Member Info for TheTrotsky

C45, The Texas assets are intended to make money when there is high, sustained peak demand i.e. they're entirely reliant on the vagaries of the weather. Mild summers and winters do not favour the Texas assets. I suspect that the lower rate in August is indicative of a cooler summer (again).

A24, FY25 UK revenues actually increased YoY (even allowing for increased operational capacity) whilst Irish revenues decreased YoY (ancillary services took a hammering, particularly in Northern Ireland). I also think that your figures are out of date; they take no account of the increase in operational capacity since the end of FY25. They've indicated that (average) operational capacity is expected to increase from c421MW to c600MW during FY26 and 700MW thereafter. Interestingly the c66% increase in MW operational capacity will also see a c135% increase in MWh operational capacity (this implies that the newer capacity coming on line has an increased power duration time than older assets).

ToD, the half year is September not December. The figure you are quoting for December 2024 is actually the annualised figure (3 months FY24 and 9 months FY25). Quite why they are producing such annualised figures is another question; certainly doesn't aid comparison.

The closing occupancy rate has fallen because the increase in CLA (5.9%) has outpaced the increase in current demand (4.5%). Predicting demand ahead of time is not an exact science and this is not unusal (it can take several years to open a new site and a lot can change in that timeframe).

All in all, I'm not too worried. Closing occupancy levels are rising and, if they continue to lag CLA, SAFE can always delay the pipeline of future site openings if necessary (they can build out their land bank at a slower rate).

The only evidence for this purported takeover offer that I can find is this thread (Google AI seems to now be quoting you verbatim).

It's not even being discussed over on ADVFN. Where are you getting this information?

Given that you've only ever made three posts and all of them have been on this thread yesterday, I am now a bit dubious.

Article from Monday's FT: https://www.ft.com/content/478ea5bc-ea18-44f7-9da1-602ebe283fca

Not sure that the article articulates the potential problem particularly well, i.e. what justification, if any, for BTCs to trade at a significant premium to their underlying assets, and I don't think the suggestion that BTCs could be something akin to Ponzi schemes is generally warranted, provided the BTCs have in fact bought the btc they purport to have purchased and are the registered owners of said btc.

Essentially company law doesn't permit GDR to issue new ordinary shares at a price lower than than their nominal value and you can't have the same class of shares with different nominal values (they could feasibly issue a new class of shares with a different nominal value but they'd have to be separately listed). So, unless subscribers were willing to acquire a new issue of shares at a price at, or above, their nominal value (and, by extension, the market price) GDR has no other option but to replace its existing shares with new shares with a lower nomial value before it can do a fundraise i.e. 1 new ordinary share of nominal value 0.015p plus 99 new deferred shares of nominal value 0.015p for every existing share of nominal value 1.5p.

By issuing essentially worthless deferred shares (they will not be listed, can't be traded and may only have some very nominal value in the event of a winding up), GDR is able maintain the same number of existing ordinary shares in issue and, in effect, the value of one old share before the reorganisation will equate to the value of one new share after the reorganisation, albeit that the nominal value of the new sares will be 1/100th the nominal value of the old shares.

However, shareholders should bear in mind that any subsequent fundraise will likely be at a discount to the current market price because of the parlous state of the company's finances and, depending on the amount to be raised (one would imagine that they'd be looking to raise at least £1m net of costs), it's likely that the existing shareholders will be significantly diluted but probably better that than administration.

2025 sales benefited from a one-off retro-fit undertaken by SpaceX i.e. 2025 sales were boosted by one-off revenues such that 2025 sales got ahead of normal trend.

The small decline in forecast 2026 sales (back to normal trend) will affect EBIT but there are also other considerations. FTC was recruiting throughout 2025 to meet expected future demand and will bear the full cost of that additional headcount cost in 2026 (unlike 2025). Likewise, there will be a similar impact from increased R&D spend.

According to Google's AI overview, that US offer was in August 2023 when the share price c850p. Just over 15 months earlier the share price had been c1400p; so it's understandable why the BoD might have considered that a lowball offer at the time.

That's not the impression I got from Faes when I listened to the investor presentation Q&A following the interim results. He was very non-commital.

An analyst asked why they hadn't cut the interim dividend, given the travails and the need for ongoing investment, and he talked about investor expectation but when asked about the final dividend he gave the impression that we'll have to wait and see.

My distinct impression at the time was that he was inclined to cut the dividend if he could get investor support for his plans and show that there was now a clear pathway to rebuilding sales and profits. At the interims it was too soon to show whether or not his action plan was actually delivering (it needed more time).

Nm

Nm

Nm

Nm

Seems to have been tipped in Investor's Chronicle this morning too with a target price of 25p:

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/0bd93be8-bce8-40fe-86aa-537ec345da88

The "buyback momentum". Do you mean the desperate struggle to keep the share price above water?

GCP is not the only investment trust that has been buying buying back its own shares to no apparent avail over the last 1-2 years (in an apparent attempt to placate overseas investors); the discounts still refuse to narrow.

You have to question whether they'd be better off paying special dividends; UK investors would at least prefer that on the whole.

Why terminal? Although there is clearly some disagreement about valuation, it's hard dispute that SWC has some value, at least whilst BTC continues to be regarded as an alternative store of wealth (not a concept I agree with personally but the markets say otherwise).

That sounds like sour grapes.

The shareholders have spoken and voted in favour of the BoD albeit that c37% of shareholders couldn't be bothered to register their vote.

It wasn't an overwhelming endorsement of the BoD and the BoD should be on warning, if they weren't before, that shareholders now expect them to turn this ship around. GSF is somewhat a hostage to location (they can't simply move their battery storage units to another, more desirable, location and have to work with what they've got). We are where we are. With the benefit of perfect hindsight GSF may have made different investment decisions 4-5 years ago e.g. investing in loneer-term storage (albeit that the cost would have been much higher then than now) but it has to wokr with what it's got. Not all of the delays in the last 1-2 years can be blamed on the BoD (here in the UK, they, like every other operator, is a hostage to the National Grid) but now all of the storage sites are fully operational the have to maximise returns as best as the local markets permit.

"... we get a great div and this holding is all about divs ..."

Tell that to the CEO ;-)

He seems to be more interested in funding share buy backs and allowing the dividend increase rate to drop below RPI.

Can't comment on the Metro Centre but the retail stores were always expected to take 2-3 years to reach breakeven. The main short term benefit was always expected to be increased online activity and that was born out by the company's initial activity monitoring. Whether that has since changed I can't comment but the last results were pleasing, in the sense that they'd reversed the previous downward trened. The next set of results will be the real tester i.e. whether customers discount resistance has in fact been broken. They theorised that customers initially held out in expectation that the discount model would return but that they would eventually return (need would trump price). However, one set of relatively positive results does not prove that the tide has yet turned.

Ça dépend. Most, if not all, of M&G's loans to Thames Water probably rank as senior debt secured on Thames Water's assets i.e. in the event of Thames going into administration/insolvency its debts would rank ahead of other debts owed by Thames Water (the ordinary shareholders would rank bottom in the order of any payout). There's no doubt that Thames Water has valuable assets, so its feasible that M&G's exposure may be less than one might otherwise assume. That said there's always the possibility that debt might be converted to shares in the event of a refinancing but, in that event, existing shareholders would likely be completely wiped out.

Not sure how much M&G itslef is owed by Thames Water; I believe the syndicated of lenders, including M&G, is currently owed c£11.5bn.