Member Info for StarBright

The difference is volume. Todays 8.7m is the 4th highest reported in the last 15 years.

That's significant.

Faites vos jeux mesdames et messieurs....

Yesterday to today...

Chairman didn't have a coherent answer to the question "Why should you invest in GSF?"

Surely a simple tap-in. You'd have thought he would have talked about narrowing the discount, about future dividends, the prospect of capital gains etc etc. But no, he asked whether the alternative of selling assets was a better option. When I can get a transcript of his non-answer, I'll share it here. If I was Alex O'C I'd have died in my seat listening to him...

Time for change. Fortunately the discount wound is wide enough that the blood in the water is already attracting sharks. I came for the earnings and dividends that aren't being delivered. I'll stay for the "corporate activity" that's coming, because a transaction or other realisation at a par discount to NAV is going to deliver material gains for those who've bought in during the last year or so.

Absolutely @Krustysmegma. But... the board has an obligation to ensure that it isn't captured by the incumbent investment manager. Rather than agreeing to an egregious golden parachute (albeit this has now been removed, apparently under pressure from RM), perhaps the board should have been signalling its intent to re-tender the investment management contract..?

I see all the tell-tale signs that the board has long been too subservient here. That - at least! - must change.

@Therosy1 - you can see all of the resolutions (“options”) now. Resolutions 1 & 2 are votes for/against the appointment of the two RM Capital nominated directors. Resolutions 3 & 4 are for/against the removal of Patrick Cox and Caroline Banszky, who are two of the existing directors.

I will be surprised if the votes ever happen, a grubby compromise will be agreed first…

An angry and self-serving response to the meeting requisition by the board, who appear to be firmly in the pocket of the investment manager.

I am minded to vote FOR the removals of Patrick Cox and Caroline Janet Banszky, but AGAINST the appointment of the RM capital replacements.

Interesting to see @MM - who I have advised ignoring for years - acknowledge that there are risks to ZIOC investors beyond those generally associated with the development of large-scale mining projects. Whilst his delivery is typically hype-ridden and breathless, his underlying point regarding lack of transparency is apposite.

Back in April I said: “…whilst the benefits of the apparently cheap GLEN exit have accrued mostly to a group of “family and friends investors” - the directors have taken a huge gamble that the rest of the shareholder base is asleep or acquiescent. Governance remains a major risk here alongside financing…”

Investors here need to have their eyes wide open. Pressure on the company re transparency and conflicts of interest should perhaps be welcomed.

I get that pre-revenue companies need to raise money when they can. This looks very cynical though. Two RNS & a Proactive pump for the engagement of 3rd party expertise. Quickly followed by a mates-rates placing and more cheap shares for management.

All somewhat grubby. I am not impressed.

Average daily traded volume here is well under 50k. Friday saw 200k change hands, 160k so far today.

Price formation is most reliable / indicative when it combines with high volume. That’s what we’re seeing here.

Interesting to see a stream of AT trades appear here. Looks like someone is using an algo to build a position.

Yes it is. Also

1. Well below the yields that SUPR has realised on recent acquisitions

2. Not requiring re-negotiation etc every year

Value creation for shareholders in progress…

Thank you PhilipFG for sharing the info from RM.

Also Pip56 for articulating a view that I support.

RM requisitioned the meeting on 17th (possibly 16th) July. GSF board have 21 days to call the meeting, and the date must be no more than 28 days from the day it’s called. 49 days from July 17th is September 4th. Of course the meeting may never happen if concessions are agreed in the background, such that RM withdraws the requisition. We’ll see.

I’m pleased that an activist investor has stepped up in this way.

Yes.

@toneman - you are spot on. This is yet another example of management's inability to articulate the investment case for the business they are running. Their investor comms over the last year or so have been lamentable.

Executive Management and Board changes are needed. RM Capital have started the process.

The good news is that the process that will lead to change has been kicked off by RM Capital. Shareholders can hold and collect the “special” dividends whilst it is worked through. Whilst it may be a bumpy ride, the underlying value can be released closer to NAV than the current discount indicates. I suspect that many shareholders here will be happy with such an outcome.

From IC:

“An activist investor is pushing for a board shake-up at battery storage investment trust Gore Street Energy Storage (GSF), calling for a new set of directors to lead a strategic review that could include asset sales and an outright sale or merger of the whole company.

Scottish asset manager RM Funds, which holds a 5 per cent stake in the trust, has requisitioned a meeting to replace existing non-executive directors Patrick Cox and Caroline Janet Banszky with restructuring adviser Brett Miller and infrastructure specialist Ian Dixon, who the firm said were “entirely independent”. Miller is running the Ecofin US Renewables Infrastructure (RNEW) wind-down.

GSF owns large-scale batteries used to support the grid. Last month, the fund announced a cut to the fees paid to external manager Gore Street Capital from 1 per cent of adjusted net asset value to 1 per cent of the average of market value and adjusted net asset value.

RM Funds said it was behind this shift, as well as the scrapping of performance fees and GSF removing so-called ‘poison pill’ protections that the activist argued unfairly protected Gore Street Capital. But a demand to replace the current directors was not met, leaving it “no choice but to take this step”.

“We believe such a refresh is essential to ensure the review process is led by individuals with a fresh perspective and no attachment to the decisions that contributed to the company’s current challenges,” the firm said.”

RM Funds have a little over the required 5%.

It will be VERY interesting to see how this progresses now.

(Alliance News) - RM Funds to requisition general meeting of Gore Street Energy to propose board changes.

GOOD.

This is the process through pressure will be brought.

@TheTrotsky, do take care up there on that high horse of yours. I don’t see any conspiracy theorists posting here today. Rather a welcome and thoughtful discussion between some engaged posters.