Member Info for Stuartrm

You are correct that IEM increased in price but this is because SABA effectively took the trust over, which caused many (including me) to sell up and get out as recommended by the board. I effectively got my money back but I lost the prospect of any future growth. Now, one can debate how realistic those prospects were but one can be sure of one thing: SABA thought that they would profit from the exercise and they didn’t care whom they trampled under foot.

Having been bitten by SABA recently in relation to IEM, I asked AI whether SABA is poised to take over Molten Ventures. Here is the answer, with the usual caveats about AI making mistakes etc:

"Short answer: No—on current information Saba is not poised to take over Molten Ventures. It’s a serious activist position, not a near‑term control bid.

Where things actually stand

Stake size: Saba is at roughly 11% of voting rights in Molten Ventures, mostly via cash‑settled total return swaps, with a small direct shareholding.

Takeover threshold: Under UK takeover rules, a mandatory offer is normally triggered at 30% of voting rights—Saba is well below that.

Economic vs legal control: Because most of Saba’s exposure is via derivatives, it has economic influence and voting exposure, but not outright ownership of a blocking or controlling stake.

What Saba is likely doing

Activist pressure: Saba has a track record of targeting discounted investment trusts and pushing for buybacks, asset sales, or structural changes to unlock value, not always full takeovers.

Signalling, not a stealth bid (yet): An 11% position is big enough to:

be a loud voice in shareholder discussions,

influence strategy and capital allocation,

potentially rally other investors around value‑unlock ideas.

But it’s nowhere near a level where you’d say a takeover is “poised” or inevitable.

What would need to change for a real takeover risk

You’d start worrying about an actual bid if you saw:

Rapid moves toward 20–30%+ disclosed voting rights.

Formal public agitation for board changes, strategic review, or a sale of the company.

Consortium rumours (Saba plus a strategic buyer or PE fund) and press leaks about a possible offer.

Right now, the more realistic framing is:

Saba is an assertive activist with ~11% influence, not a would‑be acquirer on the brink of a takeover."

Make of it what you will but I have my own concerns about SABA and their ability to force out other holders at a discount to NAV, to their own advantage.

I like your optimism, Steph, but I question your reference to geopolitical risks reducing (unless I misunderstood you here). President Trump is still in the White House and being as characteristically unpredictable as ever; Benjamin Netanyahu continues to be a loose cannon, the Iranian regime and Presidents Xi and Kim have become emboldened; President Putin is becoming desperate over Ukraine; parties like AfD and Reform are on the rise; and the jury is out over whether we are in, or about to enter, an AI bubble. In these circumstances, I struggle to see calmer waters ahead.

Presumably the funding is to keep the company afloat. Without it, and no realistic prospect of an IPO of any of the holdings soon, cash would run out in about September this year.

My research this morning indicates that the additional cash raised by the placements (£3.6m net) should buy time until around mid 2027. That is the good news. The bad is that the opening share price today will be around 15.47p, based purely on the ratio of shares valued at 17p yesterday and the new 12p shares. Hopefully the additional funding will improve investor confidence and the deep discount in the share price to NAV will reduce. If so, the share price will not drop as far and it might even increase a little. We will see at 8am. Good luck, all.

Mr Thompson has left the IC. I echo some of the comments made below about his recommendations. There have been many more poor (t put it politely) tips than those mentioned by these other contributors.

Trump is making it harder for Molten Ventures to come up trumps.

If it were not for bad news, there would be no news at all.

You are right, Steph. I wonder why that might be!

I suggest that the answer to Spinal_Tap’s question is too few sales and the growth rate in sales is too slow, coupled with high sales department costs.

To say there is nothing about increased revenue and underlying growth is not strictly true: the RNS included the following:

"The Group ended the year with continued momentum and remains focused on executing against its strategic priorities and continued growth across both divisions"

I accept, however, that the projection, if it could be called that, is vague at best and unquantified.

The IC this weekend lists Mpac as a hold.

Although my comment of 20 April was effectively answered by the RNS of 21 April, I promised to publish any reply I received. Here, therefore, is the response I received yesterday (minus a restatement of the Saba letter, which is in the said RNS):

“ Your query has been passed to us by Impax, we are financial adviser to IEM.

