Member Info for TheTrotsky

Oak, £750m what?

MWil, A merger might reduce some of the PLC costs but would more likely generate a lot of fees for investment advisors. It's difficult to see what operating synergies an arbitrageur, like GSF, might generate from a merger (more batteries under management isn't going to help bolster margins between buying and selling wholesale electricity). GSF is essentially like an oil storage depot; it aims to buy low, store and then sell high. The bigger the differential between the buy and sell prices, and the more frequently it can repeat the greater the revenues it can earn. One suspects that the low gas prices in Texas in the summer affected both the sell price and th length of time that electricity needed to be stored before it could be sold. How's a merger going to solve that?

SABA are being opportunistic. They see value here and want it for themselves.

I do wonder if people are failing to see the wood for the trees here. GSF is, essentially, an arbitrageur. Its aim is to buy low, sell high, and rinse and repeat as often as possible. It doesn't necessarily need a high or low wholesale electricity price, e.g. its business model shouldn't be directly affected by HMG's moves to potential change the indexation of Renewable Obligation Certificates ("ROC") and/or Feed-in Tariffs ("FiT"), it just needs a margin.

Its margins, particularly in the UK and Texas, have been squeezed the last 12-18 months by project delays, extra capacity entering the market, low gas prices etc.but that doesn't mean that will always be the case. E.g. I would epxect to see less new capacity entering the market over the next 12-18 months if margins continue at their current levels (there's always a time lag on capital projects reacting to market conditions) and if US gas prices remain low, a lot of producers will either reduce output, stop new projects and/or go to the wall (US gas prices fell below the cost of production for most US producers this summer).

A fire sale of GSF assets in the current market wouldn't benefit shareholders and if SABA gets control they run GSF for their benefit, not ours.

Pip, They've indicated that they now expect the funds held in escrow to be released in early 2026 (they need to complete some paperwork with their lenders, which is not expected to be an issue) and the second special dividend to be declared and paid thereafter. Delays of this nature are never desirable but they do happen. The sale of large ITCs is not a straightforward matter; it may be straightforwad in principle but in practise there are legal issues on both sides that have to be addressed before a sale can be completed and the funds released, and delays are not unusual. Furthermore, the company's US lenders will want to ensure that the repayment of their loans are not jeopardised by the dividend payment (they could have insisted that the entire ITC proceeds were applied to repaying the loans first). Also, don't forget that the Trump administration put the whole process back 6-8 weeks in April/May; at the time there was some concern that they would retrospectively withdraw ITCs and lawyers were working overtime to sift through the new rules and regulations to ensure that there wasn't an issue.

As regard the ordinary dividends, an intention to pay is not, and never has been, a guarantee to pay. The company has made the decision to only pay covered dividends going forward (not to fund dividends out of additional debt). The operational result in H1 was disappointing but H2 should hopefully benefit from higher capacity, seasonal pricing and lower costs (including PLC costs from 01 October). I always saw the 3p per annum as a target, not a guarantee, with the scope to pay more if revenues permitted. Texas performed very badly in H1 because of pricing and weather factors that were beyond their ability to control and I'd suggest that Texas was the reason that they weren't able to pay a Q2 dividend of 0.75p.

They've now onboarded some of the Texas assets onto GSET and that should hopefully improve revenue returns, together with other functional changes in the Texas market; that said, there's only so much GSET can do (a, say, 25% marginal increase on a low base is still a low rate) and they need to see a general improvement in the Texas market.

The pricing in Texas has looked dysfunctional for the last few years and I don't think it's a situation that ERCOT can allow to persist, otherwise investment will start to rapidly drop off once existing construction projects are completed and we'll start to see consumer demand outstripping new supply again which will, if left unchecked, probably cause significant price spikes. This might be good for GSF in the short-term but will, in all likelihood, lead to yet another bust as new investment once again ramp up. The current boom- bust cycle in Texas is in nobody's long-term interest, least of all consumers.

