Member Info for TheTrotsky

AML is a bureaucrat's dream. It's overriding purpose is admirable but it generally just means that law-abiding people/organisations have to jump through hoops for no good purpose. The last time I looked, criminal organisations were still laundering their ill-gotten gains with relative ease (they may be paying the middle-men a few percentages more than before but it's generally business as usual).

Has anybody ever evaluated whether AML is actually achieveing its overarching objectives? Instead of adding additional layers of complexity to no good end we should just scrap it; we'd save £billions each year!

I see no reason to wind GSF up now simply because the revenues that it's currently earning are sub-normal; I believe that structural pricing changes within the markets where it currently operates are already in motion, even if they're not yet evident e.g. gas suppliers in Texas cannot continue to sell at, or below, production cost and they will inevitably take steps (reduce well flow, stop fracking operations and/or delay new investment) to reduce domestic supply and bolster revenues, which will ultimately benefit all suppliers. This is nothing new; US oil and gas producers have been through these cycles before and know that if they don't take action they risk going bankrupt.

The revenues that GSF was earning 2-3 years were super-normal and selling assets at the bottom of the current cycle is not the wise move. The rationale for GSF looking to now sell its German battery storage facilty is that it (probably) thinks that revenues per MwH in Germany are currently at the top of the cycle and that they can therefore get top $ for their asset. They/I might be wrong but selling the German battery storgae facility now means that they transfer the risk that they're not to someone else, (probably) bank a nice profit on the original investment and have funds to either further pay down their existing bank borrowings and/or invest in longer duration battery storage in the UK (taking advantage of the current lower equipment prices).

Furthermore, we shouldn't forget that we have yet to see any of the accounting benefit of the new facility in California and the lower financing costs resulting from the reduction in bank borrowings following on from the sale of the US tax credits.

Personally, I always get very wary when PE houses start queuing up their private investments for IPOs. It's often a sign that they think the market is reaching the top of the cycle and that it's time to cash out before prices start falling. Likewise, I always get very wary when PE houses are looking to buy in because it's often a sign that they think the market is significantly undervaluing an asset. It's classic arbitrage. A quick profit may suit SABA but I personally think that LTIs would be far better off ignoring them and applying a bit more patience.

SABA just want the investment mandate and the opportunity to try and make a quick buck for themselves. SABA would be no more able to affect the price cycle that GSF currently find themselves in than the existing management. SABA are probably fully cogniscant of this price cycle and are just looking to take advantage of a (very) low point then just sit back, claim the credit for "turning things round" and probably charge additional fees for "actively" managaing the portfolio when in fact all they would be doing would be nothing different than the existing incumbants.

The existing incumbants may have some questions to answer about past NAV pricing and investment fees but I'm extremely wary of SABA's motives; I don't think that their primary motive will be to act in the best of interest of existing shareholders.

As regards the idea of, perhaps, selling an asset in the UK/US for, say, £1 that currently generates an overall return of, say, 5p pa and assuming that you'd be able to invest that £1 elsewhere, e.g. Germany/Scandanavia, and generate an overall return of, say, 10p pa, I would be very sceptical. That's not how supply and demand normally works; other than temporary misalignments (arbitrage opportunities), any pricing discrepancy would normally be accounted for by different risk factors or barriers to entry and these would need to be very carefully considered before jumping in both feet first.

I think the market will give a clear indication of what sort of takeout price they'd expect in the coming days; I rather suspect that you might see £10 before the week's out (hopefully more).

Does anybody have any suggested comparator companies listed on the US market?

OXB is traded on the OTC market in the US under the ticker OXBDF. OXBDF appears to have closed at US$11.72 (c£8.75) at c11:59 EST, which would equate to 16:59 GMT, 10 minutes after the release of the RNS in the UK; it's not clear why trading didn't continue until 16:00 EST. Trading in OXB hasn't been suspended and there was no indication in tonight's RNS that there would be a further press release in the morning. Maybe somebody else can shed some light.

Why are we talking about longer duration storage in Sweden/Finland? The additional revenue generated is, in part explained, by the additional investment cost (longer duration storage has, until only recently, been a lot more expensive that shorter duration storage). Also, you're comparisons take no account of volume i.e. if you can only sell, say, 100MwH pa in Sweden/Finland as compared to, say, 500MwH pa in the UK you might still be better of selling at £60k/MW in the UK than, say, £200/MW in Sweden/Finland, subject to your costs of capital. You're comparing apples and pears; it's like saying GSF should sell Bentleys rather than Fords simply because they have a higher retail value.

