Member Info for toneman

No, they don't. They don't even have an order book big enough to fill their 1GW factory.

They have a huge pipeline, but they are just proposals with no guarantee of success.

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.

I agree lejjb. But I'd rather have Plug's 1GW order and then work on a plan to extend a factory rather than extend a factory and wonder if a 1GW order will land in it.

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?

I agree Spacerat. That's why another fund raise wouldn't bother me at all. Obviously could still spook the SP depending on the circumstances at the time, but I'm expecting the orders across the industry to start building really strongly over the next 12-18 months. We need to demonstrate to everyone that we're transitioning from hype (nay-sayers words, not mine) into growth.

I think it's a little premature to suggest that there won't be another fund raise. Building a new factory and filling it with staff is a very expensive operation. On the grounds that it appears that the large orders aren't materialising as fast as the business had hoped, I would expect their cashflow forecasts will show them running out of money within 24 months if they progress with the build(s) at the original proposed rate. With any luck though, by the time they announce a fund raise the market for hydrogen stocks will be buoyant again so it won't matter.

Sadly I once followed a Peel Hunt buy recommendation all the way down to a total loss. That taught me that analysts views and recommendations aren't worth a penny.

You can, however, use them as a starting point to consider doing your own research and maybe you draw the same conclusion, maybe you don't. In this case I have my own buy rating on ITM and it's got nothing to do with Peel Hunt.

It looks like Element 2 are not generating H2 on-site for their refuelling stations. Their website mentions a couple of waste-to-H2 partnerships.

For ITM I feel this ought to be one of the offtake customers that Linde will supply to from their H2 production arm. If they do then it's indirectly an ITM unit doing the production.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hydrogen-champion-appointed-as-government-accelerates-uk-hydrogen-investment

Trader87, there's a link icon to short positions at the top of this page.

Fund % Short Date Changed
JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd 0.96 7 Jul 2022
JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd 0.83 5 Jul 2022
JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd 0.71 24 Jun 2022
JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd 0.62 9 Jun 2022

Seems a very brave move to add to short positions at this level. Maybe JPMorgan is just covering alternative positions. It's very common to play one company off another. Say you think Nel will do better than ITM, then you place a long on Nel and an equal short on ITM so, irrespective of the success of the hydrogen market generally, you win if Nel makes a better job of it than ITM.