If you don't like the betting shop , try LLOY ! |
Nasdaq - BE up 50%
1GW fuel cell supply |
Hiring production staff |
Zopa may only give you 5% per year, but they don't take it away... |
Barney you chicken come and talk to me :-) |
I must agree the City spirit of transparency and recognition of ALL shareholders is not evident. I do not blame any top executive but Bone has sold us short. Also I note somebody's comment that some hires seem to have a ball travelling speaking at conferences with no tangible benefit accruing to the shareholders that we know about. I would get Elon in there to start cutting fat out |
just thought they must know the content and if it is as good as we hope they would have to update the market |
MJ10
The Rephyne report is not 'owned' by ITM.
It is an independent evaluation of an EU-funded multi-company project commissioned by its funders.
ITM can only use the material after it has been published by its 'owners'.
Assuming it is a good story, ITM will make excellent use of it across their marketing activity.
Be patient. |
Gimme' now looks good ! & now do summat for the share price!?
Leoboy |
norbus.surely the Refhyne report would have to come out as a RNS by the company prior to the presentation |
No Barney and Bones this morning 🤔 |
Norbus, we have done our best on this here thread to highlight the value.
It frustrates me that ITM have done less to communicate the business opportunity to the market. Financials! Maybe, in truth, they don't, or didn't really know.
At best, we've heard the echoes of "CO2 this", "CO2 that" from the chair; whispers from management; threats and forever promises from the political class - while the faithful PI bleeds out.
I know ITM have been adjusting and recovering, but still - basics.
How are ITM creating value for their customers? Is it actually costing customers to purchase and run these projects? are they hoping to make a profit on the hydrogen? Do they feel pressured to pivot and therefore experiment with green hydrogen (is this sustainable).. or is it actually, really, and simply profitable for Shell and others to buy an ITM electrolyser?
Maybe Nov 26 will be a good opportunity to try and fill this gap. |
The real problem: that you expect the public to fund these projects.
Why should they?? |
Guessing this was already baked in here. |
The problem: No grants or financial incentives from the British government. |
Energy security will be an issue for the next two decades.
No conclusive science emerged to give a clear picture on CO2.I take on board acidification effect of the seas
I am a little uncomfortable that we are kept in the dark about corporate activity clearly intended
There is a valid and valuable trade off for the premium payable for GH2 |
Why would they worry when the major investors have not sold. Private investors are not loyal to a company and buy and sell as soon as they are in profit. ITM are a business not a vehicle for private investors to make money.
You need to understand this as so many private investors don’t. |
they would have a better idea of the future prospects than you or I.Dont you agree? |
We could infer it from Yara's purchase, or Shell's decision on Refhyne 2, or the latest sale of Neptune V, but those were not made without grants. |
I quote a comment from that last link:
"there is no business concept for green H2, that is the hard reality..."
They ought to put this type of argument to bed.
Perhaps the Market does not value ITM because they have, so far, failed to communicate the value of their product, beyond an ESG play? |
Well that went down well |
The outfit need to come up with orders quickly Graham.
Maybe with the insiders buying is a good sign?
I really don’t know but I am gobsmacked that they have allowed this kind of fall with no statement |
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
Hot Features
Premium
