Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Sieveco I produced some detailed notes on this here yesterday morning which may be of interest to you.

@prussel 1963 I hear you and you are entitled to feel the way you do.

However, $40 per kg is happening now and BMN is heading for 4,100mtV this year and will be a bigger entity next year based on Vanchem expansion alone. So it's not really a case of jam tomorrow. It's more a case of the vanadium price demonstrating it has legs combined with BMN delivering the above numbers.

The same goes for the profit margin on the Invinity deal. It happened and will come through in the accounts etc.

Those factors alone demonstrate the scope for a far stronger valuation than we see today.

All elements associated with the energy storage side are more future-orientated and less defined but even there the electrolyte plant is under construction with a 2022 outcome.

As a backdrop to all of this is the increasing acknowledgement that VRFBs have a significant role to play in the energy storage sector. That's absolutely clear given the marked increase in planned rollouts this year.

The blue sky (with a dashing of jam inside) element here (which is why I believe so strongly in this share) is the combination of BMN delivering on its full VRFB value chain at a time when the market is ready to truly embrace those companies focused in that market.

No other vanadium player is currently set up to capitalise on that opportunity than BMN. When it will happen I can't say exactly, hence the jam element. But I am certain that it is coming and am prepared to wait because in the meantime I have a miner that is capable of giving me a strong return even without it.

Thank you Snott,

Suppressed is one angle. Misunderstanding or diminished trust are others.

The 8th January SP came before the significant increase in production costs (driven by the expansion programmes) for 2021 were announced on 4th Feb. Still, the SP closed that day at 19p.

Since 4th Feb the Rand has strengthened significantly but so has the vanadium price by far more than the Rand has achieved. c. 35% vs c. 10%. I discuss the Rand a lot when it comes to the longer-term picture but it doesn't act alone.

What has changed are the production estimates but even they are only down by c. 3%.

The SP is down 20% over the same time frame.

Often these things are sentiment-driven and this BB is a solid reflection of where that sits at the moment. Therefore, all bad things are focused upon and the good things questioned. Remember I am only discussing BMN as a miner and a VRFB investor.

Since the start of the year, massive VRFB projects in China have been announced. Energy storage as a sector has further advanced. But it doesn't do any good if the sentiment isn't there.

When it turns then these things will suddenly be on everyone's lips. Persons with only the most limited knowledge of BMN will suddenly be singing their praises and discussing them.

BMN has things to prove and the Q2 update is an important one. To hit their FY targets they will need to hit +1,000mtV.

In an elevated vanadium price environment that is a headline and will demonstrate direction. In the meantime, vanadium prices can begin to influence things if they push beyond their $40 level. The combination of the two has the ability to be high impact.

If a seller truly is in play then their removal could trigger a rebound and chart orientated traders/investors attention.

It's all good discussion and the complexities of this game always make it hard to pin down. The reality is that I am fairly shocked by the current valuation. I thought the market understood BMN better than it is currently demonstrating but as things stand the re-rate is far more about time and not things that have to be achieved to do so.

2/2

We can make a strong case for the fact that the 8th Jan price was a spike driven by a temporary reaction to inflationary pressures in the market.

However, said inflationary pressures are now coming true. Vanadium prices in Europe are up over 50% since the start of the year. The Covid situation is now more clear than it was back then. The market sniffs increased demand and short supply.

So whilst we could perhaps discount that 'spike' a little it could easily be cancelled out by any one of the number of factors I have just mentioned.

This is just an example of a point in time and is of course influenced by many other things along the way. But it's difficult to conclude that BMN has somehow found its correct level.

The company is in a far better position than it was on 8th January 2021 and the factors that drove the price there are now in play. The discount is far too great and if anything the company should be trading higher than that because whilst the gap between production costs/vanadium prices was very similar, the industry knows fine well that the difference between $30 and $40 per kg is a lot more than just the $10 it states.

The figures are there to be checked and played around with by anyone that chooses to do so.

1/2
Morning all,

An exercise.

