focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
lejjb, most of those look like the tax breaks/incentives I was talking about. Exceptions being the $500m to Solar City to attract them to a particular state, and all the payments to SpaceX I would discount as its broadly a direct supplier to the government anyway. I'm sure you will find plenty of evidence to show that governments give subsidies and handouts because that's generally what they do these days. That's still my point...it often causes companies to wait for them and delay decision-making. Long-term tax rules to drive a particular direction would be better.
lejjb, I guess we can agree to differ on this one. I could even find an argument for Tesla that backs up my earlier point. Tesla didn't receive a subsidy from the US government, they received a loan which they paid back in full with interest. The tax credits that Tesla buyers received was arguably an approprate tax policy, also my point. The regulatory credits that ICE manufacturers had/have to pay Tesla as they don't meet the EV manufacturing quota is also an example of setting the direction of travel, rather than simple handouts, is also an example of what I was talking about.
Governments, ours in particular, don't seem to recognise that, at certain points in the cycle, the promise of grants and handouts is actually holding back implementation. Companies wait to see if there's a handout coming their way rather than just getting on and spending their investors capital. In my opinion the government should just set appropriate taxes for the general direction of travel and let companies get on with it. There's way more money that investors are willing to risk on these future developments than the governments offer up, yet it's the governments money that seems to propel, or stifle, the companies.
I agree tennents. I don't think the shorters outweigh general sentiment. I think specialist shorters would go big on a stock they thought was trash - like when Hindenburg went after Nikola. But I suspect JPM and BlackRock are just covering other positions they hold - nothing to worry about.
lejjb, I don't see any reason why they would change their plans at this stage from a 2.5GW UK capacity followed by a 2.5GW overseas factory, to instead/additionally extend the 2.5GW UK footprint.. You're welcome to your speculation of course.
There's a fundamental difference in approach to sales comparing Plug Power and ITM. Plug Power will attack anything it sees as fair game, whereas ITM play only by the rules waiting for things to be tendered on a level playing field. At the last investor meeting I asked the following question with response below.
Q - You've been in this industry longer than Plug Power. How did you let them beat you to the first 1GW electrolyser order?
A - "So that project, the Esbjerg project, first of all it wasn't tendered - but it is a great endorsement for very large scale pem electrolysis equipment.
It is also a great endorsement for refuling heavy vehicles such as trucks because that project is actually going to be connecting directly to renewable power, working with H2 Energy to fuel trucks, 15000 trucks. So there's some work to do.
So Esbjerg Port needs an additional 2GW grid connection which the project will need beofre it can deploy the offshore wind and then it needs to build up the fleet of trucks.
But it's a good consortium - a great endorsement for some of the things ITM is doing - there will be more gigawatt projects and we hope they are all competitiively tendered because that is the way it ought to be done. - GC"
I wonder if the planning deferral is simply to delay additional spend until after year end (Oct 31). GC has shown his displeasure at orders not forthcoming following his commitment to business expansion, so I wouldn't be at all suprised if he puts the new factory on the back-burner as long as he can until large orders are placed. Afterall we don't even have enough orders yet for the first factory, why should he pay for a year of an additional empty site.
I think our boost today is related to the upbeat Q2 report from Plug Power last night. They're already 50% up on their target order backlog for electrolysers at 1.5GW (target was 1GW for the year) and their sales funnel is over $15bn.
Plug announces another agreement for another big customer site. 120MW with expansion capabilities to 500MW.
https://www.ir.plugpower.com/press-releases/news-details/2022/Plug-Selected-by-New-Fortress-Energy-for-120-MW-Green-Hydrogen-Plant-on-Gulf-Coast/default.aspx
My guess is that GC and peers were all told by prospective customers "We're going to have to install far more than 1GW of electrolysis so unless you can make that there's no point in us ordering yet". GC called their bluff - ok here are the factories. Now there will be a different excuse as to why they can't place large orders, like not enough renewable energy. I can imagine why GC would get sarcastic.
I'm not sure I quite buy that Bilbs. I can accept a current valuation of any price, even yours at 65p. But that's not really what we invest for is it, current value? If you expect it only ever to achieve 65p then surely you'd be selling and long gone. Is there not a part of you that expects the company WILL get a sales book (with or without current CEO) and under those circumstances you have a future valuation in mind. I've given mine several times on here so won't bore people with it again. I'm interested in whether you do have a future price (or market cap) or are just content to hold until it falls to 41p-65p range and just get your money back.
That's hilarious. Fool can't figure out how you might value a company like ITM so gives up. Only willing to use 'standard' metrics. Can't use PE, obviously. Only willing to consider PS for current year figures, shortsighted. Unwilling to estimate future sales and estimate from discounted cashflow model, lazy. Boy I'm glad they're not managing my money. Mind you it's probably par for the course considering the roller-coaster this share has been on. There are loads of people still insisting that this is overvalued and basing that solely on historical data. I thank them all for the opportunity to buy ITM at what will eventually be recognised as bargain prices once everyone has the benefit of hindsight.
Hmm, not sure now. You can find it on a stock search on nasdaq under ITMPF, but it comes up as "Other OTC" as the exchange. It is also not on the full list of 8321 listed stocks. So maybe it is only traded on London after all and could therefore still qualify. More research required.
When they switch over to the FTSE250 or FTSE100 all bets are off of course.
ITM does not qualify as they are also listed on NASDAQ. That breaks one of the qualifying rules.
https://www.ensors.co.uk/blog/shares-on-aim-and-inheritance-tax/
I've never heard of that two year rule, so I just looked for it. The only thing I could find was a potential two year rule on IHT which may apply to some AIM-listed companies. Can you shed any light on a CGT rule?