While you are correct about IEM’s announcement of 07:00 on 20 April, Saba made its own announcement the following morning stating that it anticipated holding 29.9% of the Company’s shares after the tender offer concludes. The Company provided an update in light of this, as set out in full just below.

Thus the likelihood is that at the conclusion of the tender offer Saba will have a large voting position and significant influence over the Company's strategy, objectives, and mandate. I think the outcome is therefore aligned to your interpretation of the risks the Company faced when it proposed the exit tender offer and why you chose to tender your shares. For completeness, however, it is not possible to withdraw shares once tendered.”

RNS today:

“Saba sends Letter to Impax Environmental Markets PLC's Board of Directors Regarding its Intention to Requisition a General Meeting to Replace the Board and Deliver Long-Term Value to Shareholders

Saba Capital Management, L.P. (together with certain of its affiliates, "Saba"), the largest shareholder of Impax Environmental Markets PLC (IEM:LSE) (the "Company"), today released a letter sent yesterday to the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") regarding its intention to requisition a general meeting of the Company to provide shareholders the opportunity to vote to remove the entire incumbent Board and, in its place, appoint a new board composed solely of qualified, independent directors who are committed to delivering long-term value for all shareholders.”

The RNS this morning states that SABA are effectively selling up and moving on. This raises the possibility that the trust could continue without them if the rest of us reverse our tender requests, more or less taking IEM back (albeit it would be smaller) to where it was before SABA become involved. I have e-mailed Impax to see if they are exploring this option. I would also be interested in any other views. If I get a reply, I will let you know what Impax says.

AI comments on Saba’s motives. Make of them what you will but they have just caused the effective end of IEM.

“Saba Capital Management, the activist hedge fund led by Boaz Weinstein, has significantly increased its position in the UK venture capital firm Molten Ventures (GROW), signaling a likely push for structural changes to unlock shareholder value.

As of April 2026, Saba's stake has grown to approximately 11.1%. While Saba has not issued a formal list of demands, its "playbook" and recent activity suggest several clear intentions:

1. Narrowing the "Value Gap"

The primary driver for Saba's entry was Molten Ventures’ massive share price discount to its net asset value (NAV).

The Opportunity: When Saba first disclosed its 5% stake in late 2025, Molten was trading at a 44.1% discount.

The Goal: Saba typically targets trusts where the market price is significantly lower than the value of the underlying assets (like Molten's stakes in Revolut and Ledger). Its intention is to force the board to take actions that close this gap.

2. Pushing for Asset Realisations & Buybacks

In line with its strategy at other firms like Pantheon International, Saba is likely pressuring Molten's management.

Sell Assets: "Nudge" management to sell off high-value holdings in its portfolio to prove the NAV is accurate.

Return Cash: Use the proceeds from those sales to fund share buybacks or special dividends, which creates immediate demand for the shares and reduces the discount.

3. Potential for Radical Restructuring

Saba has a history of aggressive tactics if boards do not comply with its suggestions:

Board Overhauls: In other trusts like Baillie Gifford US Growth, Saba has attempted to remove board members to gain more control.

Liquidity Events: Saba often pushes for tender offers (where the company buys back shares at a price close to NAV) or even a managed wind-down of the fund if the discount refuses to budge.

4. Inclusion in Saba’s New Active ETF

Saba recently launched an active ETF specifically designed to hold stakes in undervalued UK investment trusts. Molten Ventures is a key component of this fund, suggesting Saba intends to hold the position as a long-term "activist project" rather than a quick trade.”

According to today’s IC

“[Molten Ventures’] discount is still way too wide – it is perhaps unsurprising that Saba has taken a stake,” says Carthew (head of QuotedData).

I had missed that SABA are invested. Not good news, based on my experience with IEM.

I hope you are right about 75% voting for acceptance being a fantasy but I would not count my chickens just yet. I asked AI about the current situation and here is the response I got:

"As of 31 March 2026, there has been a flurry of regulatory filings as institutional players adjust their positions ahead of the 15 April vote. While few have issued explicit "Yes/No" manifestos, their trading activity reveals a significant shift toward event-driven investors (arbitrageurs).