On 8th Jan 2021, BMN closed at 22.9p a share.

Revised mid-range estimates for 2020 post 9-month report dated 24th Nov 2020
Estimated FY production = 3,805 mtV
Combined average production cash cost after 9 months = $17.60 per kg
European vanadium price on the day = $26.75 per kg
European average vanadium price for 9 months = $25.20 per kg

As of 8th Jan 2021, the market had no information on what 2021 production and its associated costs would look like and hence why I have applied the latest 2020 numbers that were known at that time.

What it did have was the news that Orion would invest $65m and take $35m in CLNs as part of it. It also knew that Duferco had converted half of their November payment into shares.

Today's position
Estimated FY production = min. 4,100 mtV (+ 7.9% on 2020)
Combined average production cash cost = $23.4 per kg (+ 33% on 2020)
European vanadium price on the day = $39.50 per kg (+ 47.70%)

The one key difference is that the dollar/Rand exchange is running at c. 10% weaker than estimated in the BMN numbers for 2021 whereas in 2020 it was much closer to the estimate. This increases the production cash cost to c. $25.75 per kg which makes the percentage increase against 2020 = c. 46%

Even when allowing for the increased production cash cost in 2021, it still places the production cash cost and vanadium price increase pretty much on par. With the c. 7.9% increase in production, the overhead costs that need to be shared amongst all production will go down slightly in 2021.

With slightly less production in 2020 at $25.20 per kg YTD prices and $17.60 per kg costs, BMN were demonstrating a small profit for 2020 with the expectation of an improvement of some sort to come in 2021.

For that, the market was willing to price BMN up to 22.9p a share.

To date this year European prices have averaged around $33 per kg but the wider market closer to $35 per kg.

I only used European prices as an example because that's what BMN has included in the reports. On that basis, BMN finds basically finds itself in essentially the same position as it did in January 2021 with a backward analysis demonstrating a small profit on the mining side for H1 2021 (assuming prices remain at $39.50 per kg this month).

However, one difference to that earlier position is that BMN has announced a min. $3.8m profit from their Invinity investment increasing to c. $8m if all shares were indeed sold down. That fact completely changes the profit picture for H1 2021.

Additionally, they have re-invested those monies once more and hold 25.25% of an Enerox which is slowly building up a $30m war chest for expansion.

The company is also c. 6 months more advanced on its expansion plans for both Vametco and Vanchem. On 8th Jan those plans weren't yet shared. The market only had the transaction to assess.

Share price 8th Jan = 22.9p
Share price today = 15.40p

Discount = 33%

As an investor, the best investment that I can find is one that is materially undervalued for what it has already achieved and not what it might go on to do. The more disconnect I can find the better.

BMN has spent much of its life being an investment that was aiming for better things but hadn't actually achieved them yet and so the risk and reward were clearly much higher.

Despite the lengthy period between that initial success and where we find ourselves today, today is what it is and yesterday also.

At current vanadium prices and anticipated production for 2021, BMN is markedly undervalued. In fact, vanadium prices have already delivered a level that doesn't need to get any better. BMN just needs to grow into those prices in order for the undervaluation to continue to grow.

However, even if BMN stands still on its production increases. If they only ever produce at currently expected levels then the company is marked undervalued at this time and that will eventually right itself.

It's also important to appreciate that the current 4,100mtV will automatically improve because the 35-day shutdown + kiln 1 maintenance that it includes won't repeat themselves (be it maintenance is an ongoing requirement).

So realistically BMN is a c. 4,300mtV producer operating in a $40 per kg world with far better production costs than we see this year because the maintenance programme skews everything in 2021.

If vanadium prices sit still and I sit still with them then I will reap that benefit eventually. Of course, I could go elsewhere and seek a better risk-reward. However, because such significant reward is already being delivered with BMN (be it not in the SP to date) and that acts as a significant buffer to a number of other concrete plans that add to that reward + vanadium prices may only just be getting into there stride, and all of that can come through at any time, I am happy to play the percentages and wait, knowing that the base case achievement is already happening in front of my eyes.

