Member Info for TheTrotsky

Trump's best friends have a habit of becoming his worst enemies.

From what I've been able to ascertain, most, if not all, of his business relationships have eventually gone sour and people who were once happy to work with him (whether they made money or not) are loathe to work with him again (they just end up having a guts full of his braggadacio if nothing else).

Normally delayed trades are reported with the time that they occurred, even if reported later. The trades in question all appear to have occurred at the times reported, not earlier.

What do we make of the transactions at 14:46, 14:48, 14:52 and 15:09? On the face of it, circa 9.75m of shares sold at c67p and yet the sp has continued to rise! The closing auction and after hours trades could be interesting. The questions remain who's offloading, who's buying and why?

Rylidan, for every buyer there is a seller and vice versa. Depending on the size of your trades, the fact that you've been able to sell above the quoted ask or buy below the quoted bid is generally, in my experience, an indication of where the share price is likely to head but, when it comes to RWS, it's the autotrades that rule. There seems to have been a bottomless pit of sellers even before the latest trade update.

... and still the price doesn't move up! This has been the story of RWS for over 6 months.

Wait,

I know from personal experience that that is most certainly true. I've had to replace both electrical outside mirrors on my 2017 Mazda (an issue probably not helped by my mirrors being set, by me, to electronically fold in and out every time the car is locked/unlocked). Admittedly, my Mazda is not an EV but electrical components, such as mirrors, are a universal component. I very much doubt that these type of issues are restricted to Mazdas alone and are a reflection of the fact that electrical components have become far more ubiquitous than they ever used to be (most modern cars have more "chips" than you'd eat in a month of Sundays) and are increasingly being asked to do more and more onerous "automated" tasks e.g. seats automatically checking and adjusting for different drivers.

You only have to look at your average modern washing machine or dishwasher to realise that it's a myth to suggest that electrical components don't break or wear out e.g. burnt out motors and fried circuit boards aren't an uncommon problem in modern washing machines and dishwashers (partly because we are asking these components to do more of the "smart" heavy lifting) and there is no reason to think that EVs will be an exception (clearly the problem isn't just restricted to EVs; it applies to all modern vehicles).

As regards the batteries, you obvioulsy don't read news reports. Battery degradation on new EVs, which affects range and shortens the expected battery life, has been a concern. There are several factors at play, including weather conditions and average journey length. Part of the problem lies with users who, because of range anxiety, constantly top up their batteries rather than fully discharging them. Admittedly, this tends to be much more of a issue for drivers with high annual mileage making regular long journeys.

It's a known issue with lithium-ion batteries that they tend to degrade, and lose efficiency, if not fully charged/discharged in regular cycles (an issue that can be much better managed when cars only tend to be used on short regular commutes). You see similar issues with mobile phone batteries. Sure many (perhaps most) batteries can and do outlast the lifespan of the EV but a lot of high average mileage EVs will tend to have a significantly impaired range capability.

You are also ignoring reports about bad build quality on, for example, Teslas; a fact acknowledged by Musk a few years ago when he responded to a reporter's question about poor build quality by essentially saying "caveat emptor"!

SB, Hedging ony works if you are able to "buy low and sell high" and there's always a reckoning when you have a prolonged period of falling prices (hedges tend to have a finite lifespan) and it can work against you when prices rise rapidly e.g. DEC was sledged for its hedging policy because it was "caught" with (relatively) low hedges when the open market price went through the roof after Russia invaded Ukaraine. Also, hedge contracts tend to be volume based i.e. most contracts require you to fulfill a certain (generally) monthly quota and, if you fail to deliver your quota, you are subject to penalties (hedging doesn't therefore tend to favour producers who have a highly variable level of production).

Silver, Mazara aren't "playing around" with the discount rate. It's a fact of life that the discount rate will constantly change to take account of periodic changes in RPI/CPI etc and the electricity price is what it is.

Doubt it. BESS assets can generally only operate for a couple of hours and aren't designed to provide a continuous back-up supply during grid-wide outages. They are best suited to storing electricity during periods of peak supply and then releasing it back to the grid during periods of peak demand in a controlled, managed manner. Lithium-ion storage batteries are an all or nothing solution; they have to be fully discharged before they can be recharged and aren't designed to be switched on and off as might be needed during an outage (it would cause severe battery degradation).

By the sounds of it the Spanish/Protuguese grid operators were caught completely off-guard and are still trying to piece together exactly what happened; the failure of the French interconnector alone should not have caused a total national blackout (there are supposed to be built-in failsafes to prevent such an event occurring).

A share premium account can be converted to distributable P&L reserves via a court-approved reduction. Would require shareholder approval in the form of a special resolution.

Is there any rhyme or reason to how share prices are shown on LSE?

On Friday the closing auction price was 61.2p whilst the closing mid-price was 55p and LSE showed the closing share price as 61.2p. Today the closing auction price was 50p whilst the closing mid-price was 52.50 and LSE shows the closing price as 52.5p! QED a 11.2p share price fall between closing auction prices but only a 2.5p fall between closing mid-prices!

One would think that LSE does it to cause maximum confusion for PIs. There's absolutely no consistency.

