Member Info for TheTrotsky

More pertintently, how many shares do you own? Us lesser mortals aren't worth the effort ;-)

Well it has now, thanks to the Orange TACO!

Is RM a long-term investor? All we know is that until 30 April this year, any interest RM had in GSF was less than 3% and why should a company be engaging constructively with an individual shareholder who controls 3% or less (or even 5% for that matter)? RM's interest does not warrant it being given "special treatment" and certainly doesn't warrant it being given two seats on the Board. If RM owned (say) 20% then perhaps its interest might warrant "special treatment". RM is nothing more than an asset stripper in for a quick buck.

RM are simply opportunists. Anybody who thinks that they are acting in the interests of long-term investors needs to have their head read.

As for the BoD only now reacting, I suggest that people re-read the RNS issued by GSF 6-12 months ago. They were already mooting the idea of selling some or all of their pre-construction assets before RM even arrived on the scene.

FY25 was a bad year. Operational delays energising the new assets under construction were, I believe, largely out of GSF's control e.g. in the UK, National Grid has been habitually slow in connecting new battery storage sites to the grid (something that one might have reasonably expected them to sort out long before now). Likewise the failure of new equipment and delays getting replacements has not helped. Plus the pricing issues and the impact of the new Trump administration. The latter should not be ignored; I reckon the uncertainty caused probably delayed the sales of the tax credits by 3-6 months. None of this could have been foreseen 7 years ago when GSF put together it's original forecasts.

Personally I think better times are ahead now that all of the new sites are fully operational.

Apologies, just noticed a typo. My post should have read ".. in the offing ..." rather than "... in the office ..." 🙄.

I should also have added that the current price spread isn't helping (it's indicative of price weakness and few if any large institutional buyers at the moment). Historically, late May to early September has always been a light market at best (because the City movers and shakers tend to go off for an extended summer break). Let's see what happens after St. Ledgers day!

I wasn't really that surprised with the share price response to yesterday's results. You hope for a better reaction but on truth the results didn't really contain any new information; the FY25 results were in line with prior announcements and there wasn't anything particularly new on the FY26 outlook. Current forecasts are predicting a fall in EBITDA and profits in FY26 (reflecting an expected drop off in SpaceX revenues now that the retrofit is more or less complete

What we now need is new contracts to top up expected FY26 revenues (the recent defence contract will help). A contract with, say, with Jeff Bezos's space venture would be really good (don't know whether that is even in the office) or announcement that SpaceX is now going to put our kit in their satellites (I don't believe we've yet made any deliveries on that contract; testing and development are still ongoing as far as I'm aware).

Without knowing all the exact details I suspect that the reason there is little or no tax impact is because most of the expenditure was incurred in it's US MuCell subsidiary and, as such, any unutilised losses are "trapped" and are of no commercial value unless the US business is resurrected in the future (this would also explain why there was little or no deferred tax impact - at the same time as writing down the fixed assets, the tax losses would have been written down too, effectively cancelling each other out).

Sam, AEWU has increased it's authorised share capital in prospect of making new equity issues if new investment opps avail themselves but it will only do so if they can issue the new equity at a premium to NAV (so as not to dilute existing shareholders). Generally ITs will only issue at a discount to NAV in extremis and with the shareholders' approval.

AEWU has been lamenting for a few years now that the share price discount to NAV has prevented them issuing any new equity to pursue new investment opps. So, in the absence of borrowing more and increasing LTV, AEWU has been forced to hang fire and pass on some opps. AEWU is currently evaluating several promising new opps and, if the share price continues to trade at a small discount, there is now a possibility that they'll be able to make an equity issue to institutional investors at a premium to NAV and the foregoing share price if the investment opportunities is compelling enough. They may even do a mix of equity and new loans (without raising the LTV).

QED I wouldn't be put off by the prospect of an equity raise at a discount to NAV/the current share price.

LTI, Why don't actually try reading what people post rather than being combative all the time. HFEL could in principle issue at a discount but it's not normal practise for ITs to do so other than in extremis i.e. if the shares were trading at a discount it's highly improbable that they would be making any equity issues. It's not uncommon for ITs to buy shares into treasury when the shares are trading at a discount and sell them to institutional investors, to meet demand, when the shares return to trading at a premium.

The key takeaways are that (1) these equity issues are off market sales to institutional investors at, or above, the prevailing share price, (2) the sales do not dilute existing shareholders (because they are the sales are made at a premium to NAV per share, and (3) who cares why these institutions would be willing to pay a premium to NAV (as long as it doesn't dilute existing shareholders it's a moot point)

You are right to say that the institutions could alternatively buy in the market (at a premium to NAV per share). It's also likely that such purchases might cost them more, if supply is limited, than purchasing direct from the IT (which explains why they may be willing to pay a premium to the foregoing share price). PIs might prefer that they buy in the market (if they were able to sell on the highs and buy on the lows that usually follow) but the IT would prefer to avoid price spikes and troughs if they can be avoided and it's also a good sauce of new capital to expand the portfolio.

