Member Info for alibaba42

If you look at the number of people employed at GSF and the type of roles - employment lawyers, junior portfolio managers etc- you realise that Alex is a bit deluded and believed he was building some sort of empire. the simple fact is that he thought he was more intelligent than he is. its not rocket science to build a bess fund and operate it - it needs to have around 50% less staff and reduced costs - then it can start to grow again

The dividend is not as important as making sure that the company makes good profits, so reducing debt or even buying back shares is fine. However this is ONLY a good option if the funds are very well managed and fees are reduced, otherwise this is just another way for this team of fund managers to keep extracting more value from the capital they have already partially destroyed

I dont see how the fund can continue to charge the existing fees after the ITC credit is received. the only justification they could make is that its needed to manage new investments - but given how they have essentially destroyed capital with previous investments, its surely not a smart move to keep the current managers and their fees. The best solution would be to start selling assets and build up some capital. there is no need to immediately return the capital to shareholders but it would be good to have a good manager in place who would be a good caretaker of the capital and who would look for opportunities for investment. all we need is 100 million invested in good opportunities. the management fees are currently around 10 million a year and should probably go down to 5.

What does energised mean if they don't even generate revenue till june

Shortage of money for everything in the UK apart from houses

There are never guarantees. there are plenty of companies that get contracts cancelled (not that this is the case in CM). the point is that you get paid for the risk to hold Gore St. sure its all merchant and volatile, but the risk is priced in

Yes, i anticipate they will get the ITC credits and sell them. The question is are they going to be able to invest the money in a productive way? They have not been mentioning any plans for the investments - they have quite a few options. they have a good asset in the UK which has good capacity market contract agreed. Duration exptension in UK or ireland would be another option. or capacity extension in ireland. may even be worth to invest more in ercot but they may want to wait and see how the market develops there

ITC can be claimed from energisation. Don't need to wait for cm to kick in. Waiting for cm is only required if gore st is claiming capacity market credits under RA, which I don't think they are. In short, it shouldn't be long till they can claim and it shouldn't take long maybe 3 months. If they get the 30 pct for CAISO it will be around 70 million USD. For ercot it's 10 million. So if they get the full amount it's around 65 m GBP

Note also the poisoned chalice of GSF - they added a 6% takeover fee - what is the point of that other than to stop the market from evaluating the performance of the directors

The fees should really be linked to revenue and profits rather than market cap, but ok its at least better than NAV

Current Fee Structure and Performance

Gore Street Energy Storage Fund currently has an ongoing charge of 1.58% and a performance fee1. The fund is trading at a significant discount to its Net Asset Value (NAV), with a premium/discount of -54.14% as of the most recent data1.

Shareholder Rights and Voting

Investment trust shareholders have voting rights similar to those of other company shareholders4. However, the ability to force a vote on specific issues is limited:

Requisitioning a general meeting: Shareholders holding at least 10% of the voting rights can request the directors to convene an extraordinary general meeting5.

Proposing resolutions: Shareholders can propose resolutions, but the process and requirements vary depending on the trust's articles of association and applicable regulations.

Recent Industry Trends

Some funds in the energy infrastructure sector have recently changed their fee structures:

Greencoat UK Wind: Recently announced a change to base its fees on the lower of market capitalization or NAV, effective January 1, 2025. This change is expected to reduce fees by about 19%3.

Gore Street Energy Storage Fund: Recently added a takeover fee of up to 6% of NAV in the event of an acquisition, subject to performance conditions2.

Potential for Fee Structure Change

While you cannot unilaterally force a vote on changing the fee structure, you have some options:

Engage with the board: Contact the fund's board of directors to express your concerns about the discount and suggest considering a market cap-based fee structure.

Collaborate with other shareholders: If you can gather support from other shareholders representing at least 10% of voting rights, you could potentially requisition an extraordinary general meeting to discuss the fee structure5.

Attend the AGM: Use the Annual General Meeting as an opportunity to raise the issue and gauge support from other shareholders.

Exercise your voting rights: Consistently participate in shareholder votes to make your voice heard on important issues4.

It's important to note that while you can advocate for changes, the board of directors has the responsibility to act in the best interests of all shareholders. Any proposed changes would need to be carefully considered and potentially put to a shareholder vote if they represent a material change to the trust's operations.

If GSF directors dont follow suit after GRID, we have to call a shareholder meeting and get a vote on this

You have to also take into account that since then Trump was elected - and he does seem to be moving more towards gas for electricity and grid stability.

I was the only one calling a price close to 55. and everyone else ways saying its nonsense. that was at 80. also I never said its not a buy at 45 - and previously i gave a range of revenue from 37 million to 56 million. so i think i have been fairly accurate and consistent

Dont forget HEIT have higher quality assets and i dont know if their managers extracted as many fees. diversification is a strength but if your large assets are at risk from an influx of energy from gas, then it isnt. the cost of buildout in the usa has been lower because things move faster there and bigger scale so thats why the competition has come along faster

Yes, they can be lower of course its purely a function of gas price. that is the reason why uk market has recovered since the gas prices have. the maximum daily price will be driven primarily by gas prices, espeically as more gas plants come online from trump.

everyone here is talking about the estimates as if he actually made them. he did not, he simply said that according to revenue curves (which are made by consultants), the revenue could be something like 70 million. this is purely done by multiplying the rvenue curves they have in the annual report. These are the same revenue curves that were completely wrong in texas, califronia and the UK over the past year or so (hence why the downward suprises).

ultimately BESS move energy around and if energy is expensive then moving it around is worth more. gas prices will be the biggest determinant and the second being any grid constraints. Grid constraints will eventually be reduced via interconnection and more formal ancialliary or balancing services in both ERCOT and CAISO. this its the trend everywhere but it pays more to the large operators who have true economies of scale. no one wants to manage tiny batteries of 10MW that may never come online or might cause a fire for little gain. the spoils go to large systems, colocated systems and well managed systems.