The EV sector is not in trouble. The perception might be that EVs need less maintenance but is that actually the reality. There may be fewer moving components in EVs requiring regular replacement but electonic failures (a constant bugbear with modern vehicles) won't have disappeared. E.g. whereas once, barring a collision, you might have expected mirrors, both inside and out, to outlast the vehicle's expected lifespan, now they tend to have to be replaced periodically because their electrical components wear out (and they're not cheap). Also, body work is still going to need to be repaired and the batteries replaced (quite a bit sooner than predicted too). I would foresee a trend towards fewer but more costly repairs down the road.

What exactly are "management expectations"? I'm not trying to be being facetious but have management actually outlined what their financial expectations are for FY25? I haven't found any reference in any RNS issued in the last 6 months.

After allowing for the acquisition of Sempre in Oct-24 (initial £5m cash consideration), share buy backs (£3.6m) and the final FY24 dividend payment in Mar-25 (£3.4m), I'd estimate that OMG generated c£2m+ of cash from operations and investments during H1 given that the net cash balance has fallen from £50.7m to c£41m over the six months.

It's difficult to draw conclusions about trading profitability from cash movements alone (the normal increases/decreases in inventories, receivables/payables, capex etc. all have an impact on the net cash balance).

However, if we assume an increase in inventories of c£1m (OMG tend to build inventories during H1 in expectation of higher sales in H2), receivables/payables movements more or less cancelling each other out and, likewise, capex and depreciation/amortisation movements, then it's not wholly inconceivable that the H1 PAT from continuing operations could actually be somehwere in the region c£2m-£4m which, if correct, would be a significant improvemnet on H2 FY25 and a step back in the right direction. As I say, that's very rough and unreliable (large timing movements in receivables/payables could easily skew the figures and I'm not sure whether the net cash balance stated in the RNS is at 31 March or 25 April - I'm slightly inclined to the latter on a re-read) but if the PAT from continuing operations does indeed fall in that range in H1 then the trick becomes to "wash, rinse and repeat" in H2 which they singulalry failed to do in H2 FY24.

An uninspiring update perhaps but a tad intriguing; if my rough calculations are in the right ball park (highly unlikely I know) they'd be a lot better than current broker forecasts.

Avocet, Of course there's a cost otherwise tech firms wouldn't be looking to invest $100billions in developing AI products! They're not charities; they're not going to give their AI products away absolutely free. Future income streams just won't necsessarily all be generated from invoiced billing or service contracts e.g. third party advertising.

Do you really think commerical organisations are going to be trawling through pages of advertising on (say) Facebook to use these new "free" translation apps or expose commercially sensitive data on their internal networks to (say) Chinese apps (a lot of Chinese tech firms are owned or have links to the Chinese military and/or Communist Party)?

Do try using your grey matter sometimes!

Alessandro, the reference to "increased amortisation" is unlikely to relate to the building in Chalfont St Peter. It's more likely to relate to writing down the carrying value of its (purchased) goodwill and intangible assets (generally capitalised research and development costs). You depreciate tangible assets and amortise goodwill/intangible assets. Given recent performance it would appear prudent to accelerate to write down of these asasets and/or restate their fair value. They would be non-cash adjustments in the current period.

This share has certainly shown an ability to underwhelm; there never seems to be a bottom to how far the share price will fall. Given the lack of news over the last few months you've got to wonder who's been selling and how did they know?

Well Vecchioli seem to be putting his money where his mout is. Thus far he's prurchased c£1m of shares in April.

Nomad,

Check out the latest NAV update. Part of the NAV movement relates to "construction progress" and in the key driver notes they state in the first bullet point that the "... discount rates were lowered to 8.75% for Ferrymuir, 9.75% for Dogfish, and 9.50% for Big Rock, which reflect the construction progress over the December-end quarter ..." and, in the next bullet point, they state that "... The 332 MW of in-construction assets at the end of December 2024 were energised post-period. The reduction in their associated discount rates is, therefore, not fully captured in the period's NAV ...".

So, in answer to your question, my understanding would be that the value of the in-construction assets (Ferrymuir, Dogfish and Big Rock) is not currently fully recognised in the NAV calcuation and that all, or part, of the discounts referred to above are expected to unwind as, and when, those assets are fully energised or become operational. Therefore, if all other factors remain equal, I would expect some further uplift in the NAV when those discounts unwind.

Jrlse,

How long is a piece of string?

The amount of money needed to generate £18k per annum will depend where you are going to invest your money and what rate of return you expect.

E.g. £18k per at 7.5p/share equates to 240k shares. If you were to invest the money in, say, a bank account paying 4% pa then you'd need to realise 187.5p/share from a sale of your shares. If, on the other hand, you were to invest the money in, say, Aviva which is currently paying c6.89% pa based on its closing price on Friday then you'd need to realise c109p/share from a sale of your shares. Based on GSF's latest unaudited NAV of 100.7p/share, you'd need to generate a return of c7.45% pa from a sale of your shares at NAV to generate an income of c£18k pa.

Why the 30% premium? The NAV is supposed to represent the GSF's best estimate of the present value (PV) of future cash flows (including any residual value that the assets might have). There may be some lag between the periodic NAV updates and investment assumptions can/do often change over time but I can't see any purchaser being willing to pay, say, £130 for future income cash flows that, when discounted, are expected to have a PV of £100* or share any of the economies of scale they might expect to achieve after acquisition.

* Assume you can invest £100 at 4% per annum and annual inflation is 2.8%. If, in one year's time, you receive c£101.17 then the PV of that future receipt would be computed to be £100 (£101.17 * 102.8%/104%) i.e. the purchasing power of c£101.17 received in one year's time is exactly the same as £100 invested today.