reasons outlined in an earlier post (and I could add more), the likelihood of the market cap hitting £10 bn within ten-years, is not entirely without merit.

As such, I hope a rival bid is lodged. But we shall see .... Or, that it does not hit the 75% approval rate, but sadly, I have no doubt that the major shareholders have been sounded out as to what price they would accept (shame that Berkshire Hathaway do not have a sizable holding, as this company ticks so many of their investment criteria boxes).

Personally, I would prefer for this not to go through. If it fails, it is likely that there will be a retrace, but this may be somewhat mitigated by a trading update, which normally comes in July, that confirms solid growth it all business sectors. The positives for the company are:

1. Strong cash generation ~ £50m a year

2. Likelihood of consistent growth in the region of 20% per annum in the foreseeable future, driven by:

a) Market volatility (sterling recently hit a three-week low) which is unlikely to abate in the near term, driving demand for ALPH services

b) Large untapped market - the move from AIM to a premium listing would have enfranchised a much broader (and "higher quality") customer base which previously would not have the (internal) mandate to deal with an AIM quoted company, which will hopefully accelerate account (and hence revenue) growth

c) Interest rates are still (relatively) high and unlikely to hit the post financial crash and COVID lows, thereby maintaining treasury interest income. Any rate cuts will certainly limit growth in this income stream, but against that volatility is likely to rise (due to uncertainty over timing, speed and extent of cuts) - see (a) ; plus # of accounts are likely to increase - see (b)

d) Very competent and experienced board

e) Both board and workforce interests are directly aligned to deliver growth

f) Large stock of treasury shares (purchased predominantly at lower prices than today's price) can be used in part for employee share-based remuneration incentive plans, thereby keeping a lid on employment costs (wages, employer NI etc) and dilution.

Accordingly, I would far rather take short-term share price weakness, in return for longer-term capital appreciation. Current mrk cap is c. £1.4 bn at £33 per share. At a compound growth rate of ~ 20% pa, this will double in just under four-years, and that would be without a re-rating. And I'm with SPRATTY, even if the price is £50 (and for me, that would be an absolute minimum), I have no confidence in being able to identify a suitable place to invest the funds.

Of course, the outcome will be determined very much on whether MT wants cash now or later (am sure one consideration for him will be potential changes in cgt legislation), and, to a lesser extent, the institutional investors with large holdings.

Perhaps. But ...... can't see any upticks from AFC staff??

Yes, KH, a bit of a puzzle. From memory, I don't think that they include a large part of the interest received (on client accounts) in eps for regulatory purposes (might be wrong on this), hence why they went down the share repurchase route. Also, the quantum of interest received could be quite volatile (12-months ago, interest rates were expected to fall much quicker than they have done to date), hence why the first tranche was for £20m, which they covered in the first six months, and then extended by a further £20m.

I must say, I was rather surprised that the buy backs stopped in early December, before resuming again in the last couple of weeks. It would be interesting to know the thinking behind this (temporary) suspension - why wait until the release of a TU indicating good progress; as a result, the company will be buying back at (significantly) higher prices (if the rally holds)?!?

Going forward, I agree KH, the cash balance is unproductive. From 2002 to 2003, the final div increased from 8p per share to 11p, an increase of 37.5%. A similar percentage increase this time might be appropriate, together with a special div and extension of the buy-back scheme. Time will tell - hopefully, these questions might be addressed at the AGM?

The other thing that would be welcome is for a chunk of the shares currently held as Treasury Stock to be cancelled. Whilst these shares when used for employee share incentive schemes prevent dilution, the number held in TS at the moment is sufficiently large for these purposes.

Of course, the company may well be building cash resources to fund a (hopefully, shareholder value enhancing) acquisition, without recourse to alternative funding sources.

As I said earlier, I have full confidence in the quality of the SM team, and they certainly do seem to be working in shareholders' long term interests (and, it seems very hard to find company's, c.f. those quoted on AIM, where this is remotely on the agenda of the SM in situ).

Agree with all comments, very encouraging update.

This has been a very well-run company from the outset [check-out RNS Number : 2271M, 26-Apr-2024 re employee share schemes where vesting of shares is contingent on pretty demanding target growth rates. Note also that the executive did not receive a bonus last year as the (very demanding) hurdles were not passed].

The resignation of the founder and CEO, MT, created some (short-term) concerns, I think, but these results should put those concerns well and truly to bed. The new senior management team are very experienced and capable of continuing the growth narrative.

The cash generation has continued apace, and it would be a surprise not to see the share buy-back programme extended again, and very probably increased. But agree, Maddox - a special dividend, plus an enhanced ord div would be welcome.

