Member Info for StarBright

Ok. I am going to have to (partially) correct myself. In the annual report, they did say: “ As previously announced, a special dividend of 3.0 pence per share is expected to be paid towards the end of the calendar year,

reflecting the monetisation of the Big Rock ITC. In light of this, no additional dividend will be declared in respect of the quarter ending 30 June 2025.”

I guess it depends upon your interpretation of “additional”. It would have been clearer had they said that “…no QUARTERLY dividend will be declared in respect of the quarter ending 30 June 2025.”.

But I guess clarity was not their goal.

So to be clear, the dividend that in previous years was receivable in October isn’t being paid. As far as I can see the company/fund has never drawn attention to this in any explicit way. Other than to say “..the first payment [of the revised 0.75p quarterly divi] expected in respect of the quarter ending 30 September 2025.

They revised the quarterly dividend payment down to 0.75p, but didn’t point out explicitly that they were going to skip a quarter. So during 2025 we have “quarterly” dividend payments, but not for every quarter.

Shameful.

Just received this from GSF’s IR people:

“ The dividend policy remains unchanged from what was laid out in the Company's Annual Report and Accounts. https://www.gsenergystoragefund.com/docs/librariesprovider22/archive/reports/annual-report-2025.pdf

As stated in the Annual Report, the Board intends to pay a quarterly dividend of 0.75 pence per share, with the first payment expected in respect of the quarter ending 30 September 2025. Previous years' declarations were made in the same release as the Company's interim results, which were released in December each year.

In addition to the dividend policy, the Board had also highlighted to the market that they intended to distribute two special dividends of 1.5 pence per share each - together totalling 3 pence per share. The first of these special dividends was announced this morning. The Board has stated that they expect to declare the second and final special dividend by the end of the calendar year.“

Last December’s release said: “ The Company's Board of Directors has approved a dividend of 1.0 pence per share for the September end quarter. The ex-dividend date will be 24 December 2024, and the record date 27 December 2024. The dividend will be paid on or around 15 January 2025. ”

So, we have a definitive answer: The “first” 0.75p dividend (for the quarter to 30 September 2025) will be paid in January 2026.

Incompetence or deliberate mis-direction? Take your pick. Either way my patience is exhausted.

I’ve tried to grind through the INEXCUSABLE confusion GSF have created on dividends, using ChatGPT to help reference quotes from RNS etc. Here’s what I’ve assembled, together with a view going forward:

1. July 2025 Factsheet reference

The July 2025 factsheet states:

“Shareholders can expect a minimum target dividend of (3 × 0.75 pence per ordinary share) in addition to the 3.0p special dividend for the financial year …”

That is a pretty clear statement implying that, for FY25/26 (or “financial year” context), the three regular quarters at 0.75p are still part of the declared “minimum target dividend.”

2. Strategy / Capital Allocation Update (June 2025)

In the June 2025 RNS (“Strategy Update, Dividend, Unaudited NAV”), the Board says it will link dividend distributions with operational cash flow rather than maintain a fixed target.

That means “ordinary” might become more variable depending on cash, but they have not explicitly said “we are canceling the 0.75p ordinary.”

3. Dividend policy wording in factsheet

Also in that July factsheet, under “Dividend Policy,” the company says:

“From the second quarter of the current financial year (i.e., September-end 2025), the Board has indicated that it intends to target a minimum quarterly dividend of 0.75 pence per share. … This is in addition to the special dividend of 3.0p … the minimum expected dividend for the period ending 31 March 2026, is likely to be 5.25p (3.0p special + 3 × 0.75p).”

That is again reinforcing that the 0.75p “ordinary” is in their plan.

⸻

What is ambiguous / what raises concern

• The RNS declarations around October 2025 special dividends don’t explicitly restate the 0.75p ordinary commitment in the same sentence, so that part might be implicitly assumed. (nothing in the 02 October 2025 RNS reaffirms the ordinary 0.75p for the next quarter...)

• The shift to “linking dividends with cash flow” inherently weakens any firm guarantee: “target” and “minimum” are softer terms than “shall pay.”

• If for some reason cash flows underperform, they could choose to delay or reduce the ordinary component (though that would be a reputational risk).

⸻

My assessment:

Given the publicly declared factsheet and strategy documents, I think shareholders are justified in expecting that the 0.75p “ordinary” quarterly dividend will resume (or will be maintained) from the September-end 2025 quarter onwards, in addition to the two specials of 1.5p each (assuming those are paid as the board has guided). The factsheet’s “minimum target dividend” language is persuasive.