I wasn't suggesting that Dogfish is a poor investment. I was just responding to the previous poster's question to that effect and pointing out that the average rate was highly susceptible to summer peak pricing and that it shouldn't be judged on just one, relatively, cooler summer.

I'm hoping that GSF have factored in the current, lower rate, in setting their revised quarterly dividend because I would currently expect Dogfish , more often than not, to exceed that rate. If so, the possibility of top-up dividends becomes more tenable.

Equity issues are generally made to institutional investors; they're not being sold into the market. As long as the issue is being made in excess of NAV, I have no issues because it enhances the NAV for the rest of us. Why institutional investors would be willing to pay a premium to NAV is not really my concern.

I think it remains to be seen whether Dogfish will prove to have been a bad investment. Much of the income in Texas is weighted towards summer and if the summer proves to be a lot milder than normal, as in FY25, it has a real impact.

I think "sold down the river" is a tad unfair.

The UK BESS market has been in turmoil. That could not have been foreseen at the outset. Likewise, the impact of the new Trump administration could not have been foreseen either (the US is effectively doing a whole volte face and going for broke on coal, gas and oil). The whole point of having a diversified portfolio was to try and avoid this situation but when all locales are having their own unique problems, the benefit goes out the window.

The only thing the BoD is possibly accountable for is being too optimistic in the face of change and maintaining the 7p dividend longer than perhaps they should.

I'd estimate that there is a c£25m shortfall on originally forecast income. Over time this may be broached by improving UK BESS revenues and better seasonal revenues in the US but I think that being prudent is best for the time being.

I'm not sure that a sell off of assets would be in the best interests of shareholders at this juncture and I'd be wary of proactive investors simply trying to make a quick buck (most long-term investors would not benefit from a sell off at, say, 75p but the proactive investors would be laughing all the way to the bank)

I won't beat about the bush, I am disappointed that GSF is not able to maintain a minimum 4p annual dividend and that, effectively, 1p of the special dividends would now appear to be in lieu of the June dividend.

But we have to be realistic, as it currently stands, GSF has no means of guaranteeing the current level of dividends without resorting to increased borrowing and that is a slippery path best avoided.

FY25 was an annus horriblis, the six months delay in energising the new UK and US storage sites (as far as I'm aware these delays were not within GSF's ability to control) lead to additional uncovered financing costs (costs that might otherwise have been covered by revenues if the sites had reached operating capacity six months earlier). The weather in Texas cannot always be relied upon to generate excess revenues in summer (GSF has no control over that) and the UK BESS market more or less collapsed (but is now recovering).

Going forward, there is scope for further special dividends if revenues exceed their revised conservative forecasts. I'm not sure what a new broom might achieve beyond selling some assets (is now the best time to be selling) they're not going to be able to influence the general market prices and/or the weather. Consolidation may save some investment costs but does GSF need to be merging with trusts with potentially much higher LTVs?

Rubbish. Next you'll be saying that it's their fault that M&S (their second largest third-party seller) was hacked and sill doesn't expect to get its systems fully back on-line before the autumn!;SOS has always been prudent and learnt to roll with the punches. Sales volumes are up 18% in Q1, without M&S for the most part, and they are prudently forecasting a 19% increase year-on-year. They've also decided to rollback their new store rollout whilst they bed in their existing stores, improve profitability and take on board all of new store glitches they've encountered and try to avoid making the same mistakes again. Sound business decisions.

As regards the fact that the joint-executives not having bought any more shares in the last 3 years; they've already got significant skin in the game and aren't as highly paid as some other executives. They aren't selling and have a lot more to lose than most PIs.

Give them a break. The business is experiencing challenges and they've not gone AWOL. They put their necks on the line to chase margins rather than volumes when consumer spending was flat-lining and have shown on numerous occasions since COVID that they are willing to take tough decisions, and not dilly-dally about it, when needs must.

This company is far from dead but the road to recovery has been beset with challenges and most, if not all, of the problems have been outside of their control. They are maintaining their cash and are navigating the problems unlike some other UK on-line fashion retailers who are continuing to haemorrhage cash and thrashing about trying to fix their undoubtable problems.

PS. The £0.4m inventory write down and the impact on the final results, although disappointing, is par for the course for retailers. Often events after the year end can give cause to change previous assumptions. It happens.

I too am a long term holder. I'd love the share price to be higher but am willing to wait and see what GSF says next (despite the fact that I might not like all that I hear).

I'm just trying to be sanguine and point out that FY25 has not been the best of years. There have been delays getting the new US and UK sites operational (not entirely, if at all, within GSF's powers to control) and knock on effects monetising the ITCs. In addition, GSF now has to navigate the waters of the new Trump administration (no easy task; Trump often says one thing and then does another).

So I think it's entirely appropriate for GSF to be cautious at this current juncture and not run around like a "bull in a china shop". Paying down debt in uncertain times is prudent; it gives you greater flexibility down the road and doesn't make you business hostage to your bank lenders.

