Another Reminder (little details Krugel doesn't tell you)22 Nov 2025 14:03
1) The 'revenue' Krugel trumpets doesn't come to Mast.
2) It goes to the generators where only 1/3rd is 'profit'.
3) The generators aren't owned by Mast. They are legally separate 'Special Purpose Vehicles' effectively owned by outsiders currently Riverfort, Powertree and their banks, who put up most of their build costs.
4) Those outsiders provide 'Off Balance Sheet Financing'. While not illegal it is discouraged and frowned upon because companies (like Krugel) can hide from shareholders the debts really holding up their company.
5) The annualised cash profit they make (have been making) is less than £90,000 per MW, plus about £65,000 per megawatt capacity payments (only for those few who have them).
5) For the majority of new plants, about £550,000 per MW (out of about £800,000 build cost) has to be borrowed, which at 10% costs £103,000 pa to repay over 8 years.
6) That means plants with capacity payments make about £50,000 per MW pa profit, and those without make a £10,000 per MW loss - for their first 8 years.
7) Mast generally can only afford to own 25% of the plants' shares, (by paying about £62,500 per MW), which means it gets £12,500 pa per MW pa cash from those with capacity payments and nothing from those without - for their first 8 years.
8) So Mast gets its £62,500/MW back only in 5 years - much longer than considered acceptable for any industrial company.
9) Hindlip at 7.1MW is cheap at £5m to build and is borrowing £4.5m at 10% from Powertree, who owns 75% of the shares. That means, lacking capacity payments, it will earn about £640,000 pa cash profit, and has to repay £840,000 pa to Powertree. So Mast will get nothing for the first 8 years, but will clock up its 25% share of 8 years losses at £200,000 pa --ie will still owe £400,000 while getting a mere £160,000 pa cash thereafter.
10) Brilliant.
11) Pyebridge is the only 100% owned generator, earning about £650,000 pa (only next year if the 3rd gen gets refurbished) but owes £2m to Riverfort, repayable within two years.
12) Brilliant.
13) Mast currently, based on its latest balance sheet and following the mere £3 million raised from the 70m warrants so far, is still insolvent (not enough cash to pay its debts) to the tune of around £3 million, and without any cash income from its generators will get steadily further into debt.
14) Mast is like Enron Corp, whose use of 'off balance sheet financing' for much of its businesses, led it into bankruptcy in 2001, and its shareholders to lose all.
15) Anyone investing in this house of cards deserves to lose his money.
16) Yet there are still some 'brilliant' merchants pushing the shares frantically, madly, incessantly, and desperately
(figures above are a representative example as accurate as possible and if anything optimistic based on Mast's evidence, statements, contracts, other peakers, and financial results so far)
Any one is welcome to do their own calcs
Sign In
Follow the stocks
