Member Info for TheTrotsky

They pay a dividend because the business remains profitable and cutting the dividend, if indeed that is the intention, before they are able to show that the business has decisively turned a corner would, in my view, just be another nail in the coffin for the share price (more desperation than strategy).

The CEO is still grappling with changing the business strategy and it was clear from the presentation that it remained a work in progress at the interims; he'd reorganised the structure but wasn't yet in a position to set out his future roadmap with clear targets for both the business and investors.

The business is highly cash generative and should be able to afford to fund the small, stragegic, ad-hoc additions he foresees going forward. However, based on his response to the question about dividends, I think that a dividend cut at the finals is now quite possible (his responce was a bit evasive) but at the same time he will lay out key future objectives to rebuild profits and, if he can get that message right, it may not adversely impact the share price at that juncture.

You do appreciate that this is absolutely nothing to do NESF? The link you posted relates to a company called NexErgy NOT NextEnergy Solar.

Having had a look at NexErgy plc's latest accounts filed at Companies House, I wouldn't touch NexErgy with a baregpole. It's got £100m of IP which arose from the acquisition of a company called Cassandra Holdings Ltd (I kid you not), a company that was incorporated in Jun-23 and acquired by NexErgy in Nov-23 and nearly struck off in Sept-24 for failing to file its annual confirmation statement! It's a tad worrying, to say the least, when a company forgets to submit basic paperwork to Companies House for such a, supposedly, valuable company and risks having it struck off!

There's nothing in either set of accounts to indicate what the IP relates to exactly and/or why its supposedly worth £100m (it may relate to the CASO and Lorentz IP but there's no information to that effect in the accounts). The Lorentz method was supposedly patented by Anders Olson back in 1975 and he appears to have owned Cassandra AB (a Swedish company) which set up Cassandra Holdings as a wholly owned subsidiary in Jun-23 before selling it to NexErgy in Nov-23 (having presumably first sold the IP to Cassandra Holdings in lieu of outstanding debt).

Olson was still listed as a person with significant control of Cassandra Holdings in Aug-24 (funnily enough his correspondence address was in Lavender Hill; Cassandra, Lavender Hill Mob - the associations just get better and better) after the acquistion by NexErgy, via his controlling interest in Balad Sweden Ltd the ultimate controlling party of NexErgy plc until Feb-25.

This has all the hallmarks of a scam.

Monty888,

Good results yes, but they spent £8.5m of the cash on the acquisition of Pizzeria 105 post year end; so their current cash position isn't quite as rosy as you might imply. However, they are generating increasing amounts of cash from operations (increased from c1.98m in FY23 to c£5.36m in FY24) and, provided they aren't planning any further acquisitions in the near term, they should be able to fund the rebranding of the Pizzeria 105 outlets and other operational expenses from existing resources. Plus, they also still have a over 100 company-owned outlets that they could potentially offload to new franchisees.

Still not entirely clear on their store figures. At the end of 2024 they had 118 stores and subsequently added 90 more stores when they acquired Pizzeria 105. They plan to have c150 Domino's branded stores by the end of 2025 and "add" a further 40 stores in 2026. It would therefore appear that there will be a "cross-over" period where they will continue to operate both Domino's branded and Pizzeria 105 stores for a period of at least 12 months, if not longer (this is probably due to understandable cash constraints - they don't have sufficient cash to rebrand all of the Pizzeria 105 stores at once). What's not quite clear to me is whether they expect the additional 40 stores in 2026 to come from simply rebranding more of the Pizzeria 105 stores or whether they are expecting to divest some of the existing Pizzeria 105 stores (due to perhaps overlap with their existing store network) and opening new Domino's branded stores in new locations. If the former, I might have expected them to say that they plan to have c190 Domino's branded stores by the end of 2027 rather thand "adding a further 40 stores" but perhaps that's just semantics. Some store rationalisation has to be expected (due to store overlap) but one would hope that the vast majority of Pizzeria 105's stores would be suitable for re-branding.

PP1,

"Pattern of exponential growth followed by market corrections"

Love it! Some of us would suggest that when a price falls from c$65,000 to c$16,500 over a period of a year (as BTC did between Nov 2021 and Nov 2022) it's a bit more than a simple "market correction".

PS. There's nothing "exponential" about BTC's growth. That's a word bandied around by non-mathematicians whose mathematical abilties do not appear to have improved one iota (that's an extremely small amount to the uninitiated) since they left school! If BTC's growth had been "exponential", as you suggest, there would have been no "market corrections" and its price would likely be in $billions now!

