Member Info for Alfacomp

The co-author of that report is the same Oliver Schmidt who's work I reviewed earlier in the year :- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-414

640K more SELLS than Buys - but the SP hasn't budged. In fact the price paid for shares is going up.

Place your tick in ONE box only

1) Market Makers are fine upstanding chaps(esses) and are generously purchasing shares from large numbers of deeply unhappy shareholders and are paying more for these shares as time goes one, because, well, they are just too damn kind.

2) Not 1)

stodgy88 - well only false if unlike those here you think the colour coding means diddly squat

993444 - how do the fees get passed back to the ETF fundholders - do they get a monthly interest payment ?

Rej23 - is your trade showing yet ?

SG - do you think that having an unreliable electricity supply might encourage some of these mines to install their own PV farms backed with VRFB energy storage ?

of course the FCA short notification requirements only kick in for a public notification at above 0.5%

there is no requirement for anyone loaning out shares to shorters to tell anyone.

for the record the rise from 22p to 27p on the 21st October was most unlikely to be anything to do with any RNS's but simply the Market Makers spiking the price up on the buying by Vaneck which started that week - in the following days the buys reported by Vaneck were:- 500,000 then 3,000,000 then 3,200,000 then 2,738,654.

I believe that after Vaneck bought these shares to reflect the fact that they put BMN back into the REMX Index it is quite possible that they will have immediately then loaned them out to someone who was uses the shares to short the price at the 27p level whilst attempting to drive the SP down to the 20p point where significant spreadbet holdings have in the past been forced into a cash call.

In this way it would appear that Vaneck ETF fundholders are getting the rough end of the stick - first they get spiked on their share purchases then their holdings get shorted courtesy of their very own shares they have forked out for. The only question that remain in my mind is who picks up the rent from the loaning out of the shares from the Vaneck fund - does this income make it back to the ETF fundholders (though I can't quite see how as the value of their holding seems purely defined by the SP's of the fund components) or do the operators of the ETF, Vaneck themselves, get to keep this income ? If the latter then I am struggling to understand why this is not considered a huge scandal.

MM's please can you keep the price as low as possible so that I can get as many shares as possible, thanks very much.

That's what I am doing, had another 5 grand's worth this morning

The market makers did appear to be able to pick up 555,000 shares on friday (SP did not change) - this adds to the 460,000 they picked up on Thursday (SP increased) - this is sufficient to deal with the excess of Buys on Wednesday of 709,000 (SP did not change).

What does it tell you when the Market Makers continue to buy up sells but do not drop the price - it tells you they are accumulating ready for the next up cycle.

I wonder if Glencore have been doing the same. Not their shareholders, their commodity traders.

Pat48 - the carbon market is a somewhat questionable concept - in principle if carbon in that market was priced at the price that it costs to remove it from the atmosphere then it might provide a fair mechanism, but it is not, the European Carbon Price is currently about $25 per tonne of CO2 emitted ( https://www.quandl.com/data/CHRIS/ICE_C1-ECX-EUA-Futures-Continuous-Contract ) whilst the current cost of removing that 1 tonnes of CO2 from the air is around $200 (https://www.power-technology.com/features/carbon-capture-cost/)

Furthermore the concept is further limited because the USA refuses to participate in any carbon market and insists on being able to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as it likes - https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-state-of-carbon-pricing-around-the-world-in-46-carbon-markets

For VRFB's it is typically about 1MWh per 40foot container. This compares with about 1.5MWh for Lithium-ion, however it is possible to stack the VRFB container, eg as Sumitomo do with the power stacks sitting on top of containers that house the electrolyte tanks, - so the surface area occupied by VRFB's could actually be less than for lithium ion.

They had to chuck another 1M shares on the Barbie for your buys RK !

Worzel - they are fishing for shares. If nobody hands them over then they have no option but to move it higher to give themselves a higher buyback price.

interview highlights here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_aLF4RRLM8

over 4000 views from just the last week.

doh sorry that was intended for the BMN board.

interview highlights here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_aLF4RRLM8

over 4000 views from just the last week.

You said it Introv. Mikhail is getting in front of all the right sorts of people now. This is excellent exposure.