It does seem that this company is rather "under the radar", although note the large OTC trades reported at 17:00 at a price of £24.29, well above the uncross price of £23.80.

The final div is due to be announced c. 12 March. Last year, the div increased from 11p to 12.3p a share, a 12% increase. Any % increase beyond this, plus maybe a special div, and we could see a further leg up.

At the moment, I'm happy to accumulate - in 5, 10 years time I suspect the market cap will be (meaningfully) higher than the current £1bn level.

TBC.

4. Larger companies were very likely restricted from using ALPH's services whilst an AIM company. Now that they have a premier listing on the main board of LSE, this obstacle is removed, leading to a larger and better quality customer base, which hopefully will be reflected in growing the customer base, revenues and profit in FY 24 and onwards.

5. Appointment of Jayne-Ann Gadhia to the Board will strengthen and diversify the board. In particular, given her background, she may have been appointed to pave the way for the company to apply for a Banking License, which I think may be value enhancing?

Cons

1. Resignation of Morgan Tillbrook is (potentially) a significant loss

2. Recession accompanied by falling rates may affect growth rate, leading to pressures on valuation.

Just my thoughts. Personally, am happy to be invested here. The new team is very experienced, and by no means, "fly-by-nights". One to lock-away and look-back in five or ten years time and be pleasantly surprised.

OTB. Yes, very quiet. Perhaps under the radar, as you suggest, which perhaps is no bad thing?

On the plus side:

1. Very well managed (entrepreneurial) company

2. Insiders heavily invested (c.f. sizable recent purchases by non-exec chairman

3. Cash flow generation extremely high, growing (although may need further confirmation once Dec 2024 accounts are finalised) and consistent, to a large extent generated from client money on overnight accounts. Although rates have fallen, this may be stable for FY2024 v FY2023 assuming new accounts have been added.

Div payment in FY2023 was £6.365m, up from £4.810m in FY22, an increase of 33%. Increase in FY24 is likely to fall to a c.10% increase.

But, company started a buy-back programme wef 29 January 2024 in the sum of £20m, to end the earlier of the next AGM (01-May 2024) or when achieved. Stock bought back to be held as treasury stock, partly to used to satisfy employee share schemes, thereby negating future dilution.

By the AGM, £11.76m had been spent on 682,127 shares at an average price of £17.24. Of those shares purchased, 234,627 were used for share employee schemes, leaving 447,500 shares as treasury stock and 42,874,313 total shares (from 43,321,813 immediately before the share buy back programme.

The programme was extended for the remaining £8.24m to be spent until the earlier of the next AGM (May 2025), or when the money was spent.

This happened on 27-June 2024, with a further 324,301 shares bought back at average price of £25.41 (£8.24m/324,301).

Accordingly, £20m had now been spent in c. five months buying back 1,006,428 shares at an overall average price of £19.87, with 234,627 shares allocated to employees, leaving 771,801 shares in treasury stock and 42,550,012 shares outstanding.

The following day, 28-Jun 2024, the company announced a further £20m buy-back programme to end the earlier of the next AGM (May 2025) or once the money had been spent.

As of 02-December 2024, a further 438,289 shares have been purchased, increasing treasury stock to 1,210,090 shares and decreasing the shares outstanding to 42,111,723.

On this basis, it seems probable that the full allocation of £20m to the programme will be realised around the time of the next AGM, or shortly before.

If we (very conservatively) assume that the shares allocated to employees occurs semi-annually, a total of c.470,000 shares will be allocated at a cost of say, £20 per shares, i.e. £9.4m. With a buy back during the year of £40m + divs of c. £7m less £9.4m for employee shares, this amounts to c. £37.6m to give a yield of around 4% based on a share price of £22 and shares in issue of 42,000,000.

Given that net cash and cash equivalents increased by c. £60m during FY 2023, that leaves plenty of headway to at least continue or increase the buy back programme once the second one has run its course, and/or increase the dividend significantly.

Not sure what brought that on, Red.

I'm very pleased no one has given you abuse for your comment, which seems eminently reasonable. But, I think if you scroll down, you will seem plenty.

Am really sorry I irritated you, was absolutely not my intention. So please accept my apology. Was only trying to rationalise to myself why the share price has week so weak over the last few weeks. But, you shall have your wish, I will resist the temptation to post again.

It might be insightful if you could shed some light on why you think the price and mrk cap has almost halved, other tan more sellers than buyers. Always good to hear another view.

Have a great evening.

BTW. Yes, got that (AR SE, that is - very droll 😊)

That's what I love about this board (in v small does) - post something "perceived" to be ever-so-slightly negative, and the abuse and attacks quickly follow. Some v angry people here.