Saw this article yesterday: https://ukinvestormagazine.co.uk/bitcoin-treasury-stocks-sink-after-the-smarter-web-company-fundraise/

It's a bit bizarre because, if you follow the article to its logical conclusion, it seems to imply, at least in the short-term, the more that SWC, or AN Other bitcoin treasury comany for that matter, tries to raise from hereon in the more likely the share price is likely to fall!

All these new bitcoin treasury companies are being set up to buy bitcoin and most likely all of them plan to raise funds through subscriptions, like SWC. You might understand the other companies' share prices falling because SWC has stolen a march (assuming there might be a limit on the amount of money that might be available to be subscribed) but that doesn't explain why SWC's share price also fell. You'd have thought that SWC's share price would have risen if the market perceived it to have stolen a march on it competitors UNLESS the lower market valuations of its competitors would be perceived to give them an advantage in getting the next "slug" of subscription money, in which case SWC's share price would have to fall is step with its competitors as long as it needs to continue to raising further new funding to meet its expansion goals!

I'm not saying that I susbcribe to any of this but it is possibly yet another example of the market trying to find an explanation to fit the circumstances e.g. it's a "new paradigm" which, when translated, roughly means "we really haven't got the foggiest idea but let's not rock the boat and ask any awkward questions that nobody has a logical explanation for" - "new paradigm" sounds a lot punchier ;-)

RobSaunders,

For somebody who seems to think they know about BTC, you seem strangely naive on the subject.

You don'y have to buy whole BTC!

You can buy fractional BTC on Coinbase or any other reputable BTC exchange.

I don't even buy BTC and seem to know more about it than some "supposed" experts!

NigeSmith,

I agree. I might buy something for £2 if I thought I could sell it for £4 later but I'd look a bit of a duffer if I could buy it for £1 instead ;-)

JungleVIP,

I did a quick search online and came up with this website: https://etfdb.com/themes/bitcoin-etfs/

I haven't checked out the detail but, in answer to your question, "Yes" BTC ETFs do exist but there may not be any on UK exchanges at present.

JungleVIP,

You've really got to stop smoking that whacky baccy; it's seriously affecting your jusgement The US will never adopt BTC, or any other privately controlled stablecoin, as its reserve currency as you seem to imply. It may acquire BTC, like it does gold bullion, but you haven't thought through all of the ramifications of your suggestion. If the US adopted BTC it would cease to have control over its currency (control over the management of your own currency is power) and its borrowing costs would skyrocket. It's possible that the US, and other countries, might adopt their own national cryptocurrencies but BTC has a dubious origin (its creator is unknown and its limited supply is not 100% certain).

That said, Trump is an idiot and anything is possible.

JungleVIP,

I have to say that I find SWC's website rather funny; it's all about its web design business with barely a mention of its treasury activity! If nothing else, I'm sure that all the treasury hype has given the web design business come good publicity ;-)

But it seems clear to me that people are still missing the point here and the ultimate ramifications. It's not unheard of for some investment companies to trade at a premium to the underlying value of their net assets (generally no more than low single digits) but when that premiun gets too large then the share price inevitably falls.

Bottom line you don't pay £2 for exactly the same thing that you can buy elsewhere for £1. You might pay a bit more for service, past performance etc. but there's a limit (unless you choose to blithely ignore it and carry on regardless). Unlisted assets (assets not readily traded or easily valued) can occasionally create potential valuation "opportunities" but I would argue that bitcoin would not meet this criteria (bitcoin can be readily valued at any time).

SWC's web design business is, I'd accept, of uncertain value but, without further information to the contrary, we're probably talking, if I'm being generous, very low £millions at a maximum based on its latetst filings at Companies House (last year SWC Operations Ltd, SWC Ltd as was, paid Webley and his wife a total dividend of £20k, £10k less than the previous year, plus his/her remuneration, which isn't disclosed, and the company had net assets of £47k).

SWC's current share price defies logic. Even if SWC is cornering (say) the UK treasury market then logic dictates that it should be trading at a discount to its NAV (allowing for the fact that it might not succeed to corner the market) and trending torwards parity, or a slight premium, with the value of its underlying assets if does succeed. The movements in the share price should then broadly track bitcoin price. There are no secret/hidden rabbits to be plucked out of thin air. It's pure novelty that's keeping this share price afloat; there's no El Dorado.