There can be a significant difference between SP and company performance. I will take the second every time because the first will naturally follow suit.

Yes, we can call out PR and communication but if we are then we better call out the Vanchem purchase, the Orion finance, the electrolyte plant, the Eskom contracts, Enerox, the vanadium rental model, the Vametco mini-grid etc because they all came about during this period of depressed SP levels too.

The vast majority of them are full of potential but some are also nailed on to be delivered.

Against my base case of a +4,100mtV producer operating in a $40 per kg environment I can afford to lose some and I can afford to wait because BMN is already starting to deliver well beyond its SP whether the market is ready to recognise it or not.

To be clear it was an example only to demonstrate the true context of the DHSC payment.

I am a substantial shareholder and I will always be open to dilution if it is in the best interests of the company and my shareholding.

On AIM it's never about raising funds but what those raised funds are designed to achieve.

At 1m tests a week and strong orders this company can make a good profit and invest in further expansion but it may take more time. If it is demonstrated that additional funds would deliver a quicker route to 3m tests and drive down costs (so drive stronger profits) then I would be open to it.

But that's not on the table right now. I am merely demonstrating that it isn't a fear of mine and that's the biggest issue that I can see right now given that AVCT just went live with their test.

In adding to my thoughts on additional funds and the focus of the BOD, it should not be forgotten that the Chairman and CEO hold 18.1% of the company between them.

So they are aligned with shareholders and it is in their interests to fight for this business and drive it forward with the least dilution possible.

When the IPO was delivered they were clear that all future expansions beyond 3m would be through cash flows. So the intention was to never come back to the market again. Worth bearing in kind when assessing the motivations and commitment of the BOD.

@Kamakiriad The litigation is against the DHSC with ABDX as an interested party only. So the defendant is the DHSC.

The outstanding contract payment is technically independent of the court case and the DHSC has publicly backed the contracts and the suitability of the tests for their use case but may be used as an excuse not to pay.

The value attributable to ABDX is around a maximum of 10% of their valuation today and could be covered if absolutely necessary through a small placement. That said the company only stated, "If the outstanding and overdue sums are not paid in the short-term, then Abingdon may need to reduce its cost base."

The word was 'may' and not will and it was a cautionary statement only and there was no mention of an intention to raise additional funds. I am merely saying that it would be possible and would not hurt investors very much if it was intended to deliver their 3m test goal by late 2021/early 2022.

In that context, it should be easy to see that the DHSC payment whilst important and having an effect is not significant enough to drive a c. £ 24m drop in company valuation which is where we sit post the 27th April update.

The expansion plans are being implemented and the company is producing substantial amounts of product with or without the DHSC funds. In time we should see this come through in the trading updates, especially if the AVCT contract delivers strongly post June 2021.

It's never nice to watch a share price fall hard and there is always the possibility that something has been missed or someone is at it but my view is we have to apply the percentages based on the facts we know and can find out. Otherwise we will all go insane dreaming up issues for the sake of it.

@roly12 There are many valid reasons as to why the SP is falling. What is clear is that a 'large' seller is in play and since yesterday has set about offloading significant sums that have driven the share price down to where it is now.

One thing I can offer you is the Admission Doc. Under section 15 you will find the lock-in agreements.

"Each of the Directors, the Company’s employees receiving shares under option schemes and certain other
Shareholders, who on Admission will be the holders of 64,948,008 Ordinary Shares in aggregate,
representing approximately 67.9 per cent. of the Enlarged Share Capital, (being the Locked-in Shareholders)
have entered into Lock-in Agreements."

All but 4.19m of those 64.95m shares are subject to a 12-month lock-in which ends in December. The 4.19m were locked in until the c. mid-March.

In addition, a further c. 7.39m shares that were part of the IPO were not subject to lock-in and so could be sold as and when the shareholder saw fit.

