Member Info for TheT

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.

Interesting that, rightly or wrongly (I do not have the appropriate information to pass comment or judgement), AB is hung out to dry. A CEO does not operate in a vacuum - why is similar opprobrium not levelled at the rest of the Board, c.f. the Chairman or senior NED? Again, not suggesting for one moment that they should be subject to such abuse or not.

What I observe is this:

1. The whole hydrogen business sector rallied excessively and then tanked (you can use the London Stock Exchange charting facility to check AFC relative performance against ITM, Ceres, Nel, Proton et al and you will see that AFC has performed in-line or better than the other companies mentioned);

2. AFC, along with the other hydrogen-based companies, are introducing new and more expensive technologies for which there is already a solution. AFC has targeted construction site use of generators, replacing (currently) cheaper, polluting diesel powered generators with cleaner, but (currently) more expensive hydrogen powered generators. This is a tough thing to pull-off, without some significant external influence. For example, this is not like manufacturing large, flat-screen TVs back in the day and selling at a huge price - you will always have first-time adopters, and as volumes rise, unit costs reduce and it can become a mass market. The closest analogy is roof-top solar panels - to shift it from a niche product to a market where it started to become a sound economic choice, required some pretty hefty subsidies (e.g. FIT). AB, and no other CEO, can force a company to buy this product, but what they can do is put in the infrastructure to ensure that when those "externalities" kick-in, AFC will be in as strong a position to deliver as possible. Personally (and make no mistake, it is down to personal interpretation - I willingly accept that others may take a contrary view), I think in the last couple of years the company has made not inconsiderable progress to be in a position to deliver in this niche market, e.g. the tie-up with Speedy and others, the manufacturing agreement, etc., with limited competition, and a business with high barriers to entry. But, I also recognise, that there has to a catalyst for sales, and this must be external. For example, if the govt states that no generator over a certain size can be diesel powered by (say) 2030, coupled with a staged annual increase in the cost of red (?) diesel, and even possible subsidies for hydrogen-powered solutions, this will be a lightning rod for sales and dominance in this sector for AFC. I think current and potential investors should be mindful of this dynamic (my sense is that Helikon is betting against this - and, they may well be right, who knows.

3. I hear bandied around a lot that AB "lied to shareholders". One that springs to mind was the ambition to roll-out hydrogen-powered stand alone EV chargers across the country. Whatever happened to that?? TBC

I think Surfie has hit the nail on the head " IF and when this thing gets launched in the US".

I may be incorrect here, but I am pretty certain that the $4m up-front fee is due from Haleon on commencement of their US campaign, i.e. it is conditional on the campaign going ahead - notwithstanding that this is not what the CEO's statement in the 2023 Financial Report states or the webpage ("...As part of the agreement, Futura received an initial upfront payment of US$ 4 million..." - p 16). It is noteworthy also that this fee has not been recognised in the accounts, supporting the view that is conditional. I really can not understand how it can take more than a year (exclusive agreement signed in July 2023) to put together a marketing campaign by an outfit such as Haleon. My fear is that they are either undertaking further (informal - perhaps with staff?) studies and/or are waiting to see how successful other campaigns in other regions have gone. This could have the RB fiasco written all over it!

Furthermore, anyone who watched the last investor presentation could not be overly impressed. Barder came across, at best, disinterested, at worst, downright shifty. To not disclose revenue figures or costs, hiding behind "commercial sensitivity", was totally disingenuous.

Which leads me to think, stick or twist or fold?? Ultimately, it comes down to trust. And the Board, and Barder in particular, do not in any shape or form provide any confidence at all.

I think this is why the share price is where it is today - a market cap of £100m is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting if the US launch does not go ahead....

Mucksy - many thanks for the link, a good find.

