Ok so in this context "Technology Transfer" = "Intellectual Property Sharing" so it would be very important to understand what " a longer term share in the profits " actually means. Perhaps this loss of intellectual property ownership will spur other potential partners into action!
China has a history of forcing companies to hand over their intellectual property in return for access to their market. This is one of the reasons Trump is so exercised about their existing agreement. The agreement with Ceres says... "The agreement potentially provides significant staged revenues to Ceres Power through engineering services and 'technology transfer,' licence and royalty payments and a longer term share in the profits from a proposed manufacturing Joint Venture." So it does seem to indicate that Ceres will be paid for the 'technology transfer,' even so once transferred they will be able to use it for themselves. I'm hoping that the face off with Trump will help dissuade them from carrying on with this practice.
does the 17M equity investment mean new shares will be issued , i.e. some dilution?
over all I am very positive on the prospects for Ceres, but as with any AIM stock, dilution as they move forward is always something to watch.
I'm not familiar with what the term "Technology Transfer" implies, if this means the tech partner are provided which a knowledge transfer so they can build the components then that would be expected know? Wouldn't Ceres still keep patents, royalties and licenses so they keep making money into the future?
This is the only worry for me. Forced technology transfers are part of China's strategy for acquiring foreign technology and once they have that will they need Ceres? Otherwise it does bring Ceres to the forefront of the market again.
no idea. This research report out today, but since its purchasable only, I don't know its conclusions. But Ceres is analysed within
Could well be, Ceres's website says: "We are working with Nissan to develop a compact, on-board SteelCell® stack, which will extend the range of electric vehicles and allow a shorter refuelling time. This could accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles, and so increase progress towards global low-carbon energy targets".
A positive RNS issued this morning. Of course it would be stronger if it had said who the partnership was with; but given it's in the same breath as Honda, Nissan & Cummins, I think we can assume it is a significant partner.
That was written in 2015. Times change. The hydrogen age is dawning. Have a look at the environmental impact of Li battery technology.
The first batch of mass-produced hydrogen-powered buses have been launched in the Chinese city of Wuhan.
Co-developed by Wuhan Skywell New Energy Automotive Company and the Wuhan Tiger Fuel Cell Vehicle Company, the vehicles have a range of more than 450 kilometres, consuming only 5.2 kilograms of the gas every 100 kilometres.
The 8.5-meter bus can carry 56 passengers and refuels in less than five minutes.
The two companies behind its introduction signed a strategic cooperation agreement to manufacture and sell 3,000 of the hydrogen-powered vehicles, which have been named £Skywell Tigers£, over the next two years.
They say the buses will eventually be introduced in Shanghai, Nanjing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Chengdu, with both parties aiming to improve the development of clean transport and hydrogen fuel cell technology across the country.
I first got interested in fuel cells about 10 years ago; and spent more time researching the sector than I have ever done before or since. There were so many companies set up to develop fuel cells - mainly University research spin offs - all over the developed world. Most had some kind of backing from large energy companies (power generation, oil & gas, motor car manufacturers, air engine manufacturers, pc & mobile phone companies etc.) and were specialising in different potential applications - domestic, industrial, traction micro units etc. It seemed there was no way of picking the winners at that stage, and it did seem quite a long way off; so when there's a gold rush, don't back the miners, back the pick & shovel suppliers. Every fuel cell has a filter & a catalyst. Porvair seemed to have a monopoly of filters & Johnson Matthey on catalysts; so I invested in Porvair and have done very well (with no thanks to Fuel Cells at all.)
When so many companies were working on similar things there were bound to be casualties (like CFC) and the leaders begin to emerge more clearly.
We may still be some way off fuel cell companies being profitable, but from what I read the technology is a lot closer to being commercially exploitable now, and the remaining fuel cell companies are actually beginning to generate some real income.
It's going to be a very interesting sector over the next 2 years.
Regarding fuel cells for vehicles, this appears to be mentioned in the RNS from 15 Dec 2017.
"Ceres continues to meet the milestones provided for the Range Extender programme announced in June 2016 which has resulted in securing follow on agreements with Nissan".
Range extenders are used on battery EVs to recharge the batteries when exhausted.
They are usually small petrol driven engines driving a generator but in this case it would seem to be a Ceres fuel cell.
What confuses me about yesterday's RNS is the attitude to electric vehicles. paraphrasing it, it says - we have the technology to turn has into electricity to power a home - oh and it can recharge electric vehicles. If the technology exists to turn gas into electricity for the home surely it can do it for vehicles too. If vehicles have fuel cells to drive them, there is no need to recharge them at home; and it overcomes what I see as the biggest downside for electric vehicles - refuelling practicalities. When an electric vehicle (as we currently think of them) is getting low on charge it has to be plugged into to recharge or have its battery changed. These are time-consuming and impractical operations. If they have a fuel cell fitted, when getting low on juice they just fill up their fuel tanks as now. (And if they are hydrogen powered filling up reduces the weight.)
I need to get myself back up to speed on the players in fuel cells.
Sorry I have not replied until now. I did not take any notes, and the USA election has been somewhat of a distraction.
I asked some questions about their historical connection with Calor, as I saw this as a low hanging fruit that might get them a track record in the market, often the most diificult and necessary first hurdle to get liability protection to involve third party manufacturers.
Apparently Calor in the UK use a gas mix which is variable and difficult to tweak to any fuel cell sysytem, However, rural applications with bottled gas using pure butane or propane could well be such a low hanging fruit in other parts of Europe and the Far East.
Ceres now, Hhowever,, sees itself as more of a tier one providing the fuel cell stack components for variuos applications in cluding domestic heat and power, power supplies, backup and initial supplies for data/server centres, range extenders for automotive electrics/hybrids etc. Apparently Cummins is very interested, as they face a possible scenario where diesel could be banned in some of their current markets for stationary power generation. In domestic heat and power, they see their stacks as being viable for 10 years which is considered the life of most domestic boilers.
It seems that Europe and the far East (mostly Japan, but also Korea) are their current most promising markets, but USA interest in power plants for data servers is also warming up.
They appear to be selling a reasonable level of engineering services as evidence of partners preparing for significant licensing. They appear flexible to what type of licenses, ranging from large upfront payments/lower unit royalties, to the reverse, depending on the application and partner.,
I' ll write more if I find the time and remember more.
I have followed Ceres for many years, but have not yet bought shares, having invested in Ceramic Fuel Cells :-( and AFC :-) instead. When Ceres announced an investor's briefing, I applied to attend, and was surprised they replied positively.
I appeared to be the only private investor present, and asked about 80% of the questions, which were well received, and even continued talking with staff after the CEO ended the meeting.
Overall I was impressed, but agree that it could easily go private in the next year of so, but most likely at a decent premium to the present share price. I am very tempted to finally buy in if I can find the cash, or may sell off other shares to do so.
I think the trigger point for an offer is 30%... but you may be right that we are heading towards a bid. I hope not. Seems very unsatisfactory that when things go badly PIs are left to bear the losses, but when the prospects are good the company is taken private with at best modest profits for PIs.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.