Recent Shareholder Activity

Samson Rock Capital: Increased its position to 5.15% on 24 March 2026, primarily through equity swaps.

Significance: Samson Rock is an "event-driven" manager that typically buys into merger situations to capture the spread. They generally vote for deals to ensure completion.

JPMorgan Chase: Disclosed a new holding of 5.11% on 24 March 2026.

Significance: This represents a significant new "block" of votes. While their intention isn't public, such large entries post-announcement often suggest a play on the deal's success or a hedge.

Canaccord Genuity: Halved its stake from ~9.8% to 4.9% in mid-March.

Significance: By selling down before the vote, they have effectively "voted with their feet," choosing to take the market price now rather than waiting for the scheme's outcome.

Hawksmoor Investment Management: Aggressively reduced its stake from 6.2% to just 0.42% on 24 March 2026.

Significance: This is a near-total exit, removing another potential "No" vote from the register but also reducing the pool of long-term supporters.

Trium Capital: Holds a 3.09% stake through equity swaps as of 24 March 2026.

Significance: Like Samson Rock, Trium often engages in merger arbitrage.

Association of Investment Companies

Association of Investment Companies

The "No" Vote Landscape

Asset Value Investors (AVI): Previously the most vocal critic, they have sold their entire stake.

While this removes a guaranteed "No" vote, it also means their shares are now likely in the hands of arbitrageurs who are incentivised to vote "Yes" to lock in the 111p payout.

Retail Sentiment: Smaller investors on platforms like Investors' Chronicle continue to voice opposition to the 30% NAV discount, but they lack the concentrated voting power of the institutions listed above.

Summary of Voting Power

The register is currently shifting from long-term trusts (who might hold out for NAV) to arbitrage funds (who want the deal to close). This transition usually increases the mathematical probability of the 75% approval threshold being met, despite the low "irrevocable" commitments currently on file."

While I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this assessment, it does have the ring of truth about it. As such, I would be reluctant to call which way the vote will go.

Recent news reports have referred to Helium shortages as a result of the closure of the Strait of Hurmuz. Traditionally, scanners have used helium so the references in an earlier post to the body scanner market being about to explode led me to look at the degree to which Kromek might be exposed to the closure. Here is the AI generated result I obtained, in case it is of interest to others who might be similarly unsure of the details of the technology involved.

"Kromek-based scanners generally do not use helium. Unlike many traditional radiation detectors that rely on Helium-3 gas, Kromek's technology is built on Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CZT), a solid-state semiconductor.

Why Kromek Scanners Avoid Helium

Solid-State Detection: Kromek uses CZT crystals to convert radiation directly into electronic signals. This removes the need for the pressurized Helium-3 gas tubes common in older neutron detectors.

Room Temperature Operation: CZT-based scanners function at room temperature. This is a major distinction from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners, which require large amounts of liquid helium to cool superconducting magnets.

.

Portability: Because they don't require heavy gas tubes or cryogenic cooling systems, Kromek devices like the D3M Personal Radiation Detector can be handheld or wearable.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Helium Supply

While Kromek's technology is largely insulated from helium shortages, the Strait of Hormuz is currently a critical chokepoint for the global helium supply:

Global Supply Source: Qatar produces roughly one-third of the world's commercial helium as a by-product of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) production.

Current Disruption: Due to the ongoing conflict involving Iran (as of March 2026), the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively closed or restricted. This has trapped Qatari helium exports, which must pass through the strait to reach global markets.

Impact on Other Scanners: This supply crunch directly threatens MRI scanners and semiconductor manufacturing. Experts warn that without sufficient helium, these MRI machines could become "expensive paperweights".

Because Kromek's CZT scanners bypass the need for helium, they are considered a more resilient alternative to traditional systems during these types of geopolitical supply chain crises."

Remember, AI can make mistakes so do your own research, but it seems to me to make sense.

Good results, but I particularly like the following comment at the end of the RNS

"The outlook for 2026 is very encouraging .................."