Member Info for PuzzledPete

You haven't a clue about the industry, do you NH21 ? For a start the 2029 CM contract hasn't been secured yet. Krugel has merely ben trumpeting again and again thT he has qualified to enter the auction. For another, the funds that buy these short lived assets aren't hedge funds. They are the Energy Investment Trusts where you could have found out how QDE is a seriously underperforming tiddler in a large but volatile market. None of those trusts would look at QDE let alone buy it.

Big Deal !

A 5MW plant can generate around £400,000 pa net annual profit. The £0.75m loan will cost £133,000 pa to repay.

That leaves c£267,000 to be shared - 35% to QDE = £94,000 pa.

Because PBS is in control, that will be paid as a dividend in following financial year - ie not until 2028.

For the £1m needed to get that paltry return QDE had to dilute shareholders in Feb with another 46.6million shares - ie another 26% dilution

That doesn't count in the over £6 million previous accounts show our ace manager has spent (of shareholders money) on Bordersley since 2019.(PK doesn't mention that of course, merely the weasel words 'capex funding for a "typical" new-build 5 MW flexible generation project is around £3.5m)

It all shows the financially unviable house of almost worthless dog-eared cards this outfit is built from. And the amount of further 'capital discipline and efficiency' that shareholders will be subject to for any further projects. The sensible, (as usual although there can't be many left in this dog) - will leap out of any lemming spike .

There are NO analysts following QDE. Name any. Why would they bother with only a £5m market cap and almost invisible volume ? Let alone knowing the history.

Pyebridge Value ?

Roast numptie struck again ? And the Dimbos on here swallowed it whole once again !

For a start, No one here owns Pyebridge. They own Mast which has big debts - offsetting whatever Pyebridge is worth. Which at the moment isn't very much because it owes £2m to Riverfort. Yes, if the 3rd gen is paid for (another £1 million plus cost ?

) and gets running, with capacity payments a £1 million pa profit might just be achieved. Which for a 15 year life would be valued today at Mast's cost of capital of just under 10%, at £7million less the £2 million owed - ie £5 million - reducing over time with depreciation..

BUT it couldn't be sold for that - which will be its true value. A buyer would want a much better return that 10%. (because that's the cost of loans to buy it) If he needs 15% he would value Pyebridge's next 15 years £1m pa income (20 years is out of court. The govt forecasts gas will be out within 10-15 years) at £5.8m. If he wants 20% his value will be £4.7 million. In all cases less what is owed, which at the moment is £2 million.

Anyone saying Pyebridge is worth £10 million is lying, or is Walter Mitty.

Andin any case So What ? Your're all invested in Mast. Not in Pyebridge.

Just to get QDE off on the right foot.

PK has boasted he has whizzo experience and capability getting gens up and running.

Well now - for the record - Bordersley the latest great white hope, was acquired in 2019. You won't see the full details in Mast's reports and accounts, but only in Sloane Developments - an intermediate company which actually owns it . By Jan 2022 Sloane's accounts show Bordersley had cost a total of £6.825 million - I repeat £6.85 million - and not a nut or bolt on the ground. It was written down to nil in 2022 and 2023.

NOW we are told Mast is to get a loan to spend £3.5 million to build it.

So PK (who personally sold Borderseley to Kibo, then hived off on to Mast) seems will have caused shareholders to spend over £10 million on a 5MW plant which usually cost £750,000 per megawat to build from new . It will earn at the most £400,000 pa profit (although capacity payments might be more)

But that base income is a return on investment that poor sap shareholders will be making, of a paltry 4% - about 1/5th what a competent business would look to make.

Pyebridge is a similar if not quite as bad a story of mismanagement. No place to describe here.

What is common is measures to hide he truth from investors (and hoped for 'partners') It takes qualified business analysts to unearth it.

And look at Walter Mitty's self-described expertise on the new web site.

That's why a few of us have been correctly advising those who don't understand company accounts to steer well clear.

HH You can't move a thick plank very easily.

One consequence of changing a ticker (which of course never occurred to a certain Walter Mitty, who since even before an outfit called Mast (who ? where ? never heard of 'im) was listed in 2021, has been notorious for the number of economies with truths produced) is that all the info, opinion, analysis, commentary on said previous existence, has conveniently been wiped from the new one (but might still be there under the old one,)

Still. Old lags can do the same and the fuzz won't recognise them. Perish the thought there is such an intention here.

Well if you think you 'own' something Invester old chap, that has a lenders lien on it, try and sell it.

I believe Walter went under a number of different names (Robert Maxwell, Picocchio, etc). Changing their name is, of course, what criminals do to try to hide their past. In the case of companies, unfortunately, the past is always there in the form of historic Reports and Accounts, and in their Chairman's and Chief Executives' empty and (who are we to say !) sometimes misleading promises.

"How do you expect us to buy generators and sites worth millions without loans,--" !!

Indeed Mr Invester. And how is it you seem to expect they won't cost and arm and a leg to repay ?

Doh !

Nothing to take away here.

Just head Roast PR numptie Hornsby urging PK (among other things) to agree eg Pyebridge will generate £1 m pa free cash flow !

And PK saying sotto-voce 'subject to ownership %age'

What a pantomime !

Mr Oiler

Please explain how we get to a £50m market cap this year. Do you know what a market cap represents ? Its an amalgam of assets (Mast has around £4 million. A co can only increase its assets by 1) making it out of taxed profits or 2) raising more capital from its shareholders. I'm sure you can work it out which is more likely

The other side to market cap is profits. Do you know that we are talking about Mast ? - NOT about any of the generators who are (and will have to be) SPV's almost overwhelmingly majority owned by outsiders or banks (Mast will have around y£10 million in 'off balance sheet financing' when Bordersley chips in)

Their profits don't come to Mast. They go to the owners of the SPV's - as I say majority owned by outsiders.

