Member Info for PuzzledPete

Invester you're a fool. Revenue only grew because one more Pyebridge plant came on stream No more coming. Hindlip is 75^% funded by Powertree and after repaying the loan there will be only peanuts for Mast if that. We don't know how much more is needed for Bordersely. Mast itself is bleeding cash which Pyebridge and Hindlip won't cover. But maths is n't your and the other rampers' 'thing' as we know. Means losses for at least next two years which Mast won't have enough to cover.

4)

ACF has now published a similarly paid-for forecast and extreme 'scenario' for Mast's hoped for ramp up of its generating plants - to 150MW by end 2026 (against 5MW now, and already shown to be unrealistic, with no visible means of funding) - and has omitted to allow for the cost of the £105m funding it says is needed. It has also exaggerated its predicted revenues and profit (by 45% above what has been achieved so far in its sole operating plant, Pyebridge, and what is predicted by Mast's own consultants.)

On top of that it has committed the same schoolboy howler as for EUA, using a method investors never do, by totting up its resulting (in practice fantasy) future profits (no allowance for tax) over the next 13 years (by which time the plants will be more than half-way through their lives and the UK will have phased out gas) and saying that is the share value 'now'. Similar 'sums' for any other share in any other market, using the same method would produce a share price 3-5 times what is actually achieved even for a reliable long life company on a high PER and already with stable revenues. (Mast would never trade on a market PER, because its plants are limited life and non-growth)

Even more, ACF tots up those fantasy profits only after 2028, before which even it admits Mast will have built up £70m of losses (I predict over £100m) which it doesn't explain how will be financed and doesn't deduct from its target share value.

Even that is not nearly all. ACF then 'assumes' that only a fraction of the warrants will be exercised, so that, instead of the resulting 1,380m shares eventually in issue if the cash it assumes is raised, it assumes there will only be 217m in issue (against 13.2m now). Add up all those bogus figures, and ACF gets a staggering 'share price target' of 858-902p.

Crucially, ACF's assumption that not all warrants will be exercised is because it has 'research' showing that only 22% of warrants ever get executed. But it fails to note that the overwhelming majority of warrants in that ‘research’ were normal companies who hardly ever saw much of a 'in the money' margin with many 'out of the money', so that there was little incentive to bother.

But at present Mast's warrants (merely the pre-paid warrants numbering 12 times as many as the existing shares) are showing an enormous 'in the money' available profit over the 4p subscription price. At the current 135p artificially boosted and false share price, that is a massive 33 times profit on warrants already paid for. The only reason few have yet (been reported as) exercised must be that they have been misled into thinking the shares will go even higher.

Enter the ACF 'research' ! Puzzle Solved

3)

So why haven't those warrants (already paid for at 4p) been exercised ? Maybe holders haven’t got the certificates yet, and with most of them apparently located abroad (solicited for a £2m fee by the Canadian PR firm that arranged the warrants) perhaps they aren't au fait with the London market or with the competitive UK energy market where Mast is a tiny unsuccessful player, or with Mast's true balance sheet, or they might be the 'mom and pop' investors who traditionally in Canada invest blindly in junior mining or energy companies and lose over 80% of their money.

In any case Mast's directors - ie Pieter Krugel - must be getting the willies in case they do, because his shares will plummet along with all the others.

So he’s going to repeat what he did a few years earlier in another company:- Commission presentations and 'research' promising a vastly profitable future and a much higher share price than can possibly be achieved.

First this year he tried the Sunday Roast paid for PR podcast firm who allowed PK, without challenging, to make presentations that led investors to believe the 'revenues' coming from Pyebridge generator and others would come to Mast, when in fact they will go to the majority owning the SPV's. (Not making clear, either, that gross profits will be only around 1/3rd of the ‘revenues’ he boasts of, before even the major share going to Riverfort or Powertree the majority owners). Sunday Roast Roast now seems to have been discarded (perhaps told they were aiding and abetting misrepresentation) because, instead, along has come 'ACF Research' - notorious for taking payment to produce outrageously exaggerated 'valuations' for their client's company.

ACF Research's track record of paid-for exaggeration.

Eurasia Mining - who paid ACF to produce 'research' - was recently closely connected with Mast, sharing directors including Mast's CEO. ACF in 2021 firstly produced a wildly optimistic and never likely to be achieved 'scenario' for EUA, and then used a completely inappropriate 'method' to value it - consisting of totting up all the profits that it said (with no justification) would be made over the coming 13 years, and saying 'that' is EUA's value 'now'.