One interpretation is that this is enormously encouraging - it validates the view that there is, indeed, a large and viable market out there for a key product in AFC's range. Many investors here are confident that "decarbonizing construction operations will play a key role in driving a successful energy transition", and that hydrogen fuel cell-based generators can (will?) help accelerate the construction industry’s transition to a low-carbon future. Accordingly, to see that a (very) established player in this market shares this vision is very welcome indeed. But, this transition (i.e. from diesel to renewable solutions) takes time, and requires political will and (potentially) intervention (by way of carrot and/or stick); but, hopefully, we are on the cusp, momentum is building. Many people here seem to expect, if not demand, immediate gratification. Helikon certainly seem to be betting on this. Sadly, this is unlikely to be the case, but AFC looks like they are preparing a robust pathway for this vision to be realised, e.g. the tie-up with Speedy Hire and others. And, by raising funds now, hopefully will be in a more secure position to see this through to realisation.

As to your more substantive point, to paraphrase, "why chose an AFC fuel cell, when you can buy an Hitachi", you could be right. However, the potential market is huge and there will always be competition. I, for one, am confident that the alliances and partnerships that AFC have secured will enable them to capture a sufficient market share to make this a profitable investment from the current market cap level.

But, again - thanks for the link. we need more of this and less abuse, on this Board.

Good luck all

Morning Garonne

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/AFC/afc-energy-plc/company-page

It might be worth taking a look at the chart included on this page. It is very useful as you can enter several benchmarks. I entered ITM, Ceres and Nel, but you can enter benchmarks of your choice, of course. The chart defaults to a one-year period, but again you can vary this by using the drop-down menu (although, be aware that if you select "max" the results are not directly comparable). If you read across to the right, you get the total return performance in percentage terms (no need to select the "total return" button, as none of the selected companies have paid a dividend (if you select a benchmark which has paid a dividend, you will need to check the "total return" box).

Over a one-year period, the performance is as follows: AFC 33%; ITM -16%; Ceres -28%; and Nel -41%.

Over a five-year period: AFC 268%; ITM 65%; Ceres 15%; and Nel -70%.

Over a much shorter period, one-month, Nel has powered away by 66%, against 38% for Ceres, 25% for AFC and ITM bringing up the rear at 10%.

You can play around with alternative dates as well, so feel free. However, I'm not sure you will be able to come up with any concrete or defensible conclusions. But, if you select a five-year term, you can clearly see the spike in prices in January 2021. If you run the cursor over the chart, you get the performance results for each trading date. I selected Jan-22 2021 - performances to that date from 341-May 2019 are ITM 1896%; AFC 1226%; and Ceres 708% and if we put in Jan-22 as the start date (i.e. buying at ITM's peak) to today, we get: ITM -92%; Ceres -86%; Nel -75% and with AFC "out-performing" at - 70%.

You may or may not be correct in your analysis of Mr. Bond. But certainly. over a one-day performance, ITM has nailed it (reminds me of the Conservative Party going all triumphant over one-quarter's GDP growth performance, whilst conveniently forgetting the past performance!).

Hopefully though, the charts do shed some light on the overall industry performance. I find it quite strange that you would champion ITM over AFC? But, I guess if an investor has bought one stock (AFC) at its high only to see it crash, and then made a purchase of a company in the same industry (albeit, not a direct competitor) at a later date at a bombed-out price, then perhaps they may have a different perspective.

Hopefully, all stocks in the hydrogen sector will now see renewed growth prospects; I am as confident as I can be that a Labour government may be more supportive, but it, of course, remains to be seen whether they will be in power.

Garonne/Ade - sorry, am struggling with your logic, here. As joaung points out, he has a not inconsiderable number of options. As you (correctly) pointed out, Garonne, he got these for "free" - why on earth would you pay out your own cash, when you get more than enough for nothing?

If (and it is still a big if), all goes well, as (hopefully?) we all hope it will and this becomes a billion sterling company, Bond will be a v wealthy boy. He has absolutely no need to buy further shares and, indeed, it would be very foolish of him to do so - if it does go ti ts up, he will lose twice, not a great place to be.