So do please tell us what 'profits' will enable Mast's market cap to get to £50 million.

That would be SO KIND !

You've been told time and time again Mr Invester - and could have found out for yourself - that Hindlip's shares (look up the definiition of a share) wll be 75% owned by Powertree , who is also putting up £4.5 million as a loan at 10%.. Going by Pyebridge's 5.4 MW, Hindlip''s revenue (annual, not 'annualised from the high demand winter as PK has been doing) is projected (by consultants) to be around £2.7 million at a gross margin of 30%. (before operating, maintenance, depreciation etc charges). A 10% loan over the usual 8 years (Banks only allow a loan over the first half of a project life,) will cost £845,000 pa to repay. You work out what 25% to Mast of what will be left over will be.

Quite !

(if you can)

Of course, our Sunday Roast (say no evil, see no evil, think no evil) rather backward monkeys wouldn't know what what questions to ask PK. And our incompetent ACF Research didn't even mention the fact.

Powertree will probably give Hindlip a payment holiday maybe for tjhe first year while ramping up. But that will add an eyewatering extra 14% to the following annual repayments.

Happy now with Mast's business structure and strategy ?

So, Mr Invester, having been on here only four months and nowhere else apparently, you have more knowledge or anything than Kread, who has been here much longer, and although short of English, has been 100% correct predicting Mast's crash from the heights. And you ?

Bordersley and possible Window Dressing (which would mislead unwary investors into Mast's true finances)

Krugel has said recently that "Mast has cash". That is contrary to the predictions by chartered qualified analysts and at least one chartered accountant on here that, based on all the detailed financial info provided by Mast at its June 2025 balance sheet and by Krugel since then including loans and the warrants proceeds, Mast was predicted to end the year with a balance sheet black hole amounting to some £4 million. ie owing £4 million more than it can pay.

Window Dressing is a common wheeze enabling companies with shaky finances to pretend things are better than they are.

By delaying paying bills, and persuading suppliers to delay invoicing, a co can build up the cash it actually owes to others, in its own balance sheet for the vital December year end audit.

Most of the £4 million deficit predicted for Mast was due to the £2 million Krugel said was to pay an unknown Canadian PR firm to promote what turned out to be misleading press puffs (Denied by Krugel even though Mast was the only feasible payer for them) and the even more doubtful ACF 'research', to overseas takers of the warrants to persuade them the shares were more valuable than they really were.

Another £2.4 million was promised by Krugel would go towards Bordersley. (No mention loans might be needed on top)

But with the Feb announcement of further funding it looks as though little has been paid towards Bordersley.

So it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work out that maybe Krugel has delayed those bills (especially for the warrants puff which has only half succeeded) to pretend Mast didn't have that predicted December balance sheet black hole and that it has 'cash'. Well it may do, but Qualified observers will be able to see what he's done by reading the whole accounts and the notes when they arrive. But lemmings don't read let alone even understand what a balance sheet is, and will be bamboozled to think all is much better than it really is.

It isn't - because shareholders aren't out of the woods and because cash constraints are shown by the unexpected 'new' funding for Bordersley, which will be a loan from one of the outfits (Balance Power) connected with Kibo's purchase of Bordersley in 2019 (and Pyebridge- previously Apex Energy). So Bordersley will now be owned at least partly by Balance Power.

We won't know yet by how much and therefore the share of profits Mast will be left with, until the details. To remind. When up and running, 100% of Bordersley is predicted to earn around £450,000 pa net profit before tax. Not as lot in the great scheme of Mast's other problems and promises.

What a fool you are. Look back and see the reports of PK saying as much. Then draw the dots.

I see Mr Jocko has had my extremely relevant post of earlier this morning 'cancelled'

It shows what a sad little individual he must be - to try to suppress a view he doesn't like and no doubt contrary to his own attempts at manipulation, together with the condoning of a possible fraudulent inducement to invest - both criminal offences.

LSE doesn't ask such posters what investment qualifications they have to say what they do or to suppress what qualified posters say.

Jocko will be hearing more about this. And I will repost later what he's had suppressed.

So kind of you Mr Profit jock to point to my past coverage on ADVFN. Mast was then (Sept 2021) at the equivalent of 500p having fallen from 600p on listing. ADVFN allows much more detail than here, and doesn't now allow posters to have others cancelled, as on here. I had predicted Mast would be a disaster from almost day one. But my first two detailed posts explaining why in detail were 'moderated' - ie cancelled by the the then 'premium' topic author who didn't like what I wrote 'up im' (He disappeared with big losses a long time ago)

All my subsequent posts were in proper detail and proved 100% correct at every stage. Just as have my latest on ADVFN.

So 'hats off' to you Jocko, for pointing out where people can get the full low-down on Mast.

For more than 15 years, Rolls-Royce has partnered with the world’s leading data center operators, keeping critical systems online when every second counts. We’ve learned from experience that there’s no one-size-fits-all fix. Each site has its challenges and each customer has its own unique needs. That’s why we offer a wide portfolio of solutions - designing integrated energy systems that draw on gas, kinetic, and diesel power to meet the exact needs of each site and customer.

And again re the fca. So good of you to let the fca know who it is has been ramping Mast and so aiding and abetting the fraudulent inducements to invest which it has been perpetrating to try to desperately puff the warrants scheme. The fca has plenty of reports and evidence of the nature of Mast's secret payments to the pr firm behind it all and the extent of its fraudulent promises. But Mast is too small for them to bother even though shareholders were cheated on £10's of millions by it. Now that they know who some of those who have condoned it are (even if through ignorance and stupidity rather than malice) they have more reason to investigate. So Bully to you Sir