ACF published this questionable methodology in December 2021 with a share 'target' of '115p-127p' compared with the then sub 5p share price. Just as with similar 'targets' a few years before, which had persuaded investors to chase the shares up from 4p in 2019 to between 30p and 40p in early 2021, that 'scenario' inevitably proved to be bogus, seeing the shares crash to under 10p only a few months later, and to continue on down, never to recover. They’re now about 5p

ACF has now published a similarly paid-for forecast and extreme 'scenario' for Mast's hoped for ramp up of its generating plants - to 150MW by end 2026 (against 5MW now, and already shown to be unrealistic, with no visible means of funding) - and has omitted to allow for the cost of t

2) So not just those naive initial shareholders, but even Mast's own management, stand to lose yet another 90% of the 90% they had already lost from their original investment once the warrants are exercised - which they are bound to be at such a low price.

But meanwhile newcoming investors apparently ignorant of Mast's history, misinterpreted the announcement of the warrants £5m cash raise (actually only £2.6m after onerous fees) as adding £5m to Mast's value, without realising it was at the expense of the nearly 120 times increase in shares once all the warrants are exercised.

The CEO said nothing to correct their misunderstanding, which has now lasted for two months while those naive investors have pushed up the shares from under 10p to around 70p (to a £9.3m market value on just the warrants exercised so far) - when Mast’s assets even after the £2.6m raised are only about £5m and will be less after the losses any analyst can foresee over at least the next two years. Including £4m for the fixed plants Mast is still technically cash-insolvent (admitted in the warrants prospectus) so, before long, will need even more cash.

But although the already paid for warrants are now "IN" an enormous amount of money (holders can make a 18,000% instant profit by exercising and selling at 70p) they have not yet been. Why could that be ?

At the moment there are only 13.25m shares(post the 1:40 consolidation) actually announced as in issue against the 1,380m that will be if just the pre-paid warrants are exercised. In other words, assets per share, instead of the apparently 37p per share now (after the 1:40 consolidation) and falling will actually be only 0.37p - which should be the price the shares will settle at and which accounting rules for including all live warrants will eventually show.

So why haven't those warrants (already paid for at 4p) been exercised ? Maybe holders haven’t got the certificates yet, and with most of them apparently located abroad (solicited for a £2m fee by the Canadian PR firm that arranged the warrants) perhaps they aren't au fait with the London market or with the competitive UK energy market where Mast is a tiny unsuccessful player, or with Mast's true balance sheet, or they might be the 'mom and pop' investors who traditionally in Canada invest blindly in junior mining or energy companies and lose over 80% of their money.

But although the already paid for warrants are now "IN" an enormous amount of money (holders can make a 18,000% instant profit by exercising and selling at 70p) they have not yet been. Why could that be ?

At the moment there are only 13.25m shares(post the 1:40 consolidation) actually announced as in issue against the 1,380m that will be if just the pre-paid warrants are exercised. In other words, assets per share, instead of the apparently 37p per share now (after the 1:40 consolidation) and falling will actually be only 0.37p - which should be the price the shares will settle at

Might be a good idea to recap the background to the warrant scam - first posted here a month ago. The ramper sonly seem to read the latest ramps, and don't want to know the full picture

"Puzzled by Mast's exaggerated share price and its conflicting info, I've dug deeper."

(Note that a 1:40 share consolidation was effected during the period covered by this note. It has been allowed for in the calculations, but might have been a factor helping to mislead some investors)

PK is trying to be a wizard share manipulator. He's got a track record, even before Mast's April 2021 float (on the even less well regulated than AIM, 'Standard' Market). Then, by prior manipulation of the shares making up its issued capital, he bamboozled just those investors, clients of a spread bet broker inexperienced in equity shares, to put up all the £5.5m Mast raised (at 12.5p) before its market float. He then pretended that because he placed only 25% of its total shares to raise the £5.5m (neglecting to mention the other 75% had been issued to acquire nil assets) then Mast was 'worth' £22m - when its assets were only £4.4m after the cash raise.

With nothing raised in the market, there was no call for a proper prospectus - so PK got away with omitting the vital information a public cash raise would have called for. Her didn’t need to because he had made a 'presentation' (not repeated in the prospectus) - to those first inexperienced investors who put up all he wanted - which compared Mast to other companies in the 'clean energy' sector which had recently surged (very temporarily) but where a close look showed they were in no way comparable to Mast.

Inevitably the truth emerged over the following year, principally that outside funding would be needed to fund almost all of Mast's 'projects' costing a large part of whatever they earned (not clearly spelled out in the prospectus even though essential for Mast to continue) and that its projects are not owned directly but only partly via legally separate ‘Special Purpose Vehicles’ mostly funded by others. So the first investors lost 90% of their investment in the first year, while Mast's £4.4m assets at the float turned into only £2.6m and insolvency even after about £0.5m of share raises meanwhile.

In that time broker WH Ireland (the only reputable one to do so and experienced in the power market) started coverage, only to drop MAST after taking a closer look.

