Member Info for StarBright

“… at the first opportunity - you’d secure 100% of Havieron and Telfer? I expect this is most probably done or close. As it’s been in his sights from the beginning.

Then - what a week after securing 100% drop a whopping SLOS DFS and whip up the market with a dripping roast of a 6mt DFS.

Next - Get GDX on board and get major fund managers on board.

Then, within 12 months, do a $1bn raise on the ASX…”

Two questions from me:

1. How will the 70% + Telfer + 100% of the remaining costs to production be paid for, 12 months BEFORE doing the $1bn raise on the ASX?

2. If a 6mt DFS can be released just a week after acquiring the 70% (to whip up the market and drive an immediate re-pricing of the 100%) why would NEM not do that now ahead of selling it?

Thanks for that. Interesting to see Stiffel add their voice to those calling for a change in dividend policy. The current model - where dividends are determined as a % of “NAV” (quotation marks are deliberate…) - makes very little sense for shareholders. I would like the GSF board to feel pressure from investors over this. And subsequent pressure to deliver operational cashflow such that dividends are properly covered. At the moment they are too focussed on the “NAV”, I believe principally because that is the managers eye view as it drives the managers compensation. It’s time for a change to a methodology that is more focussed on returns for shareholders.

I view the big picture here as quite simple. The current dividend yield - still close to 9% - won’t be sustained. Either the divi will be cut (significantly less likely after the results today) or the share price will rise. I expect the latter so am happy to hold, and to add on any weakness.

Now to waste a couple of hours trying to understand the results including “Heritage”. How/why they are permitted to indulge this particular fantasy is beyond me…

Https://www.current-news.co.uk/battery-storage-unit-dispatch-rate-rises-by-47/

"Energy consultant Modo Energy has released data confirming a 47% increase in weekly battery storage dispatched volume compared to eight weeks prior.

In January 2024, National Grid ESO (ESO) relaunched bulk dispatch for battery energy storage units in the Balancing Mechanism (BM) following its closure in December 2023 due to technical issues.

The bulk dispatch functionality allows for more battery instructions to be issued simultaneously.

According to ESO data, approximately half of the battery unit dispatch volume is now being instructed through the Open Balancing Platform (OBP).

The impact of this re-introduction was felt across the battery storage marketplace, both in the increase of weekly dispatches and a newfound lack of correlation between unit size and dispatch rate."

A classic example of market irrationality. If you thought JD might make a bid for SDRY because the market cap had collapsed to a “cheap as chips” level, then your investment rationale is entirely unchanged by the news regarding Ted Baker. If anything the speculative case is stronger now because you have a pricing dip to lean into.

I am tempted to add below 25p.

@Rock8 is most likely correct. This will have been BR cap-weighted funds mechanistically reflecting the index deletion. Usually they will place trades into the closing auction in order to get the last price of the day, because replicating the daily index movement is their main concern rather than achieving the best price for their investors. One of the dirty secrets of the index fund world, where “tracking error” is deemed to be more important than investor returns…

An (further) extension would have to be agreed by the Panel, who generally take a dim view. Not impossible though, will depend on circumstances etc.

The code requires the bidder to announce a fully financed binding offer within 28 days or announce it will not be making an offer in which event it is subject to a 6 month standstill (although can make a single approach to the target to see if the target is receptive to an offer after 3 months have elapsed).

@Sm66’s understanding of, and comments on the premise of minimum consideration are mistaken. For the sake of clarity:

- there are NO circumstances under which JD might be required to offer at the highest price paid by anyone else

- the circumstances in which he may be required to make an offer at the highest price HE has paid are very narrowly defined, easy to avoid and unlikely to occur as a result

Shareholders and other interested parties should work on the basis that JD and his advisers will look to manage the process to ensure that he won’t have to make a mandatory offer; and if he chooses to make a voluntary offer it will not be subject to minimum consideration.

He’s hardly going to buy shares with his own money when he can get the company (more accurately its shareholders) to give them to him for free via the ruse of calling it “compensation”. In his mind he’ll view this only as fair recompense for his efforts…

This forum is a slightly extreme version of the LSE ‘boards in general. Some frequent posters with little/no understanding of market structures and dynamics trying to sound knowledgeable. Examples here this week include calls for the Nomad (it’s a main segment listing so no Nomads) to intervene, endless drivel about after-market trades, the balance of buys and sells evidencing “market manipulation” etc etc etc. These posters are operating from the dangerous portion of the Dunning-Kruger curve - that is to say they are unconsciously incompetent, they don’t know how much they don’t know.

In amidst the noise some useful snippets of information can be found. It is what it is, I’m afraid…

Earl - here’s a free gift for you, ZIOC. Big announcement(s) due by the end of q1, so a couple of weeks away. Still time to join in. Thank me later…

@notrex - for clarity, once the oversubscription was revealed there was no after-the-fact “administrative process” through which AVCT could have accepted the surplus. The only way they could have taken more than they did would have been if they’d gone down the prospectus-based route in the first instance. They hadn’t, so they could only take what they did.

AVCT has perhaps not been well served by Stiffel, who are paid to advise the board on capital raising etc. I agree - albeit with hindsight - that they could evidently have raised more than they did had they gone for a prospectus-based raise. Either Stiffel told them they wouldn’t get it away, or the cost and hassle of doing a prospectus (a non-trivial task with many verifications/attestations etc require) was too much for them to contemplate. Evidently they didn’t think they’d need the funds, so perhaps there was a misread of the pathway to commercialisation. That would definitely be a strike against AS and the board if true. We’ll never know though.

AVCT didn’t turn down extra capital from the 95p raise. They took the maximum amount they were permitted to by regulation for a raise conducted without a prospectus*.

To say that the 95p offering was oversubscribed is 100% accurate. To extend this to “Avacta displayed its confidence by turning down the extra funds” is just wishful thinking.

This straightforward and uncontroversial point was made here fairly frequently by posters with capital markets experience - not just by me. But the notion “Avacta turned down capital” has persisted, perhaps due to the alacrity of AVCTs resident rampers - for whom it quickly became an article of faith alongside “It works”, “no phase 3”, “no placing” etc etc - and their attendant guards here who prefer to attack every post or poster not viewed as compliant with the “golden thread” of the accepted narrative. The net result of which is that informed posters with relevant experience stop posting, because adult discussion isn’t possible. An object lesson in echo chambers.

*If you’re interested in the regulatory background to this, see https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ck0a76zitcqq70b59oyfhjzpi/110718-prospectus-regulation-increase-in-exempt-offers-threshold-to-8-million

SDRY has a main market listing.

This means there is no Nomad.

Only AIM segment companies have Nomads.

What did I say yesterday regarding new visitors? Like night follows day….

You’ve got to laugh.

Interesting. Major shareholder(s) evidently saying no to BoD resolutions that would free them up for issuance to fund pet projects. Good.

Perhaps we’ll get a visit from the Earl? Or Degsy and his crew?

Agreed!

Perhaps the other area where some clarity would be helpful is on the usage of BESS facilities by the UK Grid. I haven’t been able to get a very clear answer on exactly what has stopped, why it has stopped and when/whether it will be resumed. GSF is content to make a positive about revenue diversification, but the truth is that this is making the best of a difficult situation that has been forced upon them (& other UK storage providers). I’d be happy to see UK sourced revenues recovering! If anyone has clearer insight into the what/why/when questions, I’d be really interested to hear it.

Below 70p I continue to view this as a highly attractive proposition in a diversified yield portfolio. Rathbones selling is usually the best of buy indicators btw..!