Really, I was just trying to put my thoughts together as to why the share price has been on the slide for the last few weeks, indeed, the price almost halving - that's some slide.

Inevitably, there is some uncertainty over the reasons for AB's abdication. Was he pushed? Did he jump (before bad news lands)? Or, is he just yearning to return to Oz (perfectly understandable, a lovely country). Depending which of these you believe, influences the timing of the disclosure that AB is standing-down.

Yes, StockCheque, you are absolutely correct - five weeks is a short time, but the process could have started some time before the official announcement, unless you know otherwise? Perhaps you do. But, my point was to try and understand the continued (and continuing) weakness in the share price (actually, posting was more for my benefit, I find ordering and writing down my thoughts quite helpful, my mistake was to post those idle thoughts). Do you have any other (rationale and plausible) ideas as to why a whole chunk of mrk cap has been written off since the investor meeting? Sorry, will never know, as am now blocked (🤣).

Like it or not, that is what has happened. I was in no way suggesting that it should have happened, or was right to happen. Merely, that it is understandable that it has happened. And, I suspect, will continue until there is some certainty as to who the replacement will be.

Your last response, StockCheque, with respect, is missing the point I was making. It is not the absence of a CEO that is creating a problem, it is the potential difficulty in recruiting another CEO that is the problem. Five weeks maybe a short time in your view, and you may very well be correct, but others, including investors, present and potential, may take a contrary view. I am not trying to push the price down, merely understand why it has gone down.

Filter me by all means, if that brings you comfort (might I also be so bold as to suggest you take up yoga - that may bring some karma to your life 🙏). But, it is probably not necessary, as I v rarely post.

Ade - if only!! The theory postulated being once they out, flood the market with news and let the price rip.....?

But why would (the Board of) AFC want to do this (are they even permitted to do so - no, is the answer to that, btw)? They owe no favours to the shorters, quite the reverse. Indeed, flood the market with (positive) news, see the price climb, forcing the shorts to close out at a loss now or a bigger loss tomorrow.

So no, I don't think for one moment that is the Board's "grand plan".

For me, the most troubling (there are many more) aspect and negative indicator at the moment is their (apparent) inability to replace the out-going CEO. The suspicion must be that head-hunters have lined-up a group of well-qualified, prospective candidates for the job, who have asked to be shown "the numbers", i.e. prospective sales and have blanched. At this level, the company has to make the case why an experienced and (hopefully) very successful candidate would give up their existing post and join the good ship AFC, which (they are assured) is on the verge of going gangbusters. It should be an easy sell. It is very, very different for an entry level, or even mid-management, position where all the power is with the company. In this case, it is the exact opposite. And the longer this drags on, the prospect of any share price revival is slim. Indeed, the caliber of the appointee, their experience and past accomplishments will be absolutely key as an indicator as to the future prospects of the company. If the appointee is a "big hitter", then (hopefully) much of StockCheque's news flow will happen and be positive and all will be well. If, alternatively, the new CEO underwhelms, then .... be prepared for the news flow to be somewhat less positive than we might hope. Because, remember (unless someone on this board has access to insider information) no one, and I mean no one, - StockCheque; jgbb123; Thetruthgb, and especailly ME - has a scooby as to what progress has been truly made, are sales with Speedy progressing as forecast, are Acciona about to drop a huge order, etc.....

But, the longer this process (CEO appointment) drags on, the more likely the second scenario un-folds. At the moment, this feels very much like a binary bet, rather than an investible proposition - hence the fall in the share price.

BTW, am not knocking the company or trying to big-it up. All IMVHO.

To your question as to why someone would "put a limit order in for such a price so soon after the previous 2 buys, which pushed the price-up in themselves": after the 500,000 {price taker) buy at 14:03 was executed at 0.545 per sh, the MMs increased the offered price (their sell price to 0.6). An investor observing this could either lift the offer and pay 0.6, or enter a limit order to buy at a lower price. Likewise, an investor/trader looking to sell could sell at the market bid rate of 0.5, or enter a higher limit price. The MMs would now have the confidence to buy at 0.547 in 600,000 shs and 0.548 in 2x 250k lots, knowing that they can sell 518k at the higher price of 0.5777 per sh.

"If they had put in a limit buy order between 14:07 when 600,000 shares were bought at 0.547p & 14:18 at the limit price your talking about it would have been filled instantly."

The 600,000 trade looks like a buy from the MM at 0.547, as explained above. The limit order to buy (from the price taker perspective) is the MM sell price. It will only be filled if the MM is willing to sell at that price (0.5777), given his quote is at 0.6. So no, it will not be automatically filled.

"They were offering 0.515p for a Million shares straight after those trades & 0.5215p for 0.5M shares. Within 15 mins of that they would happily give me 0.52p for a Million shares for the the rest of Wednesday afternoon."

