Member Info for Guitarsolo

Rev, if you think the P/E is over 80 then you haven't done a jot of investigation about LGEN or any other composite/ life insurer. Go and try again. If you're really stuck, look up @Meconopsis as he/she has explained it clearly many many times.

Here we go again! Triumph/ Eckie, perhaps the "abysmal" part is your average?! I've got an average (excluding dividends) of mid-210s so I am sitting on a reasonable capital gain, plus I've had nice dividends. If you bought in at a higher price, is that down to the company or you?

Aviva's share price has improved and the dividend increased, but only after it was cut!

REITs may offer slightly better income (divi) with no growth, but only because most have seen their share prices decimated which makes the dividend yield higher.

Is LGEN hitting the ball out the park? No. It's not that kind of company. But 10%+ return for a company that didn't cut a dividend even during Covid is not bad.

Hello Terry,

I'd imagine the agreement with Blue Owl doesn't allow SUPR to use the funds to buy back its own shares! But putting that aside, I would say it's about strategy and opportunity. You highlight that mathematically in the short term buying back own shares is beneficial (just). If SREI are doing that (I'm not familiar with them) that's one strategy that should leave them with a stronger balance sheet later on allowing them to buy more assets if/when interest rates drop. However, lower rates should push up the price of these income-generating assets, so SREI would have to pay more than SUPR already has. In theory anyway. I am happy to see SUPR grow the portfolio, provided each lease is accretive.

Of course, if the gap were to grow the argument becomes more compelling.

GS

Morning Trek, the net initial yields are not exactly exciting but this isn't the sector for that. But I presume the "accretive" bit is that it is more than the cost of the capital (it should be!). Overall, the portfolio gets bigger, the rent increases and the lease terms extend a bit. Presuming there are no better opportunities out there to choose instead, it looks like steady-as-she-goes progress. I'm happy enough with that.

Guitarsolo

With regard to the forthcoming NPV number, in his interview this week MR did comment that the PFS value ($482m) was done on an 8% discount basis i.e. NPV8. He also said that interest rates had changed since then and a higher discount rate is appropriate i.e. NPV10. I don't have the skills to revalue the PFS NPV but, let's say (humour me), that it is more like $350m then a new DFS number at $750m with a 10% discount rate would still be more than doubling the value which, in my view, aligns with "hitting it out of the park".

Remember boys and girls, it is not about the DFS number.... it is about the new NPV10 (or 8) compared to the low CAPEX costs. That is what makes this compelling, and valuable.

GLA.

Guitarsolo - enjoying some rugby.

Credit to you Legalwolf, you've called this very well.....even when you were on the outside as you felt it was too soon to jump on the train! Here's hoping you continue to call this well.

JR, I believe it is only to meet requirements to state ownership/ interest when a company (BSIF) has effectively put themselves up for sale. It it weren't quite serious for having a decent amount riding on it, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

FSFL flooding (relatively!) LinkedIn with updates stating confidently that they can afford the dividend ("we've never missed a payout since listing in 2013") and that falling gilt yields makes their x1.3 covered, generous dividend very compelling.

They definitely appear to be sticking to their dividend guns!

As for the proposed change from RPI to CPI, sure it's a minor hit. But it still means that earnings go UP!

From the 28.10.2025 factsheet:

"In the absence of an agreement with Emirates to extend or acquire the A380 aircraft, Amedeo will soon need to begin preparations for the redelivery of the first two A380’s; MSN 157 and MSN 164 (with lease expiry dates of 4 September 2026 and 3 November 2026 respectively). In relation to the two aircraft, Emirates has already selected half life return condition plus $17m compensation and agreed component and labour rates. Based on the history of the DNA funds it is possible that

discussions for Emirates to acquire the aircraft may take place in parallel, but in the meantime these preparations will include preliminary workscope review of the return maintenance event, preliminary records review and considering all end of lease options including securing a storage facility for the aircraft post redelivery. In due course, the Company will need to engage with Emirates to finalise the agreed condition of the aircraft at redelivery, and any related financial compensation that may then be paid by Emirates in lieu, in accordance with the terms of the leases. In conjunction with any redelivery, the Company will likely incur certain costs to ferry, store, maintain, insure, and dispose of the aircraft. Amedeo has advised that the final compensation received for the two mentioned Aircraft pursuant to the leases, and proceeds of any sale, will likely offset the remaining outstanding debt on the aircraft plus direct out of pocket expenses incurred, with any remaining value being returned to the shareholders accordingly."

But what will be the remaining value??!!

It appears AA4 will need to plan for taking back the aircraft, completing required maintenance and then selling. Whilst in parallel perhaps negotiating with Emirates.

Was anyone invested with DNA as they went through this stage? Which scenario is better?

