Member Info for PuzzledPete

Don't want to dampen the fire, which has plenty of fuel to keep burning, but don't get carried away by Harry's share price predictions. Based on a 5% NPV, they just won't happen (unless carried away by over-enthusiastic pi's as GGP has been) . For a start a NPV is not a logical predictor of what an investor should pay 'up front' i f he wants to make a profit. For another, most mining projects, especially in non-prime jurisdictions, merit a discount rate considerably higher than 5%. 8-12% would be more realistic, and long term institutions look for approaching 20% before they'll invest. (In fact the share price will be more determined by the short term cash flow and for TK its only for a few years - so a NPV just isn't relevant)

I think that's why you'll find the shares, if they get to much height, will be very volatile.

Yours cautiously, Cassandra,

Is that Sunday Roast numptie still at it ? Wonder if he's noticed the share chart since his 'going to make hundreds of millions' prediction. He's worse even than maidit.

Yes. Maidit the the most cretinous poster on here among strong competition, hasn't the slightest idea why mast has been tanking relentlessly, its all a conspiracy.

How about reading back on here Mr Trader man. I know why you don't. Its because, and IF (a big IF) you could understand the sums and the basics of any company, you would realise what ignorant nonsense you have been peddling on here, and why you've obviously lost money, and will lose even more.

You don't even know that Mast has used SPV's for all its plants since it floated, and that an SPV funded by outsiders can result in just as much ultimate dilution for shareholders as does funding from issuing its own shares.

I suggest you look at eg the Hindlip deal Mr P. You'll see that Powertree, very experienced in the business, has accorded Mast the very lowest rating by taking 1) 75% of the shares and 2) forwarding some 80% of the capex (because Mast hasn't got the dosh) at an eye-watering 10% - rolled up for the first two years. Meaning it will take almost 100% of Hindlip's cash until repaid in 8 years.

Hardly a 50/50 funding deal

So they are so financially savvy, that they had to go to unknown overseas 'financiers' and their pre-paid warrants scam - eh / Mr Prontis / - which decimated their own shareholders by 92%.

Or maybe you haven't bothered to discover that..

Have our 'lies' caught up with us yet then Mr (I wonder if he's actually made any profit anywhere?) Profit Jock ?

Or are they catching up with or catching out yourself ? (Just asking for my auntie.)

Rampers should note that the £1.1m is part of what Mast needs as its contribution to Bordersley's funding( if it is to keep any share at all) as will be the case for all future plants. The majority of funding is to be by Power Balancing Services Ltd as announced earlier ('financial close' means all concerned sign up to what they are contributing, before any construction can start) who will take 1) his large share of any profit and 2) enough of the profit to recoup his loan or whatever else he contributes. As I've shown earlier for Hindlip, the maths means very little available to be paid to Mast (to cover its c £700,000 pa overheads) before loans are fully repaid (usually after 8 years) That means 1) Mast will have to keep coming back to shareholders for the funds for new plants and 2) That still leaves the question, where will the funds come from to meet the insolvency I've shown clearly is still the case ? So expect even more fund raises at lower and lower prices. That's even if it can find enough new mugs to put up the cash.

Funny that Powertree has disappeared as a potential further funder. Despite what PK says, Power Balancing Services is NOT a jv partner with Powertree. Companies House shows it merely shares 2 directors, one of whom has or has had 70 directorships in similar undeveloped 'projects' like eg Bordersley. Power Balancing had built up £600,000 in cash last year from 'flipping' such undeveloped sites between the many hundreds of chancers like PK, which no doubt it now wants to invest in Bordersley. One of the said directors does though have experience in an actually operating plant.

As said, funny that Powertree itself doesn't want any more deals like Hindlip. Not funny actually !

If PK sys 'he has cash' it will only be because he is counting in Pyebridge's income before paying its gas bill, or has delayed paying some other bills - or because Riverfort has deferred repayment of the c £ 2million it is owed on Pyebridge. In that respect Riverfort (who needs to keep Mast going until it gets its that £2m back) has a conflict of interest because its subsidiary Fortified Securities has raised the latest £1.5 million no doubt by saying 'it is only for Bordersley'

My post 497 Dec 30 08:20 set out clearly all the (published) numbers showing that at the year end, Mast will still be insolvent (ie debts exceeding ability to pay) by at least £2 million even after receiving the £4.9 million from the warrants executed until then. A company is still insolvent even if it has cash, if the debts exceed that cash. So PK, as ever, is trying to pull the wool. He can pull it over the eyes of those ignorant of accounting and company finances, but not over those who are qualified to see what he is doing.

That will be clarified in the annual accounts due by April. But because the only cash producer Pyebridge is '100 owned', its income will be 'consolidated' into Mast itself, even though Pyebridge is effectively owned by Riverfort through the £2 million loan which has to be repaid before any cash can legally be paid to Mast. That will be in the small print which most pi's won't bother to read, letting PK get away with pretending Pyebridge's cash belongs to Mast shareholders.

