Member Info for toneman

I haven't sold my fuel stocks yet because I expect those companies to be seen as 'energy' companies rather than 'oil' companies. Once the next wave of the 'right sort of energy' is in place I'd expect these companies to be well and truly on the bandwagon. It's hard to see them letting their companies fail by sitting on the sidelines when something this obvious is happening all around them...surely?

I've now listened to it as well. I have to agree c&c, it wasn't particularly enthusiastic but I sort of anticipated that with their question mark in the show's title. I hope, in time, the trepidation that the presenter/reporter exhibits will subside as the technology becomes normalised. The ongoing successes in the myriad current trials and demonstration projects is certainly confirming it as the fuel of the future - the very near future...in fact I'm betting we'll see it transition as the fuel of this new decade.

Here's a good read from CEO of Ballard Power Systems - Why Elon Musk is Wrong About Fuel Cells

https://blog.ballard.com/elon-musk-wrong-about-fuel-cells

Yes chilting, exactly my thoughts on roadmap for hydrogen and transportation fuel-cells. I've posted exactly that before on this forum. That's why I like ITM...even without passenger vehicles there is still a massive demand for hydrogen in industry, heating and heavy transport. Eventually passenger vehicles will piggy-back on the technology once it's dominant and readily available.

I think if there were already a full nationwide complement of hydrogen refuelling stations matching the availability of today's fossil refuelling then companies like VW wouldn't be considering anything other than fuel-cell vehicles. It's still the same chicken and egg situation as it's always been - without refuelling availability there's no demand. The fact is that battery recharging stations are so much cheaper to install it makes an easy choice for installers. It still doesn't make it a good long term choice, but you can't blame people/companies for making these sort of short-term decisions.

Does anyone need reminding that BBC radio had a programme today on hydrogen.

Hydrogen: The answer to Climate Change? on BBC Word Service "Global Business". The programme was scheduled for 8.30am GMT and should be available to play again here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy82q

I haven't listened to it yet so can't comment on content.

I'm with you oneandonly1.

Thanks Londonwolfie, that's an interesting perspective.

Hydrogen and 'green' stuff having a stellar start to the year. Nice to see this one break through £3. More please :-)

Hi NLLeeroy, I can back up what bilbs said as I've had many of my own buys/sells marked up incorrectly, so it's obviously guessed by a computer program (and obviously not a sophisticated one). Most of the time it works ok because the trades are quite small and the transactions are quick so the traded price is compared with the current spread.

With shares like ITM, as has happened here a lot recently, it's a small market but a handful of bigger players want to buy a substantial number of shares. Although the market makers are not exactly holding these back you don't get to see them until they are fulfilled and all the while the market makers are raising the price trying to encourage holders to part with some shares. When you see this happening you often find at the end of the day the large trade will be recorded once the MMs achieved their aim of matching the big buyer with enough sellers. However the trade price is an average of all the trades that were used to fulfill it during the day and the computer program often misjudges it as a sell when in fact it was a large buy, because it compares that average price (lower earlier in the day) against the current market spread and nothing to do with the spreads of the actual trade itself. It sees the price at the lower end of the spread and marks it up incorrectly as a sell.

On a further note, I'm fairly sure the market makers don't (or at least try not to) hold back shares for themselves. They make their money on the spread (difference between buy and sell price) and just like us they have no idea what tomorrow will bring regarding buyers and sellers so they can't take the risk holding (too many) shares into a new trading day...otherwise any bad news overnight could wipe them out.

Well I was delighted with this price two days ago, so it stands to reason I'm happy with it again today right? :-/

Yep, to be honest, still delighted. It's all pretty irrelevant for LTH. I still expect ITM to grow over this decade and beyond, and I take the recent activity as endorsement of that view. It does however means it's likely to be very choppy in the short term particularly trying to keep all these new investors happy. Let's wait and see how the next trading statement is received by the masses.

Pinballwiz, I admire your optimism. I'm a firm backer and long term holder of ITM, but I don't think I'd fully subscribe to your last sentence. The scale of the requirement for hydrogen should be massive but firstly these orders have to come in, and secondly the scale of the operational costs will be equally massive. Your assumption that ITM are capitalised to the level that will see it through to profitability I think underestimates the associated costs of the scaling up it would demand.

I would definitely expect ITM to need access to more cash if this scales the way it should, but that doesn't necessarily mean further rights issues. If we get a decent pipeline of sales (as opposed to trials and demonstrators) then a reasonable amount of borrowed debt would likely track the escalating production.

Bigtibbs01, if you're looking for LTH then this price could still look cheap in years to come. If you're looking for a quick profit then I'm not so sure, but I'd have said the same back at 80p a few days ago and looks like we're up 30% from there. For a LTH I'd consider buying some, perhaps not all your ideal holding because I'd expect it to drop back on any company trading statement which could look pessimistic against the current hype/expectation. In that event I'd consider adding to your holding at that time. Retracement could easily see this back at 80p (even below).

When a new company offers a new product there's often only two possible outcomes - total failure or massive success. For the massive success to happen there is a time when the company hits their stride and the market finally aligns with what they have to offer. I'm optimistic that ITM has reached that point. So far lots of trials and demonstrations and up to now the market has been hooked on oil instead. Time will tell whether the change in sentiment away from oil and toward clean and green is permanent (I do hope so). If it is then ITM will evolve from a technology demonstrator into a supplier delivering what the world wants. In that case a current market cap of only £500m is pennies in the grand scheme and even today it ought to be considered a minimum £1bn valuation tech company.

To put it in perspective, Linde have annual gas sales in excess of $20bn (not all hydrogen of course) and a market cap of $110bn. But the future mobile power carrier will be hydrogen derived from renewables rather than oil. If that's how it all plays out then the current market cap for ITM of £500m is far too low and I think the institutional investors are starting to think the same and I hope they are some of the large buys we're seeing.

I agree, Seaangler. I've been backing hydrogen stocks for three years. They're all currently up much higher than my original forecast (which I thought was an optimistic forecast when I mapped it). Today's ITM price I had mapped for 2025. Same for PPS. PLUG, CWR, BLDT, NEL all beating my expectation.

I mean hydrogen will be massive...not the retracement - hopefully :-)

The reason I also just sold a small amount (same ones I bought in the recent rights issue) is I expect there will be a trading update quite soon. I suspect the recent buyers will find the traditional "more orders - bigger loss" to be disappointing if they don't understand the long-term play for hydrogen in our energy mix. No doubt this will be massive, but I think a retracement is inevitable...but down to what price, who knows?

Bunti, it's worth remembering that with directors options it's a case of use them or lose them. And if you don't want to sell them you'd have to stump up the cash to purchase them, and they've not always got that sort of cash to afford to buy even at the low option price. Don't worry though, they've got plenty more.

You can get the article about service stations and grid connections here...https://www.businesstelegraph.co.uk/motorway-services-fear-grid-not-ready-for-electric-cars-financial-times/

I've long considered the argument against H2 that "the infrastructure is just not ready" to be bogus. The linked article confirms what I've thought for ages that exactly the same is true for BEV charging. Unfortunately the cost for making an individual BEV charging station is a lot cheaper than an H2 station...but is that still relevant when you will need at least 10 times more BEV stations than H2 stations to service the same number of cars each?

You don't even have to go back as far as Betamax/VHS to see how this will play out. This one is exactly like fluorescent bulbs vs LED bulbs. So much wasted on the wrong tech just because it got there first.

It's a fair argument that dilution, or at least rights issues, could be preferable to the large debt piling up. Anyone have a preference for that over the current implementation? That's the way it's done over at ITM anyway.