I've noticed that people have been pulling out a few of the old maxims of late to justify SWC's current share price. It's a new paradigm, old valuation metrics don't apply etc. etc. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt! Investment "gurus" trundled out exactly the same types of argument at the height of the dot.com boom; next it will be the Goldilocks economy (when you hear that, get out of Dodge). Yes, there were a few success stories - Alphabet, Amazon & Meta (Apple & Microsoft pre-dated the boom) - but its hard to see how an investment holding company is going to be able to sustainably leverage its profits year on year when its primary holding wildly fluctuates in valuation. Yes, it could try to trade the peaks and troughs BUT then it wouldn't be a bitcoin treasury company; it be a PE house (a totally different proposition).

I don't believe that SWC is intending to "trade" bitcoin per se.

Unlike a bitcoin exchange which charges customers for using its services (buying, selling, holding, withdrawals etc) like (say) a share dealer, I believe a bitcoin treasury would be more akin to an unregulated investment company. It will buy and hold bitcoin, periodically selling some of the bitcoin to cover its running costs.

Investors buy and/or subscribe for shares in the treasury company to obtain exposure to bitcoin (this can be easier than setting up your own personal bitcoin wallets with a bitcoin exchange, provided that the treasury company's shares are readily tradeable). The treasury company uses subscriptions to buy bitcoin and then periodically sells some of the bitcoin to cover its running costs, some of which are likely to be performance-related (generally an agreed percentage of the NAV) and paid over to a separate asset management company controlled by the directors and their associates. The idea is that the growth in the value of the underlying bitcoin would more than offset the running costs (if the bitcoin rises in value the number of bitcoin sold to cover costs should reduce over time). In addition, the treasury company may also margin trade and/or lend the bitcoin to generate additional income and enhance investor returns (and by extension increase the amount of performance-related management fees paid).

It's WOLFRAMITE (an Iron, Manganese, Tungsten & Oxygen mineral) and FERBERITE (an Iron, Tungsten & Oxygen mineral).

As you say, clearly no geologist ;-)

I'm no geologist either but from what I can read online the basic mining equipment and methods are generally the same for both minerals (so I'm not sure in what way WOLF's set-up was incorrect) but the processing techniques may vary depending on the ore characteristics and desired product purity.

Harsh! Seriously!

C'mon SWC365, you, better than most, should appreciate that PP1's logic is "warped". He's totally focussed on the share price rather than the market value and will come a cropper if he doesn't get his logic straight. He's sleep walking!

There is no economic justification for SWC's current share price; it's simply being driven by momentum (more buyers than sellers) and at some point buyers are likely to wake up and realise that the share price has got monumentally ahead of reality.

As far as I can discern, there are few barriers to entry into the bitcoin exchange market (although some businesses might be more credible than others) and, indeed, Amazing AI plc announced on Monday that they were going to become a bitcoin exchange too. SMC might have first mover advantage here in the UK but it's unclear whether that will translate into a longer term advantage.

I should point out that I don't have an interest in either Amazing AI plc (although I did try to buy some on Monday as a bit of a punt) or SMC. I was primarily drawn here by an article I read last week and the fact that SMC had grown from a c£3m to c£1bn company in less than 3 months without ever being flagged in LSE's daily risers and have only posted here because some of the posts justifying the current share price and further rises are clearly absurd.

SMC currently owns c544 bitcoins and they're currently worth c£43m. SMC's shares currently have a market value of c£683m. So, shareholders are being asked to pay a multiple of c16x. I would respectively suggest that the difference in valuation isn't accounted for by the value of SWC's web design business. Personally, I have my doubts about cryptocurrency full stop, but paying c16x their current market value is simply ludicrous.

I wish everyboy the best but please, at least, tread with you eyes wide open and don't be drawn in by the fairytales being peddaled by some.

PS. Remember Polly Peck! Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s it was the go-go stock and it created a significant number of paper millionaires who allowed their greed to get the better of their common sense. Most of them ended up with worthless shares. Polly Peck was a fraud and I'm not suggesting that SMC is a fraud. However, unlike Polly Peck, SMC's current shortcomings are plain to see if you are willing to open your eyes. Better a bird in the hand ...

