Member Info for AIMforprofit

I rarely post positively because the positive stuff is obvious. As a shareholder I'm obviously convinced of that anyway. I highlight the negative stuff because that's clearly what I want to know more about. That's the whole point of risk assessing. My post wasn't even negative anyway. It's great to see you've gone back to you usual ways of just insulting people. It's also interesting to note that you see someone saying "I don't know the answer to this" very openly as a weakness. It suggests that in your world blagging is more valuable than honesty. You'd make a terrible boss if your employees lied about their knowledge as you saw them admitting areas they didn't know about as a weakness. You're also a bit of a bully and I hope people can see that. I'm amazed you've ever made any money with your methodology of ignoring facts if they go against your emotions. You're very welcome to highlight any one false claim I have made (including about my expertise). I have only ever stated facts and I have heavily caveated and even in this instance highlighted that no one would buy that type of lithium set up. Yet you've got over excited and your clouded eyes have just seen the parts you want to see. You're not really a very nice person. You're overly emotional and you don't read the details. If there was a job going here to do with batteries it would be working directly with me and I suspect I'd probably decline as would anyone else here given your aversion to the full picture. I can't believe I'm yet again justifying myself on here but as I've said before, RedT is my biggest holding. I am betting on this doing well long term. All I've ever done is point out the risks and barriers to success, and in this instance I've highlighted a factual error in the RNS. Based on how you look at things I would be terrified to let you invest any of my money. Reading people shouting from the roof tops about a share helps boost confidence but it brings less value to me as an existing shareholder (who knows the positives) than someone who is picking up and highlighting risks. Please try to stop insulting me/other people. I know this is the internet but it's still the real world.

I've never asked for one so I don't know. I'm fairly sure you could ask for a 4 C lithium though so the statement about lithium being incapable is a bit of a fib (I think - please correct me if you know better). In reality you wouldn't buy a lithium for this purpose, but you could.

You aren't going to make yourself too wealthy if you're only holding 1 share. The trading fees alone are probably worth at least 125 times your holding...

"sit back and put our feet up" and have a cup of tea - I missed the crucial part of my excellent quip...

sign that we might as well all sit back and put our feet up as nothing is ever going to happen here...unfortunately :(

It is a confusing RNS but oh well, it delivers the message it wants to. As far as I understand it if you had a 1MW/4MWh lithium ion battery it would also get the 96% maximum de-rating. You wouldn't buy this type of battery but you could. The message is fibbing slightly but who cares I suppose.

That link worries me. How is someone else already doing massive VRFB's? Why were they picked over RedT? Surely they will gain a cost advantage by getting this under their belts? By the way, on the capacity market de-rating thing - This is great news and is something I've been looking forward to for a whole. It's still important to remember though that CM is only about 10-15% of revenues for most people's business models.

Lawrence, aren't you forecasting 20p by Christmas?

rumour from where?

Why is this significant?

Imagine the cost of flights alone to get this sale made!

Bolgas, there you go again assuming that because someone makes a statement which isn't completely positive it means they aren't invested...Utterly ridiculous assumption to make

By Bolgas' rules it's impossible for you to be an investor because you've made a comment which wasn't 100% positive. You do know the rules, right?

Are you invested Faramog?

In the last 2 weeks we looked at a project and based on the pricing we had agreed with a technical advisor the project would have achieved an IRR of about 2% over the 15 year lifetime. Using the assumptions of the aggregator it was more like 11% so the variation is sometimes large! Both parties have theories supporting their pricing so it's difficult to know who to believe. We tend to fall somewhere in between. To caveat, there was obviously a lot more involved in the differences but it was a pretty fair reflection of how much they can vary by just changing pricing assumptions.

Hi GL, I would expect that their revenues begin with FFR, CM and some arbitrage, but then as FFR prices fall probably becomes more abritrage based. This isn't the point though. Even if you and I have exactly the same revenue streams in our models we can both predict a completely different IRR because it all comes down to what price those revenues will be worth in the future. In year 10 you could have �12/MW in your model and I could have �6/MW in my model. No one knows what they will be and every single person puts something completely different. Unless you know what their assumptions are the IRR has no context. They just very easily say the IRR was 20% by changing some of their pricing a little bit - And very importantly, they could justify this - No one is populating their models with numbers they can't back up with some of their own forecasting , yet everyone's forecasting is very different. To give you an example, Aurora and Baringa have FFR going down to about �6/MW in 5 or 6 years time. The aggregators (who are obviously trying to pitch high IRR's so that you pick them to do the aggregation) are saying it will be more like �12/MW. This makes an enormous difference to the IRR. Unless you know their forecast the IRR is a completely pointless number. When someone brings my team a project for us to consider investment they often tell you the project IRR, the first question is usually "post tax or pre?", then "is that taking out your fees?" - Then you get on to "we need to see your assumptions". Often when you actually get down to it their 18% IRR looks more like 12% to us. Totally depends what they've assumed.

Nothing needs explaining. A stated IRR is meaningless, it's as simple as that. RedT haven't done anything wrong by stating one. I've merely pointed out that people shouldn't take it at face value and that this is a whole different ball game of factors which need to be considered before you can interpret that IRR in any way. And by the way it's pointless mentioning Centrica in the context you have. Centrica's support is great and it definitely makes everything credible, but their IRR hurdle is likely to be more like <10%. It doesn't change one cahoot what I think about the company. It's my biggest holding. This conversation relates entirely to people's interpretation of the IRR - I was trying to be helpful. As I say once again, because I haven't made pointless comments in support of anything and everything you've come on with the drivel along the lines of "you don't hold any shares", "you're uneducated", "you need to show a load of calculations to us". I can't be arsed! (Roll on you coming back with "that means you don't know anything") Regarding only looking at lithium, that simply isn't the case. We are agnostic to technology and will consider anything. As the market environment changes flow is becoming more attractive. It also massively depends on the expected project life - If it's a 10 year project there's not a lot of point considering a flow. 15 and above, there is. This is an utterly pointless conversation which has started all because I've tried to assist fellow investors. Clearly you don't want that to take place. For balance it would be great if you could occasionally point out some of the downsides here.

Of course I'm not. I'm merely saying that reacting to the stated IRR by saying "wow that's great" is a little naive. The IRR can be whatever they want it to be give it's all based on forecasts. I can't fathom how "a man of your means" can't see that. Can I kindly request that you stop immediately dismissing anything that contradicts the "omg, this is amazing, you all have to buy it right now" story, by personally attacking the poster. I'm not even being negative on Red T, I'm just pointing out that a stated IRR is a completely meaningless number. If you understand how the revenues work you'll know why that's the case. This is a pretty simple concept. Non-contracted revenues are subject to change. Therefore a stated IRR is based entirely on assumptions that we don't know. That's not a lie. That's a fact. That's not something that requires any more explaining and it's not an opinion.

You misunderstand me Bolgas. My point is that stating an IRR means nothing without the assumptions behind it. That applies even with basic solar projects, but it's completely critical to a battery project. One project could be looked at by 10 different investors and IRR's could range by 10% or more. There's no point saying "wow that IRR they are saying is great" because it means bugger all without also knowing the assumptions...

Given a reasonable portion of the revenues are currently un-contracted after 2 years, any IRR that is presented is a forecast based on revenue assumptions and regulatory environment assumptions. Unless we know exactly what assumptions they are using this IRR means nothing, I'm afraid. I could look at the same project and say it has a 5% IRR or a 25% IRR based on my forecast.