However, I’d be cautious: “target” and “intend” are not guarantees. They have given themselves room to adjust based on cash flows. So while I don’t think the ordinary 0.75p has been quietly dropped, I’d continue watching for the next RNS on the December quarter to see if it is explicitly declared

”… the Board will announce accelerated succession arrangements for the Chair of the Board, Patrick Cox, and the Chair of the Audit Committee, Caroline Banszky and confirm anticipated retirement dates for them, as well as for Max King and Tom Murley…”

Pressure has told. Good.

Interesting to see posters questioning why the company announced today’s lock-in, and whether the dates mean it was “late.” I think the more important takeaways are:

1. A major strategic partner is clearly at the table. The RNS makes it explicit: the lock-in was requested by a potential partner. That’s not the sort of thing that happens at an early, casual stage of talks. It suggests discussions are advanced enough that the partner wanted formal protection against register instability.

2. 34.9% of the register is now locked up. That’s Greymont Bay, Regatta HCRP, and Guava Minerals together. If they were treated as a concert party they’d be above the 30% threshold – which shows just how concentrated this register is. Whether or not “acting in concert” applies, the fact is a third of the stock is off the market for six months.

3. The dates (sort of) make sense if you read them correctly. The six-month period runs to 26 Feb 2026, but the documents were only just executed (hence the “Execution of Lock-in Agreements” headline). It looks like the partner wanted the restrictions back-dated, perhaps to cover their whole exclusivity period, not just from today. Nothing unusual in that.

4. Why announce now? Probably because either (a) the partner insisted on it being public to show their own board/investors they had nailed down shareholder stability, or (b) the Nomad/AIM Regulation advised it was price-sensitive and had to be disclosed. Either way, the effect is the same: a big block of stock is locked and can’t dribble into the market.

I think this is bullish. Lock-ins don’t get signed unless serious counterparties are in the room. The fact ZIOC has effectively put a third of the company under stand-still terms for six months implies meaningful corporate activity.

The valuation question for GGP isn’t about current/lastQ earnings, which are evidently strong. Rather it is about earnings durability. The “industry standard” that posters/investors like to reference are generally applied to earnings streams where there is typically 10 or more years visibility. In GGP’s case we have to consider:

1. Earnings from the inherited/purchased stockpile (these have been ahead of expectations)

2. Earnings from mining extensions at Telfer (promising potential but as yet unconfirmed)

3. Earnings from Havieron (massive potential but updated DFS needed together with associated DTM)

At this point, consideration of the applicable PE multiple should be viewed as a composite of the three. Investors can’t expect an industry standard multiple for the stockpile, because it won’t last a decade or more. Greater visibility on Telfer plans - particularly res/res and LOM updates - should lead quickly to a higher (eg closer to industry standard) multiple on the Telfer component. The DFS and subsequent DTM will unlock a higher multiple for the Hav component; remember also that the HAV component is arguably the majority of any NAV.

In the meantime, Quarterly production & earnings releases may help - but only modestly as they don’t apply to the larger part of the embedded value. Progress, particularly certified progress, on proving that Telfer’s life can be profitably extended will help more. And the DFS and subsequent DTM for Hav may have the largest impact of all.

Investors need to watch the forward-looking commentary here, not so much the quarterly earnings themselves. The forward-looking statements will drive price action, as we have seen recently.

EnergyPathways’ MESH project has been designated as “nationally significant” under Section 35.

Unlike conventional oil & gas projects, MESH isn’t just about producing more hydrocarbons. It’s structured around net-zero compliant gas use, with three critical features:

• Methane-pyrolysis hydrogen: Instead of burning gas into CO₂, a large share is converted into clean hydrogen plus a solid carbon co-product (graphite). That means no Scope-3 emissions and creates valuable inputs for batteries and advanced materials. See Alkemys TVL project.

• Decarbonised processing: Onshore compression and processing are electrified, and routine flaring/venting is eliminated – aligning with the UK’s climate targets.

• Industrial integration: MESH also delivers ammonia production and long-duration energy storage, supporting flexible, low-carbon power.

For Labour, this perhaps offers a way out of a difficult corner they’ve painted themselves into:

• No retreat from their “no new exploration” pledge – MESH uses existing infrastructure

• A credible pathway to domestic jobs, industrial supply chains and tax revenues, within a net-zero framework.

• Strategic resilience: reducing reliance on imported LNG, while building up UK capacity in hydrogen and clean fuels.

Miliband has made clear that Labour wants clean power by 2030 and net zero by 2050. MESH could be the model project that shows how domestic gas resources can be used responsibly, without undermining climate goals.

Net-zero compliant gas, hydrogen, jobs, and tax receipts – all from one integrated project. It’s exactly the sort of innovation Labour can champion to reconcile climate ambition with economic pragmatism.

What exactly has been approved?