PP1, In principle, you can do share splits ad-infinitum if you want. You are clearly ignoring the key point; Microstrategy's current share price is not an obstacle to them doing a new revenue raise and your argument that SWC's low share price relative to Microstrategy's enables them to raise funds more easily is totally laughable. Stop subscribing to the "Penny Shares" mentality (that went out with The Ark); market value is the only relevant factor.

"SWC is about £3 a share and Microstrategy is about $375 a share. So SWC are seen as being able to raise more money to buy bitcoin and Microstrategy are seen as having reached their limit".

PP1 the price per share is totally irrelevant. If it was, Mircrostrategy could simply do a share split!

Alternatively, they could do a bonus issue to achieve the same effect, if they have the capital reserves.

Both share splits and bonus issues are straightforward to arrange and entirely legal.

You should never base your investment decisions based on share price.

You need to consider market value and SWC's current market value of c£640m is totally absurd.

PS. For those unfamiliar, a share split would involve issuing (say) 100 news shares with nominal value of 1p each for every existing share with nominal value of 100p each (it's effectively the opposite of a consolidation). If all other factors remain equal, the number of shares in issue would increase 100-fold and the market value of each new share would decrease 100-fold (the overall market value would be unaffected).

PPS. For those unfamiliar, if a company has the requisiite reserves, a company can issue bonus shares to existing shareholders. So, for example, a company could issue (say) 99 new share with nominal value of 100p each for every existing share with nominal value of 100p. All other factors being equal, the number of shares in issue would increase 100-fold and the market value of each share would decrease 100-fold (again the overall market value would be unaffected).

Note, it says Q1 2026 as opposed to Q1 FY2026. They've been quite fastidious using the FY prefix where appropriate in the RNS. So my read would be January to March 2026 at the earliest, as opposed to June to August 2025 (Q1 FY2026). In which event, the likely financial impact on FY2026 would likely be minimal.

Ignore him. He hasn't read the RNS properly. He thinks that the MMs dropped the price to fill the order. The order was filled on, or before, 17 June; the price fell after the order was filled!

Trump fancies himself as a peacemaker - a Colt Peacemaker ;-)

Before his election he boasted that he could stop the war in the Ukraine within 24 hours - 150 days and still counting!

That was a Starship development test at its Texas testing ground. Starships are intended to be used for future Mars missions.

The explosion should have no direct impact on SpaceX's current Starlink satellite launch programme which uses its tried and tested Falcon rockets.

I think the share price fall is just a natural market adjustment to recent price rises. Share prices rarely, if ever, continue to rise in an uninterupted straight line. In the absence of any further contract news, the share price had moved into oversold territory in the last week and its simply retrenching before (hopefully) recommencing its upwards rise.

ToD

i think that's a rather blinkered view. Yes, GSF has only paid a 4p dividend for FY25 plus a 3p special dividend to be paid as and when the Big Rock ITC has been paid (probably before the end of the calendar year assuming a 2-4 month payment delay between agreement to sell and proceeds being received as outlined in my previous post).

However, there have been much longer than expected delays in energising their new storage capacity with consequential knock-on delays in monies being received from their ITCs. Plus, I'm sure the ructions caused by Trump's repealing the IRA and the uncertainty that caused have probably not helped matters either (that probably knocked them off course for a months or two as further clarity was sought by the market).

Consequently, not only have FY25 baseline revenues probably been lower than would have previously been forecast but the exceptional revenues GSF has seen in Ireland, Germany and USA in the last few years (which might have offset, at least partially, the impact of the delays) have also reverted back to more normal levels (this was always likely to occur at some point; just happened to be FY25). The delays and revenue reversion have created a relatively large, but temporary, FY25 revenue shortfall and GSF have prudently chosen not to borrow to fill that shortfall.

However, there is every reason to believe that previously forecast FY26 baseline revenues should now be achievable, subject to normal margins for error and, as such, GSF should be able to revert to a normal annual dividend of 6p-7p. Admittedly an annual dividend of 6p would be less than previously but electricity prices in all of the markets GSF operates it have proven to be rather more volatile than might have been expected even just a few years ago plus the new US adminsitrations commitment to drilling might drive down baseline expectations in the US for the foreseeable future.

I don't think GSF is a busted flush. Sometimes you just have a confluence of events outisde your scope to control. You just have to deal with them and move on. GSF should be operating at full capacity in FY26, unlike FY25, and that should result in a significant uptick in revenues unless the bottom falls completely out of all its markets, like it did in the UK in the last few years.