US markets aren't saturated in the way that you suggest or might think. Trump's intervention thus far has apparently increased average US energy prices by c16%! Furthermore, wind and solar were actually driving down average US energy costs before his intervention! The US market is very complex and the price of energy in any given region is dependent on whether there is local oil and gas supplies and whether those supplies have access to export markets. Much of the US's oil and gas is "trapped" (does not have access to pipelines to transport to LNG terminals for export).

Oil and gas export prices are much higher than US domestic prices and "trapped" oil and gas supplies have no option but to supply local markets. From what I've been able to determine, gas was selling at, or around, the average, national production cost in Texas at the back end of 2025 (I'm not sure producers were even covering their transportation costs) and pumping more oil and gas will only make matters worse.

Selling at below cost may be sustainable for a short period but, if low prices persist, producers will be forced to cut production of face going bankrupt (this is not an uncommon cycle in the US oil and gas industry); not least, it will probably curtail much, if not all, of the planned investment in new production (which of itself will probably reduce overall production as existing wells deplete). This won't happen overnight but I believe that the seeds have already been sown.

As regards ERCOT, it's already facing increased YoY demand forecasts and it will be keen to stabilise prices so that suppliers/producers can each earn a crust. If they don't, they will likely face a collapse in supply (moth-balled battery storage facilities, reduced oil and gas supplies etc.) just when demand is expected to rise which will, in turn, see price spikes return.

ERCOT, if they have any common sense, will not like the state of the current market anymore than GSF (the same as the UK regulators back in 2024-25). In an ideal world, they want stable pricing not boom/bust. I doubt ERCOT are complete fools and will, I'm sure, looke to intervene and make changes but, again, this will not happen overnight and will probably take 12-24 months to feed through fully.

I think you misunderstand how NAV is being calculated.

Of course current revenues have some impact but it would be wrong to think that valuers automatically assume that current levels will persist throughout (whether they be be high or low); if they did there'd probably be wild gyrations from one period to the next based on current "spot" prices. They base their calculations on long-term price forecasts. Long-term price forecasts will take some account of current prices, to the extent that they are expected to persist, but will generally exclude short-term peaks and troughs (so prices being high 2-3 years ago would have been ignored for the most part as short-term "blips").

Obviously new assets coming online have helped but the ability to increase revenues is limited. GSF haven't simply ignored revenues as you suggest. It's not as if they can just up sticks and move their battery storage sites to better locations. GSF has used software apps to try and maximise revenues but their scope is limited (low double digit improvements at best). Likewise GSF is now looking to invest in longer duration storage to increase revenues. You might suggest that they should have invested in longer duration storage from the outset but that ignores the fact that equipment costs were much higher previously and pricing changes. At the outset GSF based their decisions on maximising the revenue per £1 invested and, at that time, shorter duration storage offered a better return.

The UK currently has an LNG operating capacity of c36m tonnes pa, much the same as it had back in 2022. Three years ago Germany had zero LNG operating capacity (it was wholly reliant on gas delivered through Nord Stream 1 from Russia); it now currently has c37m tonnes pa and plans to increase that to c71m tonnes pa by 2030. I have no doubt that, as German LNG capacity continues to rise, battery storage pricing will start to drop (super profits, Econ 101 etc. etc.).

GSF completed the acquisition of its German storage facility at the beginning of March 2022, just a month after Russia invaded Ukraine. Now if they'd had the presence of mind to realise then, like those of us who are now blessed with the benefit of hindsight, that the invasion would still be ongong in 2026 and that the flood of cheap Russian gas would stop overnight (Nord Stream 1 was shut down in August 2022) then I'd agree they would have been better off buying more German battery storage facilities in Jan-Feb March 2022. But, do you really think that the "super profits" earned in Germany since have been unaffected by any of these events or that GSF would have been able to buy additional German battery storage facilities in (say) mid-2022 for the same price they paid at the beginning of March 2022? That's not how capitalism works; GSF would have had to pay more and incurred higher borrowing costs (reducing the overall German return). Sometimes you are fortuitous but, for the most part, you don't get something for nothing

What a crock of stinky doo-doo. We're now sub £1 following the underwhelming Q4 update yesterday (yet another opportuinty for the executives to load up on yet more £nil paid share options at our expense in the not too distant future I've no doubt). If, and when, MXCT ever delivers the executives will no doubt have diluted us PIs out the door. Just goes to prove that a US listing is not a guaranteed money-earner.