If I read this correctly, they "would happily give me 0.52p for a Million shares for the the rest of Wednesday afternoon", you are saying that you could sell 1m shs at 0.52p? Quite right, the MM bid was 0.50p, they had just sold 518k shs at 0.5777, leaving them a net short position of 352k shs, they would love to buy back at 0.52p.

As it happens, they did exactly that in the first five trades on Thursday morning (apart from the 1,666 sell by the MM at 09:57 at 0.6p). The others of 806k (0.52p), 250k (0.515p), 250k (0.5115p) and finally, 518,610 at 0.5115p were all buys by the MM.

They now were 1,497,501 long, but they have managed to sell a further 1m at 0.5419p and 110,000 at 0.537p this morning to bring heir books into better balance.

Of course, it is (slightly) more complicated that this, c.f. with MMs competing against each other, but the general thrust holds.

If I could attach a spreadsheet, the above would (hopefully) make a lot more sense. But, "rubbish" it is not.....

LOTM

First of all, many thanks for the kind welcome, but not sure I will hang around. Really don't want to get into an argument over this (it's really not important in the scheme of things), but, just to clarify...

AIM is a quote-driven market, not an order-driven market. The bid is the MM buy price, the offer is their sell price.

Let's assume (we know this is definitely not the case, but it's the best we can go on without further more definitive information) that the lse.co.uk buy/sell (from the price takers perspective) are correct, i.e. find the mid-price from the bid and offer quotes shown, then see if the trade price is below (price taker sell, MM buy) or above (price taker buy, MM sell).

Let's further suppose that the MMs are all square at Wednesday open (again, not realistic but we have to start from somewhere).

Based on these two assumption, we can now understand the MM's books during the trading day.

The first trade at 8:00 at 0.5 per share was right on the bid, so the MM is now long 2,208 shs at 0.5.

3 shares are sold by the MM at the offered price of 0.6, leaving the MM net long in 1,708 shs.

The next three trades (200, 500 and 600k) are all (price taker) sells at progressively lower prices, and the MM is now long 1,301,708 shs., with the highest price paid being 0.52 for 200,00 shs.

The next trade is a (price taker) buy at 0.535 in 373,831 shs, and the net MM long position falls to 927,877 shs and the MM has made a small profit, having sold at 0.535. This is followed by a sell (buy for the MM) at 0.5025 for 352,061 taking the net long position back up to 1,279,938 shs. This is followed by a 1m buy (MM sell) at 0.5288, reducing the net long to (a more manageable) 279,938 shs. Note that the MM is consistently buying low, selling high.

The next trade at 12:28 is for 239,063 shs at 0.50375, increasing the MM's position to 519,001 shs. THis is closely followed by a MM sale of 926,304 shs and a further 500,000 shs leaving a net short position of 907,303 shs.

That (market) buying pressure has forced the offered price up, and the next three for 600,250,250k shs redress the net short balance to a net long position of 192,697. Although these buys were at higher prices than the sells, help is at hand with the final trade on Wednesday at 14:18 of 518,610 , sold by the MM at 0.5777 leaving a net short position to carry into Thursday of 325,913 shs.

TBC

Not sure you are on the right track, here.

Market quote is 0.50 - 0.60.

A limit buy order is entered at 0.5777 for 518,610 shares. MM sells at 0.5777.

Next day, a limit order to sell is entered at 0.5115 and MM buys at this price to make a tidy profit.

More likely, there is already a limit order to sell sitting in the book, which is why the MM is happy to shade the offer price of 0.6 yesterday - they were pretty confident of being able to close out at a price below 0.5777.

Agree, unusual to see trade for trade, normally MMs will have an existing long/short position.

But, it certainly will not be someone buying at 0.5777, then selling at 0.5115 less than 24-hours later.

Hope that makes sense

Um. I would jump on the ITN chat first.

Wrong skill set entirely - hopefully, the R & D days for AFC (and ITM, which is why he was replaced as CEO) are very much in the rear mirror. What we need is someone who can take (again, hopefully) proven, best-in-class products to market.

3. I suspect a number of things, but possibly the most important one being that the Board recognised that the market was too diverse, hence the pivot to the replacement of generators; with the benefit of hindsight, we might be very grateful for that switch.

4. Finally, it should not be forgotten that AFC has been an R & D company - it takes time to get every thing right.

Where are we now. Hopefully, ALC are well placed to become a very major player in the replacement of diesel-powered generators, but .... it will need a regulatory push to make it happen. Hopefully, it will be like Amazon - that rose like a phoenix, only to crash and burn in the dot-com crash, and then rise again to global dominance in its sector.