The rampy posts here are frankly embarrassing. Not needed, give it a rest please….

For EPP investors, the news is as good as it could have been. No better outcome (from the s35 process) was possible today.

This is the best-case outcome from the s35 application.

The project is now a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, which will massively simplify approvals going forward. A huge vote of confidence.

Why does nobody on the (100x bigger?) long side of the book use these magic price-shaping algos to push the price in other direction?

Presumably @speedymeadie wrote the options and is the happy holder of the $20m premium…;>

Https://download.asic.gov.au/short-selling/RR20250919-001-SSDailyAggShortPos.pdf

Reported short positions for GGP jumped to 2.84% on 19/9, from 1.27% on 18/9

As I suggested they might: “A fourth possibility is that someone has borrowed a size block and sold them in the auction, opening a material short position. We should see the new short reported if so.”

So this is the source of some (c.11m) of the shares sold into the CSPA on inclusion day. Info on the identities of the shorter and the lender might be interesting.

The TR1 disclosure today that Airbus Defence & Space has built a 4.44% holding in Seraphim Space Investment Trust (SSIT) is a real vote of confidence. Airbus isn’t a financial investor by habit – they usually acquire or partner directly – so to see them take a meaningful stake in a listed trust is unusual and noteworthy. It looks like a strategic move to get visibility on emerging space tech, much of which overlaps with their defence business.

For SSIT shareholders, this has several positives:

• Validation – a tier-one industry player is saying the NAV is worth owning.

• Exit potential – Airbus could easily become a customer or acquirer of portfolio companies.

• Share register quality – a long-term, sticky shareholder improves sentiment.

The market has already noticed. SSIT’s discount to NAV has narrowed from an eye-watering ~-63% a year ago, to ~-46% at the March year-end, and now sits at around -31% (69p vs NAV of 100.8p). That’s still wide, but moving in the right direction. With Airbus on board, and the trust continuing to deliver exits above book, there’s a real chance the discount compresses further into the 20s.

Overall, Airbus’ involvement is a strong endorsement of SSIT’s portfolio and a clear signal that the fund sits at the heart of the global space ecosystem.

Interesting read-across here, apparently motivated by the Trump administration’s strategic desire to secure access to Lithium.: “Shares of Lithium Americas surged over 80% in after-hours trading Tuesday, climbing above $5.6 to levels not seen since March of 2024, following reports that the Trump administration is seeking to acquire up to a 10% stake in the company.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lithium-americas-soars-report-trump-205911837.html

A fourth possibility is that someone has borrowed a size block and sold them in the auction, opening a material short position. We should see the new short reported if so. That would certainly create a reaction here; @Element1 might become @Helium2, with the associated release of energy…;>

And of course the various possibilities discussed so far - and others (because there are many many more..!) are anything but mutually exclusive. Combinations are possible. Different actors with different objectives make a market.

@Element1, my earlier post proposed a third explanation where you had insisted there were only two… I am open to your second explanation - it’s perfectly possible that a substantial holder may have supplied some of the shares traded into the CSPA. Only Newmont or Wyloo held enough to have supplied the lot, and we have reasons to believe they are unlikely to have been selling. That leaves Tembo or Firetrail; either (or both!) may have sold a material block. We should find out via TR1/SHN shortly if so.

@Element1 says: “ Those, IMO, are the only two explanations.”

I’ll offer a third:

That Aus index replicating funds would want to buy GGP in size via the CSPA today has been widely known since the index changes were announced. Armed with this knowledge, various market participants (index arbs, ETF AP’s, clued-up HWNI’s, event-driven hedge-funds etc) will have bought GGP shares over the last few weeks. Their trade exit plan was to deliver these shares into the CSPA today at a price point above their acquisition cost.

Just before 7am UK time this morning the various indexers will have taken a (slightly) deep breath and placed “at market” orders for 37m shares into the auction. They will have watched happily as those orders were filled. There were enough willing suppliers of shares at or around the last tick to meet all of their demand. The various market participants supplying the shares were happy too - they exited their positions at or around the highest price seen in the last few weeks. Had there not been enough supply, the outcome could have been different - those supplying the shares could have demanded higher prices, which the indexers would have had to accept. But there - evidently - wasn’t such a shortage.

This is the market at work. This is why the index changes are announced in advance. No skulduggery or manipulation was necessary. The market doesn’t leave “free money” on the table. No-one should be particularly surprised, let alone dumbfounded, by the outcome.

There are a number of posters here who have quietly but repeatedly pointed out that the price dislocation so confidently forecast by the usual suspects was unlikely. That shares were likely already being bought to satisfy indexer demand. Whilst these posts were unpopular, they were more useful.