Member Info for toneman

Somebody must have an order in progress to buy a large chunk of shares for this price to be going up so strongly whilst today's recorded transactions so far mostly being sells. It'll be interesting to see how much it's for. Still not persuaded to sell them any of mine though.

Of course I meant Methanol not Methane in most of that reply...but maybe I've just got too many topics crossed over to be recoverable...oops.

This is a very circular conundrum. H2 from Methane. Yet often Methane is made from H2. Certainly if it to be considered green then the Methane would almost certainly come from combining CO2 and H2. I would suggest that rather than usurping PEM, the Methane could be generated from PEM H2 (using wind and solar) combined with CO2 (environmentally neutral), the Methane being then much easier to ship cross continents to be converted back to H2 using the photocatalytic method from your link. ...of course I may have just grabbed the wrong end of the stick !?

I like this blog from Ballard's website. It matches exactly my expectation of the hydrogen future.

https://blog.ballard.com/renewable-hydrogen

So, how do I feel now? Same as I've stated before on this forum. I think ITM is in the right place at the right time and could easily be 4x in 4 years and possibly 10x in 10 years. So I wouldn't be selling now even with Covid. If it falls back to 80p I probably will buy my stock back. I wouldn't place a bet on ITM falling as an innocent casualty of overall stockmarket falls, instead I'd place that bet as a short on an Index or ETF representing the wider market after all THAT's the event I'd be predicting so THAT's what I'd place the bet on not on a sideshow that may or may not get caught in the blast.

Please forgive this really long post...I do think its relevant for the recent short term/long term discussion...

I'd like to share my recent trade experience on ITM to demonstrate how difficult it is to get the right level and the right timing to justify trading short term - even if it is 'obvious' that the markets will crash again and take 'all' stocks with it.

Back in October I was happy with my holding of ITM, I didn't feel I needed or wanted more shares. I took part in the rights issue (40p) because I didn't want to be diluted and I told myself I'd hang onto them until they reached 80p (happy if that would have taken a couple of years). I was kicking myself when I could have sold them on 19th November for high 70's and bought them back at 60p on the 10th December (all hindsight of course).

I was as surprised as anyone when the share price accelerated in December and into early January. It flew past 80p so I held on wondering if I could get 100p. On 8th January the share price backed away from not quite reaching 100p so I sold at 89p pretty happy with myself. And I said I'd reinvest it when it returned back to 60p. Two days later it was over 100p so I took out some of my original stake fearing the rapid rise would be followed by a rapid fall. A week later it reached 129p. Although I was happy with my current holding I was convinced it would fall back substantially so as it was falling I took out a little more of my original stake. I told myself I'd buy it back at 80p. Since then it's seen intraday over 170p and as low as 83p. I didn't buy back in the low 80's because Coronavirus was killing the markets and could have gone even lower...obviously kicking myself now.

The net result is that had I done nothing at all I'd be 5k better off now. Had I managed to buy everything back at 83p I'd be 6.5k better off. So had I been doing those trades solely to maximise returns I would have been only 1.5k better off if I'd got back in on the lowest price available in the intervening period. The charts say that 83p is 50% of the recent peaks, so with the same share sales I could have been 8k better off if I'd sold at the top and bought at the bottom. But nobody knows where the top is or where the bottom is until after it's happened. So even if you are lucky enough to be able to buy back in, for most of us it's not going to be at the extremes.

My experience has taught me to be happy with the level of my holding for the time period I judge and to take out some original stake when you're happy with what it's made and what it leaves you with. If you get a chance to buy back in at a lower price and you want to hold more stock then take the opportunity, but don't expect to be anywhere near the top or the bottom with any trade.

Hi 15Lives, your 'Strong Sell' opinion suggests you're either shorting ITM or just desperate to pick it up at a better price. Although there are a few day traders positions mentioned on this board, or at least trading around a majority long position, you'll find reading the posts that most are here for the long term not short to medium. From the recent funding rounds ITM should easily have enough money to weather the Covid storm. Any short term falls are likely to be overall market fear and not based on ITMs future...although whenever the next trade/financial report is due could hit the share price as people once again misjudge the current earnings/profit against the company's market cap (which are miles apart). It's currently priced according to the future of the new factory and starting to fill it with production orders. If the global downturn turns sentiment against going green and combating climate change then your answer would be 'yes' that would affect ITM badly in the short to medium term. Personally I don't expect that to be the outcome as several countries/governments have already come out with statements announcing that after Covid they want to lead the world in 'green tech'. ITM should, therefore, not have any difficulty in filling their new factory over the target 4 years in which case then the share price becomes 2x, 4x or 6x today's price. Short to medium term is anyone's guess. Be lucky.

Sorry, wrote recovery when I meant recession...rushing to finish typing so I could go 'clap for carers'.

Yes, I completely agree. The strength and flourish was why I had been adamant for a while that there wasn't going to be a global recession...didn't see Covid coming. There's 10, 20, 30 years work available in New Energy and related markets.