I missed the first fifteen minutes but from what I did listen to, I think there are reasons to be optimistic albeit that I think regular dividend income is probably going to remain a bit patchy for the next 12-18 months.

Clearly there are issues, over which they have little or no control, in both the UK and US markets but they are working to maximise revenues, reduce costs (including PLC costs) and minimise downtime. They're also looking to cost effectively increase battery duration time in the UK to meet demand.

I though the GSET guy was pretty upbeat and quite pleased with what they've managed to achieve within the existing market framework both in the UK and, now, Texas. GSET, developed in-house, might actually be an asset they might be able to leverage over time (although there was no mention to that effect).

The directors were keen to point out their low leverage means that they aren't going to be forced sellers like some and, personally, I think that paying down the US debt using some of the ICT funds was the right move.

They also indicated that they expect to be able to access the funds to pay the second special dividend in early 2026 (there's some loan paperwork that needs to be completed but it's not expected to be a problem).

I don't think there's obfuscation; I think there are some very bizarre typos!

The next year end is 31 March 2026, so "... total earnings during H1 2025 " should, I believe, read "... total earnings during H1 2026 ...". Likewise, they talk about the augmentation of Stony and Ferrymuir being completed in Q3 FY26. According to this morning's Q&A session, the work in due to be completed by the end of September 2026 i.e. H2 FY27. I think somebody thinks the year end is, incorrectly, 31 December!

What are you talking about Krusty? They made it quite clear, when announcing the payment of the first 1.5p special dividend, that they wouldn't be paying a dividend for the first quarter. There's no double-talk. They've declared a dividend of 0.69p for the second quarter and now indicated that they expect to pay dividends for the third and fourth quarters too ("... Two further ordinary dividends are expected in respect of the current financial year ..."), in addition to the second 1.5p special dividend when the funds are released (one would hope that should occur before the end of March but it might lapse into H1 FY27).

There's not much they can do in Texas in the short-term, other than try to maximise pricing (GSET), minimise operating costs and/or shutting down/ceasing to supply when pricing is not economic. Selling off the Texas assets in the current market is unlikely to generate value. Longer term we'll have to see.

They can't control gas prices or the weather. ERCOT seems to be in a real mess and seems to be running the risk of having insufficient capacity to meet future load growth if they don't allow market participants to earn a commercial return. More capacity has come on line during the period but that might start to tail off rapidly if suppliers can't earn a commercial return. ERCOT is on a highwire. Driving down costs is good for consumers in the short-term but could prove to be detrimental in the long-term if investment in the supply network dries up. One could foresee ERCOT acting to try and stabilise prices so that they don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

One assumes that the current pricing in Texas has had a detrimental impact on NAV. So any improvement in pricing should help the NAV in the longer term.

I'm not picking om Imogen because she's female. I also own Aviva and happen to think that Amanda Blanc is one of, if not, the best UK CEOs.

I pick on Imogen because she serially fails to deliver and goes out of her way to hide how bad the performance has been since she started her tenure. I accept that the economic backdrop might not be the best for MC but Imogen refuses to address the problem and explain to shareholders why the performance is so woefully short of plan.

I refuse to invest any further funds because I've seen absolutely zero evidence of any improvement over the last 3 years (simply acquiring new revenue is not success in my books). This year's SM figures are a case in point. Imogen and her team have gone to town on the figures with big fanfair but, when you actually dissect them, there's nothing particularly spectacular about the figures, other than the £1.6m of new IVS contracts. These contracts were undoubtedly good business but they now need to be rinsing and repeating; they can't sit on their laurels.

The significant growth in SM revenues year on year is simply an accounting "mirage". The Sempre figures weren't included in the FY24 comparatives and account for a large part of the "sensational" 341% FY25 revenue growth. It would have been a lot more helpful to express the percentages on an adjusted basis, as if Sempre had been included the previous year, to assess how the business had actually performed since being acquired by OMG.

