Member Info for toneman

As far as my understanding goes (and you can correct me if my interpretation is wrong), is that TENT provides the funding for these energy transition projects [i.e. a loan, essentially], and I imagine the interest on these loans is pretty high >10%. After management fees and other costs there is sufficient remainder to cover the fund's reasonably high dividend rate. That all seems fair enough.

Where I'm a little uneasy is the plan that the fund can borrow say 40% of the fund value and subsequently lend that on to projects. There clearly is less available to pay out in dividends if you're first of all paying your own interest rate on borrowed money. If there is sufficient demand for projects to be funded why does TENT even need to do this? Surely instead just raise more capital on the markets and grow the fund value organically. It seems that all the loan facility does is add a huge liability onto the balance sheet and lines the pockets of the third-party lender rather than us shareholders. I think it's a high price to pay simply for an inflated NAV of the projects.

I can understand why a normal investment fund would use this mechanism to invest in, say, growth stocks because you can leverage high gains on growth at the modest cost of fixed rate loan interest. I don't really understand the attraction for TENT, borrowing at one rate to simply lend out at another (hopefully slightly higher) rate. I'm willing to give TENT the benefit of the doubt over this but I'd be interested in other views.

Same silverknight, I made several opening purchases and all of them were marked up here as sells. Regarding being overlooked, I wonder if the worry here is with the proposed gearing given the higher interest rate environment we're in. Still willing to give it a punt. I like the general investment targets of this fund.

It may not really be Linde's fault. Big oil have no choice but to fight for blue hydrogen. They're a really powerful lobbying force and all politicians are putty in their hands. Unless Linde want to lose out on all future gas business, even IF Linde were backing green, they have little choice other than join in the blue bandwagon.

As long as enough players keep the wind farms growing and keep the green hydrogen option alive it will eventually show its worth and get the backing it deserves. But be under no illusion, green hydrogen will only be backed by enough politicians once it's fully established as a viable solution that they don't feel their neck is on the line. Only then will the narrative change.

Comical that they can mark that UT as a sell given it's a higher price than we've had all day. Very funny.

Perfect rant. Spot on.

It talks about 'low carbon' and 'carbon capture'. Sounds like a blue hydrogen proposal to me.

The volume BNP bought would seem to explain the recent rise from 400p. Unless there's another large buyer doing likewise then I could see this failing at 500p and even dropping back while we're waiting for contact signing.

So I've just made an investment in TENT. I can't see the justification for such a high discount to NAV. Is it simply due to general market conditions in our new higher interest rate environment? If it is then I'm fine with that, I'd rather have cash invested in environmental projects. Otherwise perhaps someone could fill me in on what I might have missed reading through all the reports and RNSs.

Scary. What could possibly go wrong?

I think I'd rather license Tesla's self-driving AI than ask a startup hydrogen truck manufacturer to figure it out from scratch. What's the saying?..."you can't fix stupid".

Share trading is a forward looking activity, so it's seldom that past figures in the report are what influence the day's price movement. More important is the forward-looking guidance. Today's guidance was "forget the past - I've got a plan to fix it, and we're not too late". For now the market believes it, or allowing benefit of the doubt. You can generally only play this card once. That said, I sure hope he's got more aces up his sleeve.

Well unless we get a collapse into the close then that was a big relief today. Looks like consensus is to give Dennis the benefit of the doubt and see if he can turn ITM into a competent and reliable manufacturer. He seems confident that the market opportunity is still there, so fingers crossed. Onwards and upwards.

Bilbs, it was expanded on during the presentation. 25% headcount reduction represented approx 30% saving in personnel costs. The 30% bit is mentioned in the RNS. I guess that means the cutting must include some high salaried individuals.

Yes we need to get something sizable from Snam to stop this being simply a business extension of Linde. Without it we are at risk of a Linde takeover at far too early stage and without share price growth.

It's opened better than feared. I guess the big order will have helped. (I'm reading it as a new order but I haven't checked back to see if it's simply a restatement. I would have expected a separate rns for a new order)

It describes a typical engineering culture in charge of manufacturing. From experience I know that engineering will happily change and fix things even during a manufacturing phase if they are allowed to. It's not clear on this case whether the changes were simply desirable improvements or to circumvent future catastrophic breakdown. The scale of the product is still very early stage but focusing on just a couple of models for manufacture should help... as well as reducing the customisation approach.

Thanks. It's been raised before about third party buying ITM. The general consensus was that the owndership structure (focussing on Linde) made a buyout a challenging proposition for anyone other than Linde. Do you still consider that valid? Or do you now consider ITM in such a mess that Linde would be happy to walk away by accepting a sale to an interested party like Fortesque?

Hard to see what grounds the BOD would have for putting any sort of takeover offer forward to a vote. We're not in any sort of technical difficulty and we're not short of cash. Without any sort of blackmail like "sell to us or we walk" from Bosch there really is no justification for a takeover. It won't be long before CWR commands more than £11 anyway (I don't mean days or weeks though).

Bilbs, can you clarify, you mean Fortesque buy ITM or Plug?

The figures should already be expected by the market if they've been following along, but I'm always surprised how a repeat of the same news manages to crush a price twice.

The important content will be the 12 month strategic plan. That should clarify what they really think has gone wrong, and how they're going to address it. The negative for that may not yet be priced in though if it's 12 months to fix the problem rather than 12 months to be operating at high volume. If it comes across as don't expect good figures for 24 months then I think even some long term holders could give up on the stock in search of better opportunities.

It's like chalk and cheese. Aside from an acknowledgement that Q4 had a few challenges, it was a very positive outlook from Plug Power. During the same period that all ITM appears to have done is to build an empty factory, Plug Power has taken a business that only supplied FC forklifts and their refuelling units to one that now manufactures and supplies stationary FC power, PEM electrolysers, cryogenic liquifaction, and supply from their own 'tons per day' hydrogen generation. Basically Plug now cover probably the entire chain of the hydrogen economy.

In contrast ITM has partnered up with some big names whose direction at times does not seem to align with ITM and even at times also appear to be restricting ITM's access to wider markets and slowing down hydrogen's progression. I still have faith that the electrolyser market will be of significant size that ITM will eventually be a big success, but it looks like it'll be a long wait. Plug Power on the other hand will be able to demonstrate their own success within a couple of years.