News about Woodford and Industrial Heat

    "Less than a year ago, Link dramatically marked up the value of Woodford’s holding in the unquoted company by 357 per cent. Link said its revaluation of Industrial Heat “considered that the company’s development had not progressed at the rate upon which previous reviews were based”.

    A Woodford spokesperson said: “Woodford is not responsible for unquoted valuations across any of its funds."


    It has become clear, after a catalogue of poor stock picking, that Woodfords due diligence is fantasy. We probably knew this after the Rossi fiasco.

    Additionally the valuations of the shares they bought is nothing to do with Woodford. ;)

    The valuations are the responsibility of Link:!:

    But how do Link put a value on IH:?:

    On what was the previous 357 percent based:?:

    How much do they know about what IH is doing:?:

    Have they popped in and had tea with Darden:?:

    Was the cup of tea produced using cold fusion:?:

    Sounds like this is also based on fantasy valuations.

    No wonder they call such investments "unicorns".


    So if the latest status update is disappointing then not much chance of good news from IH at ICCF22 in two weeks.:sleeping:


    I am currently working on a project to produce flying pigs. But things are not progressing at the rate I hoped so I will be selling shares at only 300 percent mark up on the base value.

    The base value is based on research I carried out while dreaming and assumes a market for flying pigs of 28 gazillion quatloos.


    More seriously, in actual fact the stock markets are currently full of such fantasy valuations. Which is one of the reasons why a large market drop is looking increasingly likely.

    ZenoOfElea


    You need to understand that unquoted investments are valued according to the most recent equity investment. In a stock such as IH that bears little relationship to progress and more to whether one specific investor is willing to pay more to buy in. So, basically, you should ignore the IH pricing as any measure of progress until such time as their stock is liquid or they have a less speculative future income stream.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    ZenoOfElea


    You need to understand that unquoted investments are valued according to the most recent equity investment. In a stock such as IH that bears little relationship to progress and more to whether one specific investor is willing to pay more to buy in. So, basically, you should ignore the IH pricing as any measure of progress until such time as their stock is liquid or they have a less speculative future income stream.


    THH


    Yes, I sort of do understand that. So if the last round of shares in 2018 was at a much higher value then the value of the previous issued shares would go up (albeit they would also be diluted by the new share issue).


    But, but, but. Those shareholders must have seen some evidence of value, albeit that evidence could have just been words in a letter, or a pitch by Darden.

    Likewise the new statement by Link suggests there was some expectation of progress which has now failed to materialise.

    So there is some notion of a process to market and a timeline.

    Its just that its all a bit loose and could turn out to be never.

    Quote from Bob#2

    Uh... what do you mean "not a customer"?


    They bought a 1MW plant (the blue container) for $1.5 Million dollars! Last time I checked, if you bought something, you were a "customer".


    Hi Bob#2,


    Last time i react on one of your post. You are not the sharpest tool in the shed, it seems.


    IH invested in Rossi. They were partners. Rossi's legal entity was a portfolio company of IH. There is a big difference between being an investors and being a customer.


    Cheers,


    JB

    An article on the Yahoo UK Finance website today reports how Woodford Investment Management’s Woodford Patient Capital Trust fund has been devalued by independent assessors after they had written down the value of its stake in Industrial Heat. The overall valuation of the fund was reduced by around £30m.


    From the article: “The board of the Woodford Patient Capital trust said in July that it was considering removing Woodford as manager of the trust and was holding conversations with other money managers.”


    https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/n…write-down-080746342.html


    also see


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news…-replacing-him-as-manager

    I wrote: (post #378)

    Quote

    They [Woodford] did it to themselves. How hard would it have been to get valid opinions about Rossi and IH's venture with him? Other wealthy investors and companies knew all about Rossi starting in 2011 and avoided investing with him. Woodford got suckered. And it's just an opinion but I doubt that Brillouin, also an IH investment, will be any better. And how many other speculative and likely fruitless extreme propositions did they accept without proper vetting? Rossi and IH can't be the only ones


    Shane D. replied:

    Quote

    Isn't it a bit premature to say Woodford's investment in IH is a failure? Just last year IH's valuation increased by 357%, which was a major boost to Woodford. Here is a quote:

    "Woodford Patient Capital Trust PLC (LON:WPCT) has received a major boost from the performance of Industrial Heat, one of its unlisted investments."

    Granted, they have not sold any shares yet, so the success, or not, of their initial IH investment has yet to be determined


    me:

    Quote

    The price rise is purely artifactual and, IMO, entirely contrived. Anyway, I didn't say it was a failure. I said I suspect they are extremely gullible, as evidenced by the Rossi episode, and they probably got bamboozled in other adventures as well.


    JedRothwell wrote:

    Quote

    What is your humble opinion based on? Do you have inside information? Can you point to any specifics other than Rossi? For example, looking at the groups supported by IH at ICCF21, do you have some reason to think their claims are invalid or exaggerated? I suppose the Rossi fiasco has been discounted by now.

    ...and...