The key point was that all of the above shareholders were expected to employ N1 Singer to dispose of their holdings and to do so "in such a way as to maintain an orderly market, except in certain limited circumstances considered customary for an agreement of this nature."

I would doubt that the current outstanding payment from the DHSC or the progress on expansion which has been good since the IPO, are grounds to cancel this lock-in arrangement but I cannot say that for certain. The grounds are normally far more serious than that or the lock-in has no real worth.

So it's likely that we are talking about the c. 11.6m shares and given that the first 7.39m could sell since Dec 2020, the law of averages brings the Touchstone and IP2IPO Innovations Limited 4.19m shares more into play. After all, if you intend to hold onto them then why agree to a 3-month lock-in in the first place? 3 months says a deal was done and they want out.

Where the debate starts is on an 'orderly market' but good luck fighting that one on AIM.

That's one option which I favour but it's not guaranteed to be the answer. Of course, an updated shareholder list would help but that's not been updated for some time which is a tad naughty from ABDX. Ut it will have to be soon enough and then we will know for sure.

TR1's should also be expected but it's not uncommon to see shareholders sell right down before reporting. It's not right but often seen on AIM.

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/app/uploads/2021/01/259968_Project_Albion_Web.pdf

I would post the judgement once more and encourage shareholders to read it and appreciate not only the recognition of the legality of the direct awards/ contract size but also the reasoning why so many points are still able to be argued later down the line.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SUu5mFq_fJscTwoxfb9BZSMWJC0puRpl/view

PART 2
2/2
It is frustrating as a shareholder in ABDX that the DHSC chose to defend their actions so flippantly and with disregard for the case because it has allowed the process to run much longer than perhaps needed.

It is in my opinion shameful of the GLP that they are using crowdfunding to continue to pursue a case against British companies and institutions by arguing points against British company bias and disregard for the EU laws that were only still in play in 2020 because the country was in transition.

Having established in court that a direct award for material and the 10m tests were legal, would British citizens really want British companies who answered an urgent call from UK Gov in the middle of a pandemic more questions existed than answers ( a point that justice Waksman made very clear when he dismissed the main battleground claims 1 and 3) to be dragged through the courts because they were favoured over EU counterparts? Or that the UK Gov supported them with 'state aid' so that they could perhaps deliver a solution that at the time would help bring lockdowns to an end?

Yes, there are questions over Sir John Bells role but again this was a crisis and things needed to get done at a time when the diagnostics industry was stretched and capacity was being claimed all around the world. Something the GLP have never recognized despite justice Waksman making it very clear that he recognised such a world existed and that "hindsight" was all too easy to apply.

The GLP has gone looking for corruption and crony type favouritism and has found a very limited contract that is judged to be fair but that technically can be challenged and defeated. Whatever happens, the outcome is not going to be what they had hoped for. But they continue anyway.

All that said, when the case is argued if the UK Gov team doesn't put up a more robust defence then the case could be lost on a technicality and deemed illegal, meaning that small British diagnostic companies that committed their resources in good faith at a time when they could have been sold 10 times over, could lose out completely.

The GLP should be ashamed of such action be it that the UK Gov has helped them along with their cause by to date not fighting this case properly.

That all said, this case doesn't break ABDX. It merely means they may have to adjust their plan to get to 3m tests a week slightly. If the AVCT test demand is as they state which I believe it is then ABDX could well have a really strong H1 2022 (31st Dec 2021) anyway and the DHSC case will become a fight that can be parked and fought further down the line.

Even without it, ABDX has substantial manufacturing capacity to answer all demand in both the short and longer term. So the DHSC saga is a distraction but it is worth discussing and trying to get to the bottom of. I hope this lengthy post has helped some who don't understand it a well as others.

PART 2
1/2

The problem part comes with the GLP (Good Law Project) case against the DHSC and their desire to prove that the contract was illegal and so should be null and void. If that were to occur prior to the DHSC payment being made then there is no contract and so no payment is outstanding under the law.

