Member Info for tennents

Clued

Helikon is not a single person. They have investment and risk management processes, with go/no-go decision points requiring 'senior' approval.

I cannot explain their approach in ITM, which they opened in October 2021, at around £4, and it went well for them.

They started AFC in July 2023, close to two years later. More important to note is that the peak 'hydrogen hype' pricing was end December 2020 (85p for AFC). They started in AFC 2.5 years, after that peak, with prices at circa 13p - less than we are today

Why so late? I think that this is where their approach to AFC/ITM differs. I think they may have come to see AFC as:

- a small company with no significant cash reserves

- having no developed products entering markets successfully

- led by a management team with a history of broken over-promises and negligible actual delivery

They may have been expecting AFC to fail and, at 0p per share, make £3m on this short. Happily, that is increasingly looking like a significant misjudgment.

Stockcheque's Long and Short view is an alternative, and if they do not own AFC actual shares, perhaps they have an Call Option agreement; I have no idea. We are not talking BP or Linde here - can you purchase Call Options on an AIM penny share company? Maybe they are running big spread bets?

Whatever is happening, someone has to buy back a shed full of shares, and that will impact the price in some measure.then

A little historical note. From January 22 to February 23, Bronte ran an AFC short. From 42p down to 20p and then walked away with circa £820k profit.

Reality

A very interesting point. Where is the 23.7 million share long trade? A mystery indeed.

Saxman

I have no idea why, either, save that this position may be part of a complex web of hedging trades that we will never know anything about.

Same applies to their ITM short. ITM was recent couple of weeks at a price around 26p. At that point, the unrealised Helikon profit would have been £18.6m, at the current 76p that figure is £9.9m. Of course, the price of buying the 18m shares back has also increased. (Note they have already banked £6.3m from this short).

These guys are not stupid, so why this behaviour? Because it is part of a more complex web of transactions that will produce better returns is the only credible explanation. What that web is we have no idea.

Saxman

The Helikon short emerged at the 0.05% level in early July 2023. They increased their position 13 times during that month, getting to 16.233m shares shorted. Their near-daily increases in July suggest that they built the short in the period immediately before that. This may have been an afterthought to their short position in ITM, which started in 2021 and is massively more profitable than this one in AFC. Their average at the end of July 2024 was 12.32p.

They made one minor reduction in the position in June 2024.

Over 4 Nov to 18 Dec 2024 the short was increased 11 times, adding 12.4m shares. All of those increases were below the current AFC price.

The current status is 27,510,321 shares short with a weighted average price of 11.16p.

At today's (say) 14.5p, this short is therefore £919,733 underwater.

Provox

Ammonia is a naturally occurring product of decomposition, but only at trace levels and therefore uncollectable. It is, however, one of the globally largest volume manufactured chemicals (Haber-Bosch process), using hydrogen produced in the steam reforming process, which kicks out a huge amount of CO2 - hence the desire for a green hydrogen substitute.

Not a cat in hell's chance that any major western government will allow Chinese kit in mission critical parts of their power generation systems. No trust.

Jeff

I have two green lines. Would I be correct that one of them would be a complaint about, some 'inconvenient arithmetic'? Lol

I calculated their current average position to be about £1.30.

While they opened high as discussed, they also made a series of reductions and have already banked about £6m.

Since then, they increased their position multiple times at much lower levels. There has been a very large number of chunky transactions pulling the weighted average down As suggested, they are not 'underwater', but I have no idea what their strategy actually is.

PLUG wins a 3GW electrolyser contract in Uzbekistan. Their shares are up circa 30%.

Who says there is no future in Hydrogen?

Risk of light reflecting off the panels as a hazard to drivers.

Ffs. Why do you engage? Ignore and it will die of neglect, like all of it's multiple predecessors.

The prize lies elsewhere, focus on the prize and the meaningful steps towards it.

This will go well beyond £1.

Just not today. Mr Schulz has done most of the very hard yards in turning this business around in excelling timing to meet the real market demand now emerging, as distinct from the hype of 2020/21.

A little patience is all that is required now.

At 13p Helikon are about £500k underwater on their short.

Oh dear!

Very puzzling behaviour at Helikon. They cannot be this stupid so maybe this is some part of multiple additional layers of hedging activity are play. Who knows . . . Or maybe they can be this stupid?

Qube are even more puzzling. They were late in here and on much thinner margin. At our recent low of 26p they were £1.25m up. At 67 yesterday they were £1.2m down. The puzzling bit is that they were in Ceres and closed out at end March with over £2m profit. Why keep ITM running from a material profit to a very material loss. Their website emphasises their use of quants. Maybe their calculator needs a new battery.

There is no automatic move into the 250 because we are on AIM, and would need to leave that and apply to join FTSE first.

Ceres did that within the last year or two. ITM have been asked a couple of times at presentation Q&A sessions but have always said they have no plans to leave AIM. They may change their mind at some time?

Vamosbien

We do not yet know if the shorts changed yesterday. The FCA spreadsheet has zero reported changes for 2 June; it has not been updated since Friday.

Wig. It seemed like a good idea last Thursday . . . . .

Greeninvestor

The price on ADFN is in Euros not Pounds

Cheers Sparky

I am increasingly persuaded by the arguement that there will not be a joint award for SMRs. Given Rachel Reeves comments on the cost saving for a single contractor AND Rolls pretty spectacular turnaround under our new CEO, I can see a single award being made.

She says it will save money, which she needs desperately. If you have only one contractor you can then legitimately reduce the number of units being ordered to 3. That is the basis on which the bids have be made so that does not disrupt the economics.

She can argue an 'Britain first' case for Rolls ( US Govt would find that hard to argue against) and tell our CEO that if he does not screw up the first three he will get the next lot without competitive tender.

That would seem to me to be a credible story, especially as the Govt today has committed to significant increases in defence spending. So the savings made in single sourcing can be argued on a very credible base with our US 'friends'.

Just a theory for a Saturday evening. ......

Sparky

Rolls do not need to publish job/location/economic benefits. All of that will be in their bid and be part of the technical/economic assessment.

Rolls will publish it as part of their winning bid announcement, including where they plan to manufacture. It will be in the UK as everyone would expect. Holtec have a particular problem in that the public has ever heard of them. Hence making that part of their bid public gives them some PR benefits that Rolls do not need at this stage. Rolls providing them on the day of the win announcement gives both them and the Government a bigger and more valuable PR and political impact.