Member Info for Digitalis

Ah VHS vs Betamax - yes my father sold electrical retail items and repaired them. In his view, Betamax was always better, more reliable and it took VHS about 10 years to get to the picture quality of Betamax. But VHS won because it was cheaper to make the tapes and mass produce for the rental market - so more choice was available so more VHS machines purchased.

It is getting there for Hydrogen, I was just referring to UK, other territories have attained the insight, Germany, Scandinavia, Netherlands and Belgium are getting there for example. Western Australia is showing signs off life. There are positives out there.

Yes, unfortunately there are still a lot of headwinds. It can be hard to remember for those who are convinced that Hydrogen is a necessary part of the solution to getting us off fossil fuels and restore energy security to the UK. However, despite Governments claiming to be leading on strategy, they actually have to be led by the nose to answers. The UK Government is investing 20+ Billion into the deadend that is carbon capture and storage - that doesn't work and will never work (imo) and barely a tenth of that into hydrogen.

I was on a call with a certain quango where the future came up in passing and the obsession with full electrification is strong and the spreading of myths on hydrogen storage and leakage risks high and arguing all boilers need replacing (as if that is worse than needing a heatpump and is untrue in any case if using Sabatier process). This is all part of the consistent lobbying by the FF industry as well as those who will benefit from mass electrification - the counter-arguments that are strong in particular on cost of transmission and distribution £3 trillion+ and Dunkelflaute as well as plain old fashioned commensense "don't put all your eggs in one basket" are being drowned out. However, recognition is slowly building, it is just that civil servants are conditioned to resist change.

Almost ready to give up 3rd time lucky - when I posted this there were less than 300,000 shares traded, so volumes were thin not supporting selling pressure.

When I posted it

Hi Vamosbien and yes I agree with you. However, my post today was more about the extremely thin volume, if I recall, when I posted it,

Yes, cheers Vamosbien. True there is that about being able to top up but un-triggered downward drift seems a bit outside what the MMs should be doing. If there's no real selling pressure, then the SP shouldn't meander down or up for that matter if no buying pressure.

Their job is to provide liquidity with the benefit of a little arbitrage but that shouldn't really cause volatility,

What do they actually do? SP gets walked down on very thin volumes giving a disproportionate view,

Thanks Spuders, that is good news to see some progress on that feasibility study, I was looking at WA a few weeks ago as they had updated their page on it. I posted on 30th Jan about all the projects under consideration and hoping some would be coming ITM's way; so here's hoping.

Not hung up on shorters, Spicy. I was merely giving my opinion and noting that the law doesn't agree with me. I equally think pump and dump is wrong. In fact I think it satisfies definitions for Market Manipulation and therefore should be investigated by the FCA and addressed but that is also by the by. The FCA is about as useful as Ofgem in my industry, Chocolate Fireguards are more use.

I can note that shorting exists and is permitted by the law while at the same time holding the view that it shouldn't be. Shareholders holding Boards to account should be the deterrent to poor performance but that is probably an idealistic viewpoint. Fundamentally if the majority of shareholders believe a board is incompetent they should move a resolution to sack them, if they think a company has no prospects, they should move a resolution to wind-up etc. I don't think it is non-shareholders who should take it upon themselves to fill that role (i.e. shorters). However, as I said, just my opinion but I am self-aware to know that the market does not currently operate how I might want it to and manage my own strategies accordingly.

Such a refined way of putting it.

I fundamentally think that selling something one doesn't own, is fraud. For example, if I rent a house (borrow it) and then sell it to someone else, in the hope it devalues and I can but it back before the tenancy expires; I'd be spending some time at His Majesty's Pleasure unless I'd managed to get the cash out of the country to one with no extradition.

I don't see how shorting shares is different to that and I think that all arguments to the contrary about an efficient market and serving a valuable purpose, are specious and sophistry.

However, my opinion counts for nought with regard to what the law says.

That's an amusing analogy. Could chuck in a few sheep herded off the cliff "far from the madding crowd" style and a couple of weak ones picked off by wolves.

Ah, if we knew where the herd was going we'd all be rich.

@Bilbo

Glad we share the same views.

It always fascinates me how two people can look at the same information and reach different conclusions.

It also fascinates me that one assesses another individual by one's own experiences and biases.