GSF better learn to manage and trade their assets really well. they may need to also need to make some more capex in ERCOT and CAISO to secure their batteries against weather and fire since new regs coming in (these regs also improve despatch of cells so should be a net win). however this all comes down to staying power - funds that can keep reinvesting large sums with large economies of scale - they generally win.

we really dont know where prices will go, there is a lot of merchanting and volatility here. GSF would need to upgrade assets in uk, buildout more, get good capacity market agreements etc, to get some kind of stability and steady state revenue to cover opex and debt - but where is that money going to come from, they probably need at least 100 million now to make some good decisions on UK ireland and ideally europe if possible.

in the usa its best to wait and see how all those forces play out. on top of this there are datacenters, tarrifs, renewables all to consider - how do these forces balance and result in at least decent profits.

long story short i make a fundamentals approach to calculating a baseline revenue of around 42 million .

someone made the point that no one would invest if there is no future. but if currently you can install a 100MWh system for 30 million then the value of GSF is 200-300 millon? add the credits and some value from unbuilt projects and 300 million seems reasonable but new technology is always coming online so GSF is basically holding a single vintage wine and hoping its the one, while other larger funds hold a cellar full of different maturities.

Trump is trying to do whats best for his country and make actual changes. your civil servant jokes dont matter to him

One final thing to add, is that the management should be looking to cycle the cells more than once a day when they can. they should be using the cells as much as possible every day because they are losing value quickly as new tech comes online etc. but they too dumb to figure this out there are 100 people in the compant running around doing nothing

Ill reply to myself because this shiite forum doesnt let me type all my message.

to continue - we said 37 million a year.

now they get tax credit of 50 million and invest at 10% return (and dont fail this time) we get an extra 5 million a year so 42 year - thats just a shade over 40 and with some savings and cheaper dept they can keep that going.

so why is it priced at 45? because they can pay 4p if things get a little bit worse - and we know from fundamentals thats the baseline and we know the management are financially challenged .

one final thing, they can sell some assets and use that money with debt to grow a bit more. but this might just counteract the 'force of innovation' as renewables and tech gets better - the price of elect should go down so the £100 spread goes down. they have to keep investing every year just to overcome that (and obvdepreciation of cells)

So Much talk from everyone, but so few facts. I believe last time i messaged on here i said 50s or 45 is the bottom. guess who was right.

4p dividend is not completely unrealistic in some scenarios. The prices of cells have gone down a lot and a lot of supply is coming online. if you do your research you will find that:

- Ancilliary services in ERCOT and CAISO are completely saturated. they are most likely not coming back because there is a large pipeline of bess coming for a long time.

- ancilliary services in Ireland are greatly reduced since Oct. they are basically matching the spread of the day ahead or real time market - therefore there is no 'stacking' of revenue in ireland and we can say its mostly arbitrage trading or some balancing.

- UK still has an ancilliary market that has actually worken up recently. uk is quite possibly the only market that will remain unsaturated for quite a long time - because the connections are very difficult in the UK and because the uk operator is terrible (or has been) so the build outs were delayed -aka chaos and uncertainty is what benefits bess in UK for now.

so how do we measure the value of a BESS system?

well we look at the price to produce electricity with the cheapest form - nat gas plant. at current gas prices its around £100 per MWh. Ok what does that mean for BESS? bess is simply a system to shift power from one time to another. without the need for anciliary services (which we assume are saturated) the role of a bess is simply to capture cheap power and move it to another time. Now, if we assume these grids all go to 0 price at the minimum and at the maximum they reach the gas production price (100) every day, then on average we might expect a BESS system to make £100 per MWh. for a 1hr sytstem and cycling once per day then we get £100 per MW - GSF have 750MW so 75k per day. - that is 27 million per year. I had to use ai and did a bit of shifting and it looks like its around 960MWh totalthey expect to have live (incl enderby and ercot asset) these muppets dont even list all of this.

so you can say 1GWh making £100 per MWh per day - 36.5 million is the steady state minimum revenue with all services saturated and just assuming you take the maximum of the daily price fluctuations (note - this is the max - in the UK its not even as high as that most days, but in ercot, caiso it can be quite a bit higher on some days - lets assume this is a reasonable assumption - at least its a bottom up analysis).

so there you go - 37 million per year is their baseline - which if we fire a few of these useless managers - we might get 4p per year with little risk. Any balancing or ancilliary or stress in the grid will be extra.

now assuming they get £50 million tax credits and invest that at 10% return (and assuming they dont fail this time) - we would get 5 million a year extra - so about 42, 43

that is the minimum expected revenue if al services are saturated - so no, 4 p is no