    Unless you have inside information, you have no verifiable facts. So you should stop speculating and stop making assertions about them. You should say "I don't know" and leave at that.

    I do not understand why people feel a need to discuss things they know nothing about.


    ... and much more


    "Rossi's legal entity was a portfolio company of IH. "


    This is entirely made up or you are simply entirely mistaken. Leonardo Corp. was in existence before IH was.

    Rossi has had no legal entity other than Leonardo Corp. IH did not procure Leonardo Corp in any manner. Leonardo Corp was never owned by IH nor a legal partnership. The only transactions between IH and Leonardo Corp. was the contract for Rossi to provide all IP of the eCat and the license to sell eCats in North America. Leonardo Corp. was never owned nor connected to IH in any manner other than through the sale of the 1MW plant and the sale of licenses. Again, a customer IH purchasing a "1MW" plant from Leonardo Corp. Leonardo Corp. no longer retained any ownership of the plant. This was not a partnership it was a vendor customer relationship. A partnership is when there is joint ownership, share of stock or share of revenues. None of this was the case.


    IH then purchased the license or "rights" to sell 1MW plants in North America. There was no stock exchanged, no revenue sharing, no legal partnership. IH and Leonardo Corp where completely separate vendor and customer. There is no doubt nor clouded issue about this.


    As most believers, the story has to be twisted an stretched to try and defend Rossi. You are incorrect here but it matters little.


    But again, avoiding the real question as usual. Rossi himself has claimed to sell 13 reactors to multiple customers. You have ignored and avoided answering the question about what has happened to them. Simply because you realize it proves Rossi a liar and unreliable and as a believer, cannot admit it. So you dodge the question by dwelling on some arcane and silly side question!


    Again, what about the 13 plants and customers since 2011? Did Rossi abandon them? Or were they lies?


    "Last time i react on one of your post."


    Understandable if one cannot defend the situation in question. That is the same reason Rossi simply deletes all real questions on his blog. He cannot answer them, so he deletes them. :thumbup:

    Going by past experience; e.g. the craziiness around the dot com bubble, it is likely that if cold fusion does get a breakthrough replication that convinces the mainstream and media then things will go crazy again.

    Any entities linked to cold fusion, however tangentially, could see their values increasing hugely, whether that increase is justified or not.

    So IH could still benefit given such a scenario.


    Or alternatively IH may pull a rabbit out of the hat ... or not.

    But whatever information Link is basing its revision on it seems the IH progress is not going as well as expected.


    But whatever happens is likely to be too late for Woodford and probably his shareholders.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    As for the R20 replication it seems to me to be an ideal candidate.

    Maybe not ideal in every way, but pretty good. It has some practical advantages:


    The researcher who did it is still alive, unlike Fleischmann.


    The researcher is cooperative, unlike Takahashi et al. and many others.


    The Ni-Pd reactant materials are available, unlike Fleischmann's Type A palladium, or the materials used by Takahashi et al. Not only is the material available, but we would send them a prepared mesh if they ask. (I would like it if they would pay the $400 it cost me, because they have billions.) Or we will send them a chunk of the super-productive mesh that produced 250 W, if they agree to give us an analysis of it that we can publish.


    Perhaps they want to be cautious. In that case they should wait for several others to replicate it first. As I said before, if they want intellectual property that would be a mistake. They should move quickly because the low-hanging intellectual property fruit is everywhere you look in this experiment.

    • Official Post

    From the message boards today...


    https://uk.advfn.com/stock-mar…t-capital-WPCT/share-chat


    'Quoting from the article: Link assesses Mr Woodford’s investments at least every six months and said Industrial Heat’s “development had not progressed at the rate upon which previous reviews were based”. So what new things have Link learned about cold fusion the past 6 months? More than that, what did they think had been the significant progress the 6 months prior that warranted a 357% valuation uplift? Especially as IH are in the habit of publishing close to nothing. To me, they are more culpable, even, than NW - it’s akin to corrupt police.'

    IH could still pull back from the brink and make good if they now give full steam ahead funding to JR and TM - don't they have a patent application with TM covering all this anyway? I don't understand why they are not funding the high-power Pd/Ni mesh study and backing this recent breakthrough in LENR - are they waiting to see further replication results before committing themselves? That would be a very short-sighted attitude and certainly risks other competitors stealing a lead.

    Quote from Dr Richard

    IH could still pull back from the brink and make good if they now give full steam ahead funding to JR and TM - don't they have a patent application with TM covering all this anyway? I don't understand why they are not funding the high-power Pd/Ni mesh study and backing this recent breakthrough in LENR - are they waiting to see further replication results before committing themselves? That would be a very short-sighted attitude and certainly risks other competitors stealing a lead.


    IH tested Mizuno's reactors in the past and found them not to work. Mizuno has since said they did this the wrong way. But they asked him for help at the time. It is not in their interests to do the wrong thing so i'd guess claims of wrong handling are post hoc and such can always be made but are not so convincing.


    Even so, I'd expect them to want to test bettwe results, if Mizuno has since claimed those. They are however not going to plaster negative LENR tests all over the internet.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.