GSF's operational objectives is to be cash generative and pay a sustainable dividend. We should, for the first time, see GSF operating at full capacity in FY26. Where possible GSF has always sought to take advantage of temporary price spikes and I don't see that changing in the future. E.g. the fact that temperatures were lower in Texas in FY25 and the consequential pricing lower than previous years, is not within GSF's powers to control (it's not omnipotent).

Going forward, a sustainable dividend will be based on average expected prices (I'd expect any excess to be paid by way of special dividends). Quite whether the average expected prices today are what GSF anticipated at the outset is, in my view, a fair question. There's been a fair amount of turmoil in the UK BESS market, which might not have been expected at the outset, and the new Trump administration (with it's increased emphasis on oil and gas) might have put an unexpected damper on US pricing (that said, pricing in California might hold up better than might otherwise be expected).

Let's just wait and see what GSF has to say now that it has had time to digest some of Trump's new initiatives. It may, or may not, be all room and gloom.

I think the conspiracy theorists should just sell up and come back later to tell us how clever they are. Re: today's announcement they were compelled to disclose once signed because it's a material transaction; perhaps they should just have delayed signing to fit in with previous announcements?

Paying down the debt should reduce debt financing costs hitting the P&L. Once the site was operational, it not before, they would had to have started charging interest to the P&L rather than capitalising it as a cost of construction. This is all standard accounting. Also, has anybody stopped, before going off on their flights of fancy, to consider GSF's debt covenants? Using at least part of the credits to repay part of their outstanding debt would be quite a normal banking requirement and would take priority over any other transactions i.e. they would be obligated to repay the debt before paying any dividends.

Some of the commentators on here today seem to be completely devoid of any understanding of how businesses with outstanding bank loans MUST operate.

As regards a potential cut in the annual dividend, I won't deny that this is a possibility. A trading company might cut its standard dividend and pay top-up special dividends. IT's on the other hand might change their dividend profile to fit with expected peaks and troughs in income. We'll just have to wait and see.

Six months ago GSF was considering selling off some or all of its development prospects, rather than build them out, to maximise investor returns, That view might have changed as the economic outlook has changed.

Actually try to learn about their business before spouting rubbish. They did a major overhaul of their car fleet last year and made a significant profit. This is not recurring income (there are always some fleet sales but last year was significant compared to the current year's).

Unlike yesteryears this profit isn't accounted as exceptional and the income and expenses are accounted through sales and cost of sales.

I think people are beginning to get a bit hysterical about the exceptional dividend. Companies, particularly ones that don't have surplus cash sitting on their balance sheets and are reliant on operational cash flow to pay their future dividends, are rarely unequivocal about paying a future dividend; most companies caveat the statement because there is always the possibility, however remote, that there could be events beyond their control that might prevent them from paying a planned dividend.

GSF has bank debt and, on receipt of the ITCs, it expects to be able to use part of the proceeds to pay the exceptional dividend with the (tacit) agreement of its lenders. Part of the ITC proceeds will be used to pay off bank debt and, provided GSF continues to meet its banking covenants, it currently expects to be able to use the remainder of the proceeds to pay the exceptional dividend. Occasionally, as we saw during the 2008 financial crisis, lenders will withhold such agreement and/or change their banking covenants at short notice to meet changing economic circumstances.

It is therefore wholly prudent and normal for GSF to use the term "expected" rather than "will".

In fairmess, the Trump administration is not making life any easier for GSF at the moment (I'd imagine that a lot of time and effort is currently being spent by GSF and its advisors poring over Trump's Big Beautiful Bill and any amendments to determine whether GSF will be affected by any of the new legislation and its timing isn't great, given the approaching year end results, the ITCs etc. Reading the May factsheet, I'd imagine that GSF has been particularly vexed by the broadening of the existing definition of Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) and I rather suspect it's this, rather than any operational issues, that have delayed the issuing of the May factsheet (they needed time to review the propsoed changes and any amendments being put to the House to determine whether they would have any impact on future operations). At this moment in time, I would suggest that this legisilation, more than any other factor, is giving GSF cause to be prudent with its pronouncements; they might even have to consider taking out insurance to ensure that they are not caught by any retrospective changes once they've sold the ITCs.

Trump's administration is causing chaos and GSF can only do its best to deal with the hand that it's been dealt.

Therosyl, I'm not sure why you would think that the full year results will disappoint, in as much that GSF has already flagged that FY25 results won't be great because of the operational delays at its new UK and US sites (which were for the most part outside its control), the UK industry-wide price issues (which have only begun to improve in the latter part of FY25) and the lack of execptional income in both Germany and the US (the former because the market has begun to normalise and the latter because weather conditions have been milder than previous years). In that respect, I think disappointing FY25 results are baked-in and I think that people need to be concentrating more on the future (full operational capacity in FY26) and a better UK price environment. That said, I think the US still may have scope to disappoint (it still remains unclear what impact Trump's initiatives will have on both US pricing and future developments) and I thin that ther future dividend policy is likely to discount exceptional income (and only pay it out as and when it arises). We also need to hear what they say about their undeveloped portfolio and whether they intend to sell or build-out.

QED I think the FY26 outlook will be far more important than the FY25 results.