This should then make all contracts attached to the contract also null and void meaning no one gets paid.

ABDX would then be on the line for their share only. Not the headline figure of £6.7m.

In this enclosed GLP post from their website the private company (and that is what it is and not a charity) takes great delight in announcing that "we are going to court."

This was achieved because in the court judgement the judge found that 4 of the clams had grounds to be arguable before the court and so could proceed.

What they failed to mention is that when it came to the "key battleground" (as justice Waksman called it in his judgement) the GLP action was dismissed.

What these two actions stated was that,

1. There were no grounds for making a direct award to ABDX for either the materials or the test contract.
2. That the award of anything "beyond a stop-gap was disproportionate."

Meaning the fact that the UK Gov placed these two orders directly with ABDX and then decided to purchase 1m tests prior to following up with a further 9m (now cancelled) is in the eyes of the law, completely within their remit to do so.

https://goodlawproject.org/update/abingdon-health-going-to-court/

What that then leaves is a court case that is supposedly being fought in the interests of the public purse but that now focuses on elements that in my eyes are far more trivial because the direct award of the contract for 10m tests + materials can no longer be disputed. It was legal.

So the key ingredients of the GLP case come down to "apparent bias" because Professor Sir John Bell is recognised as being on both sides of the contract. That's the reason it's arguable because the UK Gov didn't offer evidence to explain why this came about.

Then we have,
1. preferential treatment towards a British company,
2. the obligations of equal treatment which ties into the British question,
3. the contract awards led to the grant of unlawful state aid
4. the awarding of a further contract (test supply) without ABDX (UK-RTC) achieving the required validation of the test first.

Against all of these points, Justice Waksman made it clear that under the law they were arguable because the UK Gov (defence) simply hadn't produced enough evidence to answer why things were conducted in the manner they were. This can be seen from the judgement which is copied below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SUu5mFq_fJscTwoxfb9BZSMWJC0puRpl/view

PART 1

Morning all,

I am going to publish this here because there is more space to expand than on my Twitter feed.

In terms of the DHSC contract as most are aware the total bill outstanding from the DHSC is £6.7m. This bill includes a profit margin.

According to the main contract issued by Bidstats to ABDX for the supply of tests "Proportion sub-contracted is an 'Up to' figure, in this case, 'Up to' 44 percent." So there was always an intention for ABDX to subcontract the work to their consortium partners.

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W43/737280030

This is backed up by the ODX RNS dated 6th Oct 2020 which stated that "Omega expects to manufacture approximately 175,000 of these first 1 million tests."

It is reasonable to assume that BBI and CIGA will have contributed also although I can find no hard facts available to back this up at this time. Given it's a consortium of 4 manufacturers it is unlikely that ABDX would invite just one to manufacture this first batch.

Whilst there is no mention of subcontracting in the second contract awarded to ABDX for "Provision of Components and Materials for Antibody Test Kits," it is fair to assume that the partners will have taken a share of this contract as a means to deliver their share of the 1m test order.

Taking Omega as an example. Their 175,000 test contribution is equivalent to 17.5% of the order and so when considering materials and tests procured they would be on the line for c. £1.17m of the total £6.7m outstanding.

At 44% of the total contract, £2.95m would be costs/profit associated with other parties. The final total may well be somewhere in between but what is key is that ABDX themselves aren't £6.7m out of pocket at this stage.

That places the reported £7.7m of cash on hand and the need to potentially curtail costs/further expansion in true context.

As for the DHSC/GLP case itself, it is worth reminding ourselves that when ABDX released their response to the BMJ report that criticised the performance of the AbC-19 test back in November 2020, the DHSC was quoted as saying this,

“This report shows these tests are approved for use in surveillance studies, which is what they were purchased for. “They were never intended for, and have never been issued for widespread public use and it is misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory to purposefully ignore this fact in the report. “This robust evaluation was carried out by PHE at the Department’s request before any purchase was made, and PHE approved the test for use in surveillance studies.”