I'm less bothered about what caused each recession. That only helps if you can see it coming and prevent it. I feel it's more important to see what drives the recovery. The recovery is never an exact reversal of the way into the recovery in the first place. I hope I'm backing the right horse for the way out of this one.

whatabout, Powercell Sweden... Ceres Power Uk...

https://www.powercell.se/en/investors/the-share/shareholders/
https://www.ceres.tech/investors/major-shareholders/

Thanks 13thmonkey. Each of the recessions had a slightly different cause - oil price/inflation/industrial disputes of the 70's, house price/100% mortgage/negative equity/construction boom of the late 80's, and bogus financial derivatives of the mid 00's (feel free to dispute the causes) - but the result of recession is always the same, loss of jobs, reduced spend, lower company profits and therefore reduced GDP and tax receipts. Even though the current recession is forced upon us by the government restricting our normal business activities the result will be the same loss of jobs, reduced spend, etc. If it ended right now then I agree the recovery would be swift and life would return to normal, but travel, holidays, restaurants, retail, pubs, and more are not likely to return to normal that quickly so I feel the speed of the recovery will end up being 'normal' for a proper recession. The recovery is likely therefore to be driven by a large scale common theme which can employ those thousands of new jobs required. In the end it may not be my suggested technology that wins but all the planets seem to be aligning to allow it to be the New Energy drive as I'm advocating as it ticks all the boxes, it's environmentally clean, it's ready, and it requires vast numbers of jobs that will end a recession. I'm struggling to think of anything that's as ready to go. Happy to hear what others think.

Here in the UK the recessions of recent history have all been followed by significant growth of a new technology segment. Following the 70's the new growth was in microprocessors and computers, the early 90's was followed by the rise of the internet, and the 2008/9 recession was followed by the growth in smartphones and apps. It is my strong assertion that this Covid-19 recession will be followed by a clear winner - 'New Energy' - driving significant growth in wind farms (and solar in sunnier countries), hydrogen storage, BEV and FCEV transportation.

The reason is simple each advent of growth in a new technology segment requires significant increase in employment - the absolute solution to any recession. The New Energy propositions mentioned require an enormous manpower element for design, manufacture, installation, and maintenance - and its not short-term either, this manpower will be required for decades.

All being well ITM will need to plan their second 1GW factory in about 5 years time...or maybe sooner than that.

Agreed Mucker. From the projects out in the field so far, I'm pretty confident that the commercial stage is well and truly on. Government does still have an important role to play to tip the balance in favour of Hydrogen because direct and open competition with fossil on cost alone would be a challenge for anyone to choose H2. Despite being an ardent supporter of free market economics I'm not against government grants and subsidies for sectors that will benefit the population as a whole such as the drive to combat climate change and switch direction to a fossil-free future. Without their support it's possible we'd have to wait for oil to become scarce and therefore expensive before H2 could win an open fight. Ignoring impact from Covid, I'm really looking forward to this decade. I just hope the politicians don't screw it up for us.

https://www.pocket-lint.com/cars/news/151923-hydrogen-fuel-cells-explained-how-they-work

Nothing new in the above article. Good to keep spreading the hydrogen opportunity awareness though.

Mucker, you seem to be suggesting that ITM is funding its manufacturing solely with private money and a business case that stands on its own two feet. I think the reality is that a number of orders received by ITM are at least from customers who have had grants from public funds. So I don't think ITM's early years business case is all that different from what Bamford is calling for.

...and as if by magic your prayers are answered. You have inspired timing TheOldBee.

...and also good to be reminded that ITM is a strategic partner to Arcola. From their website...

"Arcola Energy has worked together with ITM Power for several years. We have been in a number of collaborative projects together to jointly develop vehicle deployment and refuelling infrastructure. We have a joint MoU with Symbio FCell to deploy range extended vans and infrastructure in the UK. Arcola Energy is also involved in the Surf and Turf and BIG HIT Projects on Orkney where ITM is leading on developing renewable hydrogen supplies for stationary and transport uses. ITM Power have also been supporters of the Arcola Energy Schools work for several years.

We are now working together to ensure that vehicles are deployed around ITM Power refuelling site, both those already in place and planned new stations."

Daimler are stopping development/production of their FCEV because it's too expensive to make. But they do still see the future for heavy transport in hydrogen. That's been a popular view for a while now, but I still think that the trucking industry will find it necessary to add fuel stops en-route for long distance as it can't all be back to base. Once the refuelling stations are in place I can't help thinking that's when demand for FCEV cars will start competing with, or overtaking, BEVs. Gonna take a while though.

electrek.co/2020/04/22/daimler-ends-hydrogen-car-development-because-its-too-costly/

I suppose we have to accept that H2 fuel and H2 fuel-stations are not really ITM's focus. The Linde investment has almost certainly made it (for now) a green industrial gas and power to gas company. Despite early signs of ITM forecourt pumps the slow roll-out of stations would seem to confirm that. One of NEL's core strengths seems to be transport fuel stations.

Personally I'm in favour of ITM not getting bogged down in too many forecourt solutions as those can't really be very profitable right now and I suspect the market for green industrial gas and power to gas is probably a bigger initial market requiring much larger and more expensive (profitable!?) electrolysers.

Hi Mucker007, if you check out Jo Bamford's Linkedin profile (as long as it is up to date) you'll see he is still a board member of JCB along with being founder and CEO of Ryse Hydrogen and Chairman of Wright Bus. As 'whatabout' pointed out JCB Research is still a major shareholder of ITM, but it's not altogether clear who is behind the decision-making of JCB Research investments. We do know that Jo Bamford has committed himself to a hydrogen future and put his money where his mouth is.
From reading through the Ryse website it doesn't look like they are planning to manufacture electrolisers - so not a competitor to ITM, more likely a customer. They plan to make it easier for companies with fleets of buses and trucks to refuel. Part of that will be sourcing electrolysers (hopefully a significant number). Obviously they could choose from a number of suppliers, but one would hope that the JCB Research investment gives ITM an edge. Whether it's relevant or not his father, who still runs JCB, is a strong Brexiteer so maybe we can hope for a 'buy British' tendency in the family.