When it comes to share ownership, I perceive essentially 2 or 3 types of individuals.

Investors - essentially plant some acorns and see how many oak trees grow over a number of years and harvest the acorns and sell them to squirrels or pig-farmers etc (dividends).

Traders - in which I lump, day traders and medium term speculative holders who want to profit in a quick time with increases in share price. Essentially let the tree grow and every so often, lop off a few branches and sell for firewood or carpentry but never really get any acorns.

Shorters - who one could argue are traders seeking to profit from decreases in share price, Essentially chop the tree down and burn the lumber, left with no tree and no acorns.

Others may debate and agree or disagree with my crude analogies, such is their prerogative.

As an investor (and a conviction one at that for this stock) I am prepared to wait for my Oak tree to mature and develop acorns. In my view all the conditions are in place for that, the roots have developed and the trunk is sturdy just need to wait for maturity, could be a bit longer yet but when it does I'll have a nice nest egg with a reliable dividend. The actual SP at any point in time is therefore not relevant beyond keeping score on my capital, it is the income I am targeting.

A trader will look only at the SP and see capital fluctuations as significant.

A shorter wants to see the SP decrease and stay down.

All 3 will view events at any point in time, through their own lens and biases and motivations.

It is entirely possible for 2 things to be true at the same time.

For example, Bilbo a few years ago was agitating publically and I suspect privately for Graham to move on and that sales were needed. Bilbo was correct and at the time so were shorters taking positions at that time.

Since then, we have Dennis who has standardised the products, improved QC and nurtured the sales pipeline. Addressing all the points Bilbo was making at the time.

So prospects are good in my view and I'm happy to wait for my 5p/share dividend in a few years (no basis for that figure it is just an example) when the company starts to achieve a regular profit. That may never happen and in which case I lose my bet but it isn't the only bet I have.

Traders who traded at the least opportune time and sit on losses will find it emotionally difficult as they are motivated by the SP not the potential dividend.

Shorters will be smug on when they took positions and now either working out how to exit or taking the opposing view to me that the SP will trend to 0.

In either case, all have their opinions, all of which are valid depending on one's point of view and intent.

Or in other words, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

Shame the Gov't is making it less transparent.

The Short Selling Regulations 2025

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/29/made

Publication by the FCA of aggregate net short positions

7.—(1) Subject to paragraph (7), for each working day the FCA must publish the aggregate net short position in relation to the issued share capital of a company that has admitted shares.

(2) Subject to paragraph (5), the aggregate net short position in relation to the issued share capital of a company, for the purpose of this regulation, is the sum of the net short positions in the issued share capital of the company notified to the FCA and held on the relevant working day, expressed as a percentage of the company’s issued share capital

@Bilbo

Thanks, I understand where you are coming from. Although I guess we could have an interesting debate on whether that is AI or merely processing power able to formulate new theoretical protein structures based on the known bio-molecular properties of each amino acid in the protein and how they preferentially form bonds, which is fascinating but also can be understood at a bio-molecular level.

I was, perhaps, over-simplifying, in that my comment was more specific to so-called AI like chatGPT or others, are merely looking at what someone else has published on the internet and then repeating it back based on the amount of information as a proxy for accuracy - which can and is manipulated. People then treat what is returned as fact without placing any critical analysis on it. Or in other words it isn't always right.

"To meet steep demand growth by 2031, in just 6 years, the UAE is forecasting a required domestic electrolyser capacity of approx 8.7 GW and green hydrogen contributing 20% more to the mix than blue hydrogen"

To be fair I was challenging the AI responses you posted

In what way not?

Remember that all open source AI solutions are only any good at regurgitating anything that has been posted online. There is a heck of a lot of anti-hydrogen propaganda put out by both the FF industry (which they try to undermine with the myth of reliable CCS which has never been proven to work at scale) and the EV/Heat Pump brigade, obsessed with electrifying everything, despite the fact that total energy production and transportation would need to at least triple current levels, not including the increase in data centres. The cost of mass electrification is not being discussed openly although some are trying.

There's already a lot of infrastructure that can be repurpose for Hydrogen use and work underway to do this in a number of countries.

The production costs arguments mirror the anti-wind/solar rhetoric of 20 years ago.

The noise is just that, noise and needs to be ignored.

*coughs and adopts best Agent Smith voice* "...they're not out yet..."