Member Info for StarBright

I can answer your last question @Pip56.

RM are an asset manager. Their position in GSF is held on behalf of clients for whom they are managing money either in managed funds or separate account mandates. A business like theirs is vanishingly unlikely to be involved in any “stalking horse” type scheme. It’s just not what asset managers do.

From the holdings RNS: “The voting rights reported in this notification are exercised by RM Capital Markets Limited on behalf of its clients through investment management agreements. In all cases, RM Capital Markets retains full discretion over the exercise of voting rights.”

You are 100% right regarding research and due diligence though; and they will need to be able to be able to “show their workings” to regulators and/or clients as required. A material holding like this by a specialist active asset managers is a significant reassurance for other investors.

This particular corner of the LSE forums is refreshingly ramper-free. If we had any they’d be shouting “Tree shake..!”, “They want your shares..!”, “MM’s trying to get hold of cheap shares ahead of the big news..!”, “Big buy order being filled” etc. It would all be very tedious.

None of us can know for sure what the immediate factors are. Neither can we know for sure whether the hoped-for news of a 4p final dividend is already in the price. These are the risks of equity ownership. If the risks weren’t there, the returns wouldn’t be either. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise…

My analysis continues to be that GSF has been oversold. When the new projects/capacity are commercialised, there will be plenty of free cashflow to support the dividend for the foreseeable future. When this becomes apparent the shares will re-rate such that the running yield is somewhere closer to the historic spread over gilts. A material capital gain from recent trading levels.

GSF’s California asset (“Big Rock”) is situated in Imperial County. It’s over 200 miles from LA and 600 miles from San Francisco. The US is a big place! It’s in a rural location hundreds of miles from any reported disturbances.

Some words disappeared from my post - v odd….

Trying again with the missing bits:

“Volume isn’t particularly notable with only two 100k trades

25% ATs with no obvious shapes visible

Not many buys on the face of it

RSPs on the book only in minimum size”

I took a look. Always remember that the publicly available data on L2 etc is quite incomplete in so far as it relates to price formation, and take no notice of the many eager-beavers on the LSE forums who tell you they can offer insight on market depth and liquidity via (aptly named…) “dummy trades”; that is just retail punter nonsense.

With that qualifier:

- volume isn’t particularly notable, 100k trades

- RSP’s on the book only in small size

My hunch is that interested participants here know that material news (essentially the divi) is due, and will have positioned already. It’s unlikely that anyone (particularly MM’s…) has the actual info ahead of time; if they do they won’t be trading on it. MM’s likely averse to running risk positions in this ahead of news, so perhaps letting price drift to discourage any late sellers?

Just a hunch - DYOR, YMMV etc etc…

Some CEO’s have finance backgrounds. A surprising number - somewhere around 25% for UK quoted companies - are chartered accountants. Even though they have moved out of finance into corporate leadership roles, they have the knowledge and experience to deliver financial communications with confidence.

If you have a CEO who’s a scientist without a finance background, you need a top-drawer CFO with strong communication skills and gravitas to hold the stage and make the running in finance-specific events like this. The same is true across all sectors; if the CEO is a top grocer/retailer/technologist/engineer/whatever they need a different level of CFO.

It’s 100% appropriate for a company like Avacta to be led by a scientist like CC. But Avacta needs a MUCH stronger CFO. This guy would be eaten alive by US analysts if the company were to move to Nasdaq as often speculated upon here…

Yes - it’s a very good acquisition target from a financial engineering perspective. It’s also a durable brand which will have further periods in the sun. A good proposition for the speculative compartment of a properly diversified portfolio.

Some textbook new CEO kitchen-sinking here, with a nice low PBT from which to produce good headlines about % earnings growth next time..!

Thank you for marking the four threads you’ve started this morning with Sp, for “spam”…

Strong & confident language here…

"Our single focus in FY25 was to bring stability back to Dr. Martens. We have achieved this by returning our direct-to-consumer channel in the Americas back to growth, resetting our marketing approach to focus relentlessly on our products, delivering cost savings, and significantly strengthening our balance sheet.

We are today sharing our Levers For Growth, which will increase our opportunities by shifting the business from a channel-first to a consumer-first mindset. We will give more people more reasons to buy more of our products, whether that's our iconic boots and shoes, newer product families such as Zebzag and Buzz, or adjacent categories such as sandals, bags and leather goods. And we will tailor distribution to each market, blending DTC and B2B, optimising brand reach and ensuring a better use of capital.

I am laser-focused on day-to-day execution, managing costs and maintaining our operational discipline while we navigate the current macroeconomic uncertainties. Looking ahead, there are significant markets for us to grow into, and we currently own just 0.7% of a total relevant market of £179bn. This, combined with the enduring demand for our products, the robustness of our operations, the strength of our cashflow generation and balance sheet and the expertise of our people, gives me confidence that we will deliver the sustainable, profitable growth that this brand is capable of."

Ije Nwokorie, Chief Executive Officer

@~ShrewdDude67, that really isn’t how investing works. You can’t expect a “payday” in return for your patience…

Locked in? How exactly does that happen?

Only on the LSE forums do posters offer technical analysis / charts for suspended shares :facepalm

This X thread is an interesting read.

https://x.com/alecstapp/status/1925861607906668921?s=61

https://www.gridstatus.io/live/

I read consolidation as meaning the number of funds would reduce. Either by acquiring each other (as you suggest) but also by external buyers. It’s not clear to me whether the stalled transaction was one of the former or the latter.

Drax’s statement says: “Drax continues to take a disciplined approach to acquisitions with respect to capital allocation in order to maximise shareholder value. Drax views battery storage as complementary to its existing FlexGen portfolio and will continue to evaluate opportunities for investment in this space.”

Too much tension on the line. Did they really think that Foresight and Drax would allow themselves to be sheepdogged into an auction?

Now what would I do next if I were Foresight..?

My read of the factsheet is that it reflects US market regulatory uncertainty and directional shift away from renewables. As such it’s not a positive for businesses planning on building renewables infrastructure. There will be fewer exciting projects to take on…

This doesn’t really affect completed (or complete-ish) projects though. So GFS’ timing has been quite good. The US assets should be able to generate long-term revenue as expected.

yes. that's my reading of the sp**** info provided to date.

angs purchases a group of [cash generative] producing assets for consideration including enough of it's own equity that the "seller" gains a listing via a reverse takeover. some form of debt restructuring may take place alongside this. after the transaction(s), angs will own what it has today plus the purchased interest in the group of producing assets. the market will look to value the combination of the existing and purchased assets. angs will have a new major shareholder, so existing equity holders will own a smaller share of a larger pie.

the key questions for existing equity holders will be:

1. what is the value of the new pie?

2. how much of it will existing equity holders own?

3. will a debt restructure be effected in tandem, and what value will be transferred to debt-holders?

4. what does the new equity holder intend to do with their large stake?

could be something different entirely, but this is what the two rns appear to signpost.

@JubCapital: “Why doesn't every firm that needs money just pay a £2m marketing fee on top to have professionals ramp your stock? #MET1”

@TheLongerGame: “And then said professional rampers get their warrants away! It’s just another scam stock thats really worth a fraction of its 37m cap but that wont stop folk buying or seeing the light!”