Well I think most observers always thought that the share had been oversold and most, if not all, of the previous shorts now appear to have been closed (the last open short appears to have been closed at last week). QED, there's less price resistance than there was.

The only current fly in the ointment is that we go ex-div on Friday (4.60p), so we could be heading back towards the low 90s by the weekend (depending on the share price movement between now and the opening bell on Friday).

Correct me if I'm wrong but we currently only supply SpaceX with communication chips for their earthbound base stations, not their satellites. If I recollect, SpaceX are currently evaluating our communication chips for use in their satellites but as yet no order has yet been received.

I think, and the market would seem to agree, that SOS has left itself with a tall ask in Q4 if it's going to achieve forecast FY26 revenues of c£43.6m.

Revenues to date are c£32.1m, compared to c£28.4m in FY25, which would mean that they'd have to achieve revenues of c£11.5m in Q4, compared to c£8.7m in FY25 i.e. a c32% increase in sales YoY!

I think much will depend on how soon M&S stock levels can be "normalised" but, even then, I suspect that FY26 revenues will fall c£1m-£1.5m short of the consensus forecast unless they are able to pull a new rabbit out of the hat.

That said, gross margins appear to be holding up well and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if PBT met, or even possibly exceeded, current consenus forecasts, despite the potential revenue shortfall.

SOS have made a habit of missing targets over the last few years and failing to acknowledge shortfalls/problems ahead of time. In truth, they really needed to nail their FY26 targets and Q3 revenues were probably c£1m short of where they'd have liked them to be to leave them in with a shout in Q4.

How much of that was down to the continuing travails at M&S, who knows; I'm sure it didn't help having sub-normal stock levels to meet potential demand in the run up to Xmas (or whether some of that potentially lost business when stocks ran out just simply transitioned to their own website).

It's not entirely clear from the RNS who's at fault, if indeed there's any fault to be apportioned. After such a prolonged shutdown following the cyber incident, it would have been difficult to judge how quickly potential customers would return to the M&S website and what stock levels would be appropriate to ensure that they weren't left with too much unsold product (having too much product can be just as bad, if not worse, than having too little). It's a balancing act and perhaps they were guilty of airing too much on the side of caution.

Looking forward to FY27 they cannot afford to miss their financial targets again unless, like the M&S cyber incident, something occurs which is beyond their ability to control e.g. Trump invading Canada.

Mkx007, You are (naively) assuming that the assets would historically have been valued based on maintaining "super profits"; they wouldn't (which, in part, explains why valuations haven't completely imploded over the last few years). The assets have always been independently valued based on expected long-term revenues. Near-term "super profits" would have little impact or no impact on long-term expecations. Neither the company nor the independent valuers ever expected the gravy train to go on forever.

I disagree about Germany. Germany was on the backfoot when the Ukraine war started, was almost wholly reliant on Russian oil and gas and, unlike the UK, had little, or no, LNG infrastructure. Germany has been rectifying this over the last 5 years and, although it has been behind the curve up till now, is catching up quickly.

As to why you'd think Nordic markets might be more profitable I'm at a bit of a loss. They are relatively small consumer markets and have a signifcant surplus of hydroelectricity (particularly in Norway). The storage requirements for hydroelectricity are on a whole different level to most solar/wind projects. Equally, their markets are just as vulnerable to over saturation.

The California and Texas markets are totally different. I would also expect the Texas market to improve over the next 12-24 months. If it doesn't, ERCOT will quickly find that they wont't be able to meet future consumer demand as suppliers leave the market, moth-ball their plant and/or cease to invest (Econ 101 again). It's easy to argue that gas could take the strain in Texas but that's to ingore the fact that for most of the early winter gas suppliers were barely meeting their production/transportation costs (that's neither sustainable in the long-term nor an incentive to invest in more production).

The Texas market is currently dysfunctional, like the UK market was for much of 2024 and the early/mid 2025 which ultimately forced the UK powers that be to step in and make changes before the market completely collapsed. I expect ERCOT will eventually be obliged to do the same but these changes don't just happen overnight. There's a natural maturation period; first you have to identify that you have a structural problem (suppliers won't reduce/cease supply or investment overnight) and then you have to come up with a fix.

Germany - hindsight is a wonderful thing but the German market is likely to go the same way as the rest, eventually. Without barriers to entry, "super profits" are never sustainable in the long term (it's Economics 101). Likewise Ireland.

US - I believe that the £2.5 per MWh only pertains to the Texas market (which has specific problems). California wasn't online during the period in question and the rates in California will be/are higher.