Eckie, the share price is actually marginally UP since the last time you told us it was sliding/ tanking. You need to face the incomfortable truth that you bought in at the wrong time. That happens to everyone, but not everyone continually blames the company or one individual.

Good luck with PHNX, it is a very good company. It should got to 750p, but you never know. Unfortunately, you've paid about 30% more for that one too. Fingers crossed for you.

Sparhawk, if you voted for discontinuation you would immediately be making NESF a forced seller in a distressed market. That 30% would disappear in a puff. Counter-productive in my view.

All the renewable ITs have the same problem. They have pipelines of projects and need funds to develop them. They can't raise capital from shareholders because of the wide discount to NAV (it would dilute existing shareholders). They can't easily borrow as they're up against their debt limits and debt is relatively expensive. They can recycle assets, but with limited effect. BSIF (which I also own) seems to be shaping up to cut its dividend and use the savings there to pay for the pipeline - at least that's how I read yesterday's update. If they do it, will other ITs follow? FSFL (also held) seemed quite bullish with their last update and x1.3 cover for the dividend.

If they do take different paths, it will be interesting to see which works out better. Divergence of performance will also likely lead to the worse performers being gobbled up when their share prices suffer.

GS

@markomorrow; what's the difference between the red and green groups on Telegram?

Like you TT, I think it is a bit toppy over £11 and so have been reducing to funds shortish-term investments elsewhere. I'll always come back to owing NG because of what it is. But at this price and yield, I'm also content to be more on the sidelines (still have some skin the game here).

Thanks Merchant, I'm thinking something similar. But timing is so important, and there are so many things no one can control (not even MR!). Exciting times ahead I hope.

As we approach news of the JORC and the DFS, I'm interested in the appropriate multiplier to apply to the new resource value. MR suggested in his recent interview x0.15-0.20 once post DFS.

I'm also invested in Savannah Resources (SAV) and recall a presentation they did in early 2024 where they quoted a Cannacord Genuity study for the lithium market (not graphite!) where they quoted x0.3 for post-DFS, x0.5 for an early producer and x0.8 for an established producer. [See slide 27 of https://savannahresources-wwwsavannahresourcescom.azurewebsites.net/media/c1qoc3hl/investor-event-presentation-jan-2024.pdf}.

Now to state the obvious, lithium is not graphite and even being 2 years out of date could change the figures substantially.

MR's x0.2 might be more post-DFS and post funding, I don't know.

Has anyone had recent experience of multipliers for a graphite miner going post-DFS? [Tellodrome need not reply unless he's going to name the actual company!!!]

Guitarsolo

Indeed Rivaldo. Even if they end up paying the full £12.3 that's only x6.5 EBITDA and, by definition, means they have retained Emerald's clients and earning capacity. Another good buy from RNWH.

CAZ, I think there is a good chance that many of those top 5 asset managers (e.g. Hargreaves Lansdown, Interactive Investor etc) are nominee holders. In other words, my shares through HL are shown as being part of HL's 6.5% ownership, when it is actually little old me behind (some of!) it. And I ain't selling!

Guitarsolo

A positive ned to the day (just), which bodes well. I think many LTHs here have topped up on the back of that interview with MR. I've bought another 240k at just under 6.5p today (by far my highest price paid).

Need to do a bit of research about how much a post-DFS miner should be worth of their NPV. My investing experience is lithium, rather than graphite. MR mention 15-20%, presumably he means post-DFS and post-financing for the 20%.

Exciting times ahead (I hope).

Krusty, as someone who occasionally investigates shareholder derivative actions (from a very particular viewpoint) I would say there is almost zero chance of recovering any funds relating to a dimuniton of the mcap. For starters, it is a moving target and not immune to other influences. But more importantly, it would only apply to parties who had bought/sold as a result of this. In effect, shareholders who maintained their shareholding have not actually incurred any loss (yet), especially if the basis of any allegation is that it is not the efficacy of the compound that has caused today's RNS. In other words, the share price "should" recover.

But if the lab has c*cked up and work needs to be redone, that's different. And without doubt, the lab would have insurance.

Eckie, I can't help but notice a few things! You have just written:

"The slide continues!! So glad I sold a chunk of LGEN and bought PHNX. Can't believe I got the timing right this time. Up £5k on PHNX capital value and getting a £2.3k dividend at the end of the month."

But on 11 September you wrote on the PHNX board:

"Finally took the plunge, sold some L&G after the surprising big PHNX fall and bought 4,000 shares at £6.23."

Firstly, you say the slide continues. But the LGEN price on 11 Sept when you sold was 236p.... And today it is 236p. How is that a slide?!

Also, for PHNX you're +40p and +27p divi but that doesn't equate to £5k and £2300 (granted, you could have bought more PHNX). Good for you if you've improved your holdings, but I don't get why you keep coming back her to crow about Simoes. It's weird!