I think your insistence that he buys now is to merely to get the share price higher. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I suspect a much greater force to that end will be a statement confirming significant sales. The share price is only really an issue if a new funding round is due - then, I agree, it is imperative to get the price up to avoid ruinous shareholder destruction in the form of dilution.

that is the 24bn $ question!!

when you read this: "according to research from radicle, vpp in feature-length films and tv shows in the u.s. will be worth $6.6 billion in 2023, accounting for nearly two-thirds (63%) of the u.s. product placement market" (many thanks for the link cab*****) and with all the deals and tie-ups mirriad have secured, it seems incongruous that the company has a market cap of c. £8m?!?

my take on this, for what it's worth, is a serious question mark over a (near-time) funding requirement. there must be a race to get as much revenue in as possible in order to avoid another equity raise, because, make no mistake, at such a low mc, an equity raise of, say, £4m would lead to a serious dilution. i suspect that this is holding back new investors at the moment. should, however, the company announce in a trading update that the company has moved/is moving (with a date) to a cash positive position, i would anticipate that the share price would rocket - if only because it will "come into play". even at 10x the current mc, this would represent loose change for a large ad company and as we know, the potential is absolutely enormous - see quote above.

gla, and many thanks to the regular posters - 2phevs; lotm-13; et al

Re dual listing, never underestimate the cost or the executive time involved in doing so. Personally, I would prefer management attention 100% focused on the deliverable AB outlined in the presentation. A "truer" value will then take care of itself.

Same applies with a main board listing, either standard or premium. Again, costly, and lot of management time tied up and it is not at or clear that there will be a discernable benefit (see Ceres). The only caveat to that is if the company sees, or perceives, that customers are not comfortable dealing or partnering with an AIM-listed company - this does not look to be the case at present given the tie-ups AFC have achieved in recent times.

My v strong preference is for the senior management and Board to be fully focused on delivery. It looks like they have some v good products in what should be an expanding market.

But, ......., as I have always thought - this is a highly "politicized" stock, as are many others in the "green" energy market place. If Donald "Drill, Baby, Drill" Trump returns and an emboldened anti-green, climate change denying Conservative govt is returned, all bets are, v sadly, off.

Well, it's certainly helpful ....

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/production/biggest-yet-eu-green-lights-7bn-in-hydrogen-infrastructure-subsidies-from-seven-member-states/2-1-1599130

The fall yesterday, what was it, c. 6.5% (?) seemed a little odd, given no information flow.

Maybe the MMs got notice of today's RNS and dropped the price to trigger stop-loss orders in the (almost certain) knowledge that the price would rally on the next morning's news, enabling them to make a killing?

I understand that stop-loss orders have a role to play when trading, but in a quote-driven market (such as AIM) rather than an order-driven market, they are fraught with danger. Always, caveat emptor ....

Ex-sparky 07:13

I think you will find it is over 60s that get free prescriptions. Increases the number of take-up significantly

A "good write up" - I guess so if I were Helikon Investments, who established a sizable short position at a range of prices from 14p to c. 11p, so now posting a not insignificant mark-to-market loss with the offer sitting at 16p per share.

"16p is really overpriced I think most people agree on this" - a strange view to hold. If that were the case, the price would be trading at your target price of 12 - 13p, and people would not be buying at c.16p.

Is it overvalued? Maybe. Impossible to say - the value is derived from the embedded "real options", which are notoriously hard (impossible) to value. As with other "green centric stocks", the value proposition is heavily influenced by the political landscape. Even small changes, e.g. a time frame for the roll-out of "x" quantity of EV charging points; or, a time frame for the phasing -out of diesel generators, could unlock significant value for a company like AFC. But, neither you, nor I, have any real insight as to how likely this with be. My sense, however, is that the mood music is now (slowly) changing (but, I fully accept that that could be due to the current press coverage of Cop 28). What Sunac and his govt say they are doing (i.e. pulling back on the green agenda), and what they they are (ever so quietly) actually doing in the background may be quite different. And i suspect that following the election, with possibly a different govt in place, that (positive) momentum will increase.

The price could retrace; of course it could, in the short-term. But, it could also rally further before spiking up on further good news. Given the wide spreads, I suspect a lot of people here are investors (Helikon Investments accepted) rather than traders. Rather than sell now on the bid, and buy back on the offer, making 1 or 2 p per share, I for one, will hold - but many thanks for your kind advice, much appreciated. If it does drop, given AFC's current cash position, it might be an opportunity for me to add.

I guess it might be if you are short. But, surely not, Ade ....