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/news/abc-19-response-to-media/

So the DHSC has publicly stated it is happy with the performance of the test and that through PHE it was properly validated prior to the order being placed. That lends itself to a satisfactory process that ends with payment being eventually made.

Two threads on vanadium to add to the many that I have put together these last few months.

We form our opinions based on what we know and what we are able to find out.

Everyone individual must do their own research and make their own conclusions.

I am absolutely clear here. Everything points towards a surge in vanadium prices over the coming months and it will continue as long as steel production remains so elevated. There will likely be bumps in the road along the way but I don't think we are high enough yet to warrant such a move.

Given the muted response of late to my posts on the subject, the wider market clearly isn't in tune with this yet and so the panic has yet to start. So we are seeing better vanadium prices so what? BMN still can't be making much money and their costs are rising?

That's the message I am hearing but it's extremely short-sighted and lacks the ambition of reading the detail and figuring out what a +4,000mtV producer can do when the above set of circumstances play out. Never mind the reaction when vanadium becomes hot again and investors start including expansion plans etc.

I think the same theme is running through the vanadium trading market as well although it certainly looks to be warming up now.

On the current trajectory, those sorts of attitudes simply have to change.

Somewhere sandwiched in between all of that are VRFBs which may well be about to get another pricing shock which I am hopeful the like of BMN will look to shield them from.

Future events still have to happen for the above to be true but my view (and it isn't investment advice because that's not allowed around these parts) is that this is not the time to be leaving the vanadium ship. It's a time for positioning, waiting and watching.

When I used to be a regular around here I would often use such phrases as "blow the b****y doors off" and "perfect storm."

With age and time served in these markets, I have tried to avoid such language and let the facts do the talking instead. However, the current situation of low inventory maxed out Chinese V production, unprecedented steel demand, lack of investment in the vanadium space, Covid led pent up demand and of course pending large scale VRFB projects, is all combining to deliver a true perfect storm.

I want the VRFB revolution to succeed and extremely high vanadium prices will hurt that goal but it is what it is and BMN as a very large primary producer of vanadium will benefit greatly and that's just fine with me. Significant revenues can open many VRFB/vanadium production doors in the future so I will gladly take it.

Have a lovely weekend everyone.

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1400766402752094210?s=20

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1400812852227756033?s=20

The most direct question I have ever seen FM asked.

Note he was open to responding by saying that the world "will" need a lot more vanadium. Not could...

Thank you for sharing.

We appear to have reached the stage where sentiment is bottoming.

Every reason that can be found for negative price performance is being sort and applied, whilst all the reasons for positivity and belief are being questioned. At times like this, it is easy to jump on the most convenient sentiment-driven bandwagon and forget what is really happening or to believe that it doesn't matter.

We can all make up our own minds as to what the real reasons are. My view is that the market isn't stupid. Yes, there are macro risks out there but they don't answer all questions. The rise in BMN's base commodity is significant enough to deliver a higher price range than £180m MC. The longer it stays at these elevated levels the less possibility there is that the SP can stay where it is.

Logic tells me that the market didn't just give up on BMN or forget it exists. The introduction of the likes of FAR and IES and previous successes put pay to that. Also, whatever market Largo is on it is successful and that also should be rubbing off to a certain extent.

So other forces must be in play. Most likely is a seller(s) who needs to be soaked up but isn't currently getting enough demand. I would think once they clear the demand was needed to remove them will suddenly appear. That's not to say that there isn't caution and more money being kept in pockets but a commodities bull run is under way and cannot be entirely ignored.

Some big economies are just leaving or are still to come out of major lockdowns. Their pent up demand is likely just being felt. So in my view, we still have some way to go before we really understand where the world economy is true health-wise. In the meantime, I simply cannot see how demand won't stay buoyant in BMN's key steel market. Yes, we will likely see pullbacks but prices have already reached a long-termer sweet spot and that as things stand that will shine through at some point.