Incompetent management (and the liabilities and true structure of the company conveniently omitted from the prospectus) failing to deliver a single one of the boasts made at the float, left Mast's finances so dire after four years that in July this year, unable to raise funds in any other way, it had to resort to that alternative to even 'death spiral financing', that we are now seeing - issuing a whopping 5,000 million 'pre-paid' warrants at 0.1p against the then only 452.6 million issued shares and a recent share price around 1p. (figur

"Conclusion on MAST.L: This is a speculative, high-risk investment. While the company is pursuing a new, potentially high-growth AI data center market, it has significant financial challenges and requires substantial new capital."

And while it has trumpeted that new market, there are thousands of potential competitors without such 'financial challenges' and there is no sign yet of any definitive agreements with customers. Carbon Zero Markets doesn't have very much better experience than Mast and similarly doesn't have much cash. Competitors are all private companies so won't be trumpeting their plans which you can be sure are progressing off stage

You've been told time and again that those are nominee account platforms. No endorsement whatsoever of Mast as an investment. Do look it up.

By all means keep on with your brainless drivel Mr obviously Can'tDo. Why I'm here is nothing to do with you. I've actually posted somewhere why ,and we all know telling you something goes straight through whatever is between your ears . WE also know your only answer to corrections to your fantasies is to keep abusing your betters. So keep on what you can do very well.

Little chap doesn't understand that will be the case at his £10 target. It's 'near term' at that ! Strewth. 45% bigger than AIM's largest. Big mystery why no institutions are buying.

Here we go. Anyone posts facts and knowledgeable opinion about Mast, and up pops Cando to insult and accuse of being paid. He obviously knows nothing about the warrants process, and can't read between the lines why the pre-paids might not have been admitted yet. He should look at Met1's exactly similar wheeze - 4-6 months earlier - where in its dying days there were still his likes desperately ramping nonsense to get the shares higher but now slowly fading away, just like the shares. Mast has been following exactly the same path, and eventually he will also fade away., along with his Mast investment.

Invester - All the RNS's so far have said exactly what Mast is doing, or not doing, and what can be expected to come next. Its all in the figures, in all the detail in the reports and accounts and the prospectuses, and in the separate reports for the SPV's at Companies House (although most also in Masts's own reports) Its just that you and most on here either don't read them or don't even try to understand them. Your ignorance is your own choice, and might be bliss for you temporarily. But ignorance has a habit of suddenly turning into kicks in the teeth and immediate wailings and gnashings of teeth. Seen it so many times .

List is not of interest and has been posted before. All those except Riverfort and Winterflood who hold for their own reasons that is nothing to do with expecting a profit on the shares, are nominee platforms for small private investors who invest through the likes of banks, Hargreaves Lansdown etc. They are not institutional investors who would be the only ones who's ownership would indicate that professionals thought Mast is a sensible investment. That none of them ever have done says something to those with a brain.

What a moron you are Cando (in good company of course) I wish you'd tell me and the others on here who understand the Mast disaster, where we can get paid. We'll give you a kick-back. Will part compensate you for your much bigger losses coming down the track.

Invester. No other stock, ever, even Met1, has had to issue such a breathtakingly stupendous amount of warrants at a suicidal price as to dilute existing shareholders by 36 times. repeat 36 times, meaning those poor original shareholders will have lost 97% of their original share in the company. Do the maths, please, and if you can and you are less dim than most on here we won't be seeing you again. Two big 'ifs' perhaps.

You obviously can't do the math Cando. Those who can calculate Mast's assets per share will be less than 5p next year, and that there will be no earnings for Mast from the 4 plants enough to get it into the black for at least three years, and even then not enough to attract a share price above 10p. PK doesn't want you to know that of course, which is why no reputable broker or analyst will touch him and Mast

The 125 million pre-paids have already been issued to probably five people geoffrey (going by the similar wheeze for Met1) who are all clients of MvDB and is probably controlling when and if they'll execute them before Jan and July when they'll have to or lose them. If Mast gets the extra cash it needs to escape bankruptcy and have little over to pretend it has enough to pay for one more plant, the 250 million cash warrants will have to be taken up by the same dates, when they will be immediately executed and adding to the current 32m odd shares in issue so far. Thats when the sh-t waiting in the wings will hit the all the fans and end all the fun.

Maidit doesn't DO sums savs. He thinks a walter mitty / pinnochio character saying magic things is all that is needed to make him a lot of money. Best leave him in his dreamland.

What 'first mover' advantage can some outfit with only 3-4 gens mostly owned by outsiders, and no money, have in a market where there are over 650 other plants, mostly owned by rich majors ? Do explain, after taking note that those others are private companies not needing to trumpet their plans to entice in amateur investors. That would be so useful.

Re Pyebridge no progress. No money of course. And, mysteriously, neither Powertree nor Riverfort are coming up with it.

Do you know who will be getting the great majority of those profits Mr Invester ? And do you know what 'profits' Mast needs to 1) escape its present insolvency and 2) to earn enough profit per the near 400 million shares will be in issue - to deserve even a 2p share price ?

Maybe you should ask a more experienced investER to work it out for you.