Likewise, the 38% organic growth, is simply the effect of the three new IVS contracts on relatively low FY24 comparatives. The growth is real but is an outlier (a similar size contract win in FY26 would only result in organic growth of less than 10%). I'm not poo-pooing the contract wins but I think the percentages are open to misinterpretation (lies, damned lies and statistics) and should not have been over emphasised as they have been by Imogen and her team who were desperate for any good news and vindication of their new strategy. The CFO indicated in the Q&A that origanic growth was likley to be a more prosaic 10% in FY26 (but with scope to improve). The SM revenues are currently at a level where £1m+ new contracts will skew the percentages quite significantly but the reality is that we need to see consistent organic SM growth of 25%+ from here on in if SM is going to start compensating for the failure of the MC strategy.

I don't trust Imogen to tell the story straight anymore (she's been ducking and weaving for the last three years) and want to see the figures in black and white before I consider investing further. I expect progress in H1 FY26. They've indicated that MC order intake has increased. I noww expect to see that materilaise in increased revenues but I'm not holding by breath with this mob ;-)

I think the issue regarding whether or not IMeasureU (New Zealand) Limited is a discontinued operation is just a question of financial reporting semantics.

They couldn't sell the business so are obliged to honour its existing contractual obligations but the business is, in all other senses of the word, discontinued.

It impacts some of the disclosures but doesn't affect the bottom line.

I think the least said about the current 5-year strategy the better as far as Imogen is concerned; they've missed their targets by a country mile. She'll just try to quietly sweep it under the carpet and hope nobody notices (it would be par for the course).

Just listened to the investor Q&A. Very disappointed with you Chelsea. You didn't ask Imogen why the collapse of MC business pre-dated Trump's election and why the business is continuing to shrink year-on-year despite having cut margins to increase sales (part of the 5-year plan).

Interestingly they currently expect organic growth in the SM business of (at least) 10% in FY26 (more or less back to pre-aquisition growth rates) and their explanation of the large increase in FY25 was lamentable (just how the math works or something to that effect). No mention of the fact that IVS was the only business onboarded in FY24 and that the new £1.6m IVS contracts in FY25 were always going to skew relatively low comparatives. What they need to do now is to build on those contracts and win more. Rinse and repeat is the name of the game.

A lot of waffle about capital allocation when in fact it should be quite quite simple. They have £37.5m of net cash at the end of FY25, down c£30m in the last three yeras, and continue to eye potential bolt-on SM acquisitions. If they're not going to pay a special dividend (even I would say that it's too late for that), they should stop any further share buy backs and concentrate on running the businesses, rather than financial engineering.

Definitely want to see positive growth in the MC business in H1 FY26, given the increased order intake, and continued positive growth into H2 FY26 and Q5 FY26 (they are propoing to extend the financial period end from 30 September to 31 December going forward).

Their largest shareholder just wants them to sell more of their products in preference to other, cheaper suppliers. They think that, because they own c30% of the shares, their tiles should constitute at least 30% of Topps' sales; creaming profits away from other shareholders in the process!

The acquisition of Fired Earth might actually benefit them because it might actually provide a conduit for sales of their more expensive tiles.

Sparks21 there is one cardinal rule that all companies should follow. Never, ever borrow money to buy back shares, it's a recipe for disaster. In extremis, you can always cut your dividend but once you've borrowed an additional £100m you are obliged to pay it back regardless. B&M already has a large outstanding debt. When you're struggling, you batten down the hatches, manage your costs and pay down your debt in priority to shareholder returns; you don't roll the dice on financial engineering.

StuPot, The current market capitalisation is currently c£121m. SWC currently has 2,664 BTC (now worth about £180m at the latest BTC price) and would raise a further c£2m if all c96m of the pre-IPO warrants were exercised at 2.5p. There are currently c300m shares already in issue.

So, if you divide c£182m (c£180m plus c£2m) by c396m (c300m plus c96m) shares that works out at c46p per share.

Where on earth do you get a MCAP, at 45p, of c£154m FULLY diluted? You seem to think that there will only be c342m of shares in issue following the exercise of the pre-IPO warrants.