It is rare that companies are beaten up for sacrificing profit for expansion only to be given no credit for said expansion. BMN will go min. +5,000 mtV next year and will significantly reduce its cost base. I would think higher is still on the cards.

In an elevated pricing environment, at some point that will gain respect.

Sentiment is a switch that turns on and off in the blink of an eye. When it turns here the negative elements will of course quite rightly still find their place but the positive sides to this story will also suddenly come shining through once again.

VRFBs are coming on mass and whatever BMN does or does not do in the energy storage space, their expanded operations and support minded approach to VRFBs, is going to win them a great many admirers. At 5,000 mtV they will be a big player in that world.

I've just revisited the numbers on here.

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1398186501826039808?s=20

Everything points towards YU at least hitting that SP Angel c. £128m revenue level in 2021. The initial interpretation of the monthly bookings figure is a big miss by the market. Be it that in such a low liquidity share the SP reaction can be warped and not really reflect true market feelings.

That will perhaps right itself in the coming days/weeks as we move towards the end of July update and/or new acquisitons.

Morning everyone,

I am surprised by the drop in the SP today. It doesn't fit with the update be it that we have limited information to go off. As far as I can make out the market seemed to think it was going to be seeing an improvement on H2 2020 monthly bookings which doesn't add up.

I posted this on Twitter this morning.

It's taken from page 8 of the 2020 FY accounts. There we can see that over the last 2 years H1 monthly bookings performance was consistently c. 65% lower than H2.

H1 2020 delivered £6.2m in average monthly bookings which in turn meant a yearly average of £8.2m. That total allowed YU to deliver £93m in contracted revenues for 2021 by the end of 2020.

However, this is an end of April position and not the full H1 outcome. At this point in 2020 (see 21st May 2020 RNS) YU was reporting an end of April average monthly bookings figure of £5.7m "despite the impact of Covid-19 which temporarily reduced the level of enquiries in the early stages of lockdown." So much the same as H1 2021 has had to deal with to date.

That equates to an 8.8% improvement on the end of April position.

2019 data isn't available which I suspect is due to the recovery from the accounting fiasco and so the update came in late June.

However, 2018 whilst skewed by events at the time also demonstrated that same improvement with the end of April figure of £6.6m being improved to £7.82m. So a c. 18.50% improvement.

That points to the H1 figure coming in higher than the reported £7.2m. A result close to that of 2020 would see the H1 average hit c. £7.8m. That's just 4.9% lower than the entire 2020 average which generated those £93m in contracted revenues for the following year.

To that, we then need to start factoring in some of that 65% increase in H2 bookings.

The SP Angel target for this year which they believe will create a small net profit is c. £128m in revenues. With £93m already in the bag, YU really doesn't have to work all that hard to achieve that outcome, especially when we consider that H1 is likely going to contribute upwards of c. £45m in new business alone. None of which includes acquisitions that are looking more and more bullish.

All in all I really don't understand what the market was employed as a metric here because the H1 performance as things stand, points to a bullish year and a profitable business. So I am a buyer at these levels.

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1397829513762033667?s=20

The movements and frustrations in the SP are short term activities only.

3 things are key here,

1. The main products that BMN produce are increasing in price and the company is moving into healthy profitability.

2. The company's expansion programme is underway

3. That future production costs will be lower, increasing profitability during any future downturns.

All of that gives BMN the ability to build up a war chest that will protect the expansion programme even if the market turns severely south. The way things are going on the pricing front they may go on and do much better than that this year. The point is that the expansion programme delivers the vanadium and pricing levels necessary to really drive the VRFB part of the business. Significant profits now enable them to support their VRFB partners and goals even when prices push very high. It's a balancing act and it is made all the easier by healthy vanadium prices and a strong balance sheet.

BMN is a well-known stock. The 2018 rises took care of that. The price rises are not going unnoticed. There are active sellers about but they won't be here forever. Any sign that they have exited should see a significant change of market activity here. The longer it takes the more firepower will feed into that activity.

My opinion only.