So there you have it. A mere £1.5m is not enough to bring Bordersley into production. It is merely to enable Mast to keep going. PK has avoided saying what Bordersley's external funder's terms will be, and if similar to Hindlip will not deliver much to Mast itself after repayment. Meanwhile, merely to keep going, PK has had to dilute his deluded shareholders by another staggering 26% - as if that is what Bordersley will actually deliver which it nowhere near will.

The wizard financier CEO has now managed to cut his shareholders stake in the company by a staggering 17 times since July while their assets have increased by no more that 1/10th of that. - a true genius.

All the loans and their terms have been announced. All the results achieved have been announced. Mast's detailed balance sheet as at June has been announced. along with its monthy overheads. The costs of peaker plant are available from bot PMast's results and elsewhere including for Mast's SPV's at Companies House. From all that you can calcu[ate whether what I say is wrong or right.

But PK hasn't pointed out to those who can't calculate what the implications are. Deliberately it seems.

'Investing for the long term' That's the problem where inexperienced investors are concerned. They assume the shares will be higher if a company grows. But the experienced know that is not the case unless its business is so highly profitable that it generates all the cash needed to invest in growth. Unfortunately Mast's profitability is so low (in line with the whole sector) and even lower in its case due to the ruinous cost of borrowing, that it can never generate the needed cash. So, because there's a limit to what lenders will provide (and they demand that Mast has far more of its own liquid assets than Mast can ever have) Mast can only find the cash by an unending recourse to shareholders for more and more cash meaning endless dilution and a falling share price instead of a rising one. But there's a limit to even that, because shareholders will realise they can never make money and will steadily lose interest. Its the classic way 'growth' companies go bust. Mast is almost there.

Look on line bob. There's a large amount of info and reports on the UK electricity market and especially distribution problems and costs. Much more relevant for you would be to look at all Masts' hundreds of competitors and the mixed results many have in what is an unpredictable and highly erratic peaker market.

We're not posting to hope anyone 'cares' what we say. We're posting the facts no one on here is getting either from PK or the company, so that real 'thinkers' can understand what's happening. We care not a jot if you and your like 'think' the wrong things. Its your multiple funerals.

A new CEO and a massive fund raise - at a share price well below the present. That's what will have to happen for it to survive

You don't mind loans or anything ! Do you know what loans do to the value of your share ? That's what has to be hammered into the airheads here, along with all the other things need to be hammered in.

The main one being that PK shouldn't be allowed to get away with the non-information and truth economies he peddles aimed directly at the likes of you.

No one can achieve a 'north strategy' when it hasn't got the funds to pay for it. Anyone who believe a Walter Mitty saying so - without fully explaining where the funds will come from - needs what passes for a brain in his north most cavity examined to see if anything is there. Funding for something Mast doesn't own, or will be majority owned by someone else, isn't the funding needed for Mast itself to march north. Obvious to any infant. But not apparently to the spike inducing adolescents on here.

There's no bas news because PK doesn't DO announcing his bad news (eg lossmaking Pyebridge; balance sheet black hole; disappearance of 'funders'; resignation of principal broker etc etc.) Its left until the auditors insolvency warning in the accounts' small print. Do think a bit Mr Oiler.

Tiny volume means price gets easily to the latest lemming buy. No solid info frrom PK once again. He could have given an unaudited profit figure for Pyebidge. It has only 5.4 MW operating - not 8.12 MW for which no funds to complete. And will make another loss in the year just ended and peanuts for 2026. Balance Power has only £899,000 cash - all from flipping these 'unbuilt 'sites' between hundreds of chancers like PK and not from operating plants, although one director does have experience elsewhere. It will have to borrow in order to lend on to Mast for Bordersley and its been shown on here that it and eg Hindlip and any others having to borrow to build (Mast can never have the money) can't make enough after repayments to pay much to Mast. Its all airy-fairy. And if by any chance the lemmings push the shares above 4p for enough time for the remaining 117m cash warrants to deliver £4.5m to Mast, it would just about cover its balance sheet black hole, leave nothing over to fund plants, and with 293m shares then in issue, the then peanuts profit will be also peanuts per share.

But profit jock (replaced our trader friend for paranoid accusations against the MM's) will continue to show his ignorance how markets work.

Meanwhile its only the other inexperienced who can't work out Mast's true tiny value and are the tiny voluime keeping the shares aloft.

Yeah ! Pyebridge annual profit rate (not for latest full year) not quite £500,000 against £2,000,000 still owed to Riverfort, and Mast clocking up at least £700,000 pa overheads plus owing another £4,000,000 to all and sundry. Big deal. On shares in issue even £500,000 is worth 0.3p per share. Big deals all round !