Interesting podcast. I think the point that Peter Spiller was trying to make is that investment trusts normally hold investments with a view to a resale at some point in the future. E.g. a property trust might acquire a property, collect rents whilst it trys to add value, and then look to sell and recyle the proceeds. NESF and its ilk are instead, essentially, operating companies. They may look to sell some non-core assets but the majority of the assets are intended to be held to generate long term income. NESF and its ilk are therefore generally valued on a discounted cash flow (DCF) basis and there are a number of factors that can affect their NAV from one period to the next (changes to the discount rates, changes to the production volumes, changes to expected long-term market prices etc. etc.). It's not an invalid measure but it's complex and requires forecasters to use an abundance of caution about fuure assumptions.

Clearly HMG is doing its best to undermine confidence in the sector at a time when renewable energy is supposed to be the cornerstone of Britain's future energy policy. Even Peter Spiller made refererence to HMG's rather contradictory approach being "not linked up thinking". Plus, we probably shouldn't totally ignore the elephant in the room; namely that Reform intends to rip up the current energy policy if it gets into power (total mayhem will likely ensue because we can't simply switch off the turbines/solar panels and switch back on all the coal, oil and gas-powered stations that we've shut down).

Personally, I'm hoping that HMG will do a volte face in the short term and listen to what the market is telling them; the supposed potential saving of £3 per household by 2030 is chicken feed and won't make any real dent in household expenditure. I'll worry about Reform later.

How do you arrive at 15%? Based on the current BTC price their 2,664 BTC are currently worth c£178m. There are c300m shares currently in issue and c96m pre-IPO warrants exercisable at 2.5p from April 2026 onwards (which would generate c£2.4m). Under normal circumstances one would currently expect the remaining warrants exercisable at £1.50 to be allowed to lapse, unless the share price improves above £1.50. How much cash do they still have? The recent subscriptions have raised virtually nada and most, if not all, of the money raised from previous subscriptions has now been invested into BTC.

Assuming that they have little surplus cash remaining and, allowing for the £2.4m proceeds that would be raised from the exercise of the pre-IPO warrants, the diluted share price would currently be c45p.

Makes a change to Derampy McDerampface ;-)

You are correct to suggest that historically Topps has been relatively weak, if not non-existant, in the new house build market but both CTD and Parkside are now starting to address that market sector. We're making some inroads.

Fired Earth looks an interesting "dabble". Hopefully it will, at least, wash its face and deny another rival the opportunity. However, from the little I understand of the Fired Earth business, it seems to have primarly catered to wealthy, high end customers from stores within the M25. I'm not sure that those customers will transfer to online only (they'll probably still want to be pampered in-store at high end establishments) but the brand might appeal to upper, middle class buyers looking for something distinctively different and willing to pay a premium.

I'm not sure that they will drop the forthcoming interim dividend to 1p, as you suggest. Doesn't fit with the narrative of rebasing the dividend and resuming a progressive dividend policy.

I think the rebasing has been affected by the final dividend cut and that they will now be looking to advance the annual dividend from 7.05p going forward, provided the revised business strategy starts to find traction.

The current dividend yield may be appealing at the current share price but if, as a lot of us longer term holders hope, the share price starts to recover north of £1 from here on in then the dividend yield will start to look less attractive, particularly if they cut the forthcoming interim dividend as you suggest. I think the interim dividend will now remain anchored at 2.5p whilst they look to rebuild the final dividend as, and when, the results start to improve.

Make yourself useful for once, attend the results presentation at 4pm (I can't because I've got another appointment) and ask our fearless leader what happended to the previous 3-year plan, why MC is going down the pan and why we never ever actually know what the BoD's expectations are (and why we're only ever told that whatever happens is what they've always foreseen - how presient). I'll listen to the recording later with intrest and listen out for you brown nosing it with Imogen ;-)

As I thought, just cotton wool between those ears ... just a cheerleader with nae clue

What the market wants to see is positive momentum on the new business plan and, in that context, I think the market would consider a cut in the dividend as being a prudent measure until the results start to improve.