What we've been seeing is just a normal boom/bust cycle (markets overreacting). It was self-evident 2-3 years ago that the "super profits" being made in some markest were only going to encourage a flood of new entrants (some markets have managed this better than others). The markets need time to settle at financially sustainable in the long-term pricing (not too high, not too low, just right; to keep the balance between what suppliers need and consumers are willing to pay).

The same applies for Texas. The market has been totally mismanaged, it's been a free-for-all and ERCOT is potentially facing long-term catastrophe if they don't sort out pricing soon. £2.50 per MWh is just not financially sustainable. Great for consumers in the short-term but, if sustained, will inevitably lead to a reduction in capacity as suppliers either leave the market, mothball facilities and/or cease to invest in new capacity, resulting in price spikes and/or power outages (demand in the Texas market is expected to continue to rise). Yo-yo pricing is in nobody's long-term, best interests (either suppliers or consumers). However, it will take time to rectify itself. You only need to look at what's happening in the US North East (consumer energy prices are going off the scales) to see what can happen if markets aren't properly regulated.

One more aside if I may. I was reading about the cost of energy in the US North East over the weekend. We think that we have high energy costs! The women in the article was paying US$1,800 per month for electricity and couldn't get gas for love of money!

The reality is that the UK is not alone in suffering high energy costs since the invasion of Ukraine and its a myth to think that energy is univerally cheap in the US (they reckon that US energy costs have risen by c16% since Trump came into the White House). There are currently a lot of factors at play in the US market which are forcing up consumer prices (the move away from wind/solar electricity to oil and gas is actually serving to push up prices at present). Gas or petrol is cheaper in the US but that's got more to do with taxes than anyting else. The reality is the government wasn't charging motorists they'd have to raise taxes elsewhere. We're in a squeeze and it doesn't help that Labour MPs are unwilling to wake up to the fact that we have to try and cut public spending somehow. Corbyn may no longer be in the Labour Party but there seems to be a fair few of his young acolytes in the new parliamentary intake who seem to think that tax is a limitless resource to be tapped whenever they like (they have no financial acumen). Reeves and Starmer may be idiots but their MPs certainly aren't making their life any easier; stymieing any cost cutting measures at every turn and insisting on expanding welfare spending at every opportunity.

You do actually make one interesting point - the cost of energy in the UK. Not disputing that our energy costs are high but it's got more to do with successive governments, dating back to at least the 1980s onwards, failing to come up with a proper UK-wide energy policy. We probably should have been investing in new gas and nuclear powered stations back in the 1980s to replace our ageing coal, oil and nuclear powered stations as an interim strategy until solar/wind technology had come of age; instead, successive governments just dithered and delayed until we were boxed into a corner.

However, I did some quick checking on Google AI and the current boe cost of production of solar/wind generated electricity in the UK is supposedly between £7.50 and £25. These prices compare extremely favourably with the current boe cost of production of both oil and gas (excluding Middle East). If these figures are correct, it does rather beg the question why our energy prices are so high.

One would assume that the production costs either exclude, or are net of, any current tarriffs paid to producers but in theory the tarriffs on new production sites should now start to signiciantly fall or disappear altogether (in part, to reflect the falling prices of wind turbines and solar panels as they become more mainstream). Of course tariffs could disappear altogether if the government actually owned the solar/wind farms and new nuclear facilties and didn't have to guarantee prices to the producers (the producers are entirely all to blame; without the price guarantees it would be impossible for them to find the financing to bulid the production facilities).

PS. I'd fact check some of your data.

E.g. inflation hasn't risen nearly 40% in the last 5 years (you've quoted the 10 year rise) and our inlation rate over the last 5 years has been comparable to other members of the G7. Brexit, COVID and the war in the Ukraine have been the primary catalysts for the rise in inflation; so if you're going to point the finger of blame at anyone for that I'd suggest that you look at the Blue Party.

The last time I looked Malmo (the supposed "rape capital of Europe") was in Sweden.

Hey-ho, It could be worse. We could all be living in the supposed "Land of the Free" where gun toting Federal Agents walk around and shoot anybody who doesn't agree with them (for a country that supposedly supports freedom of speech, the US government seems to be going out of its way to suppress any dissent).

Meanwhile, abroad, it just walks into an independent country who's political system it doesn't agree with (on the pretext that it's supplying the majority of illegal drugs on US streets - it isn't; strikes me that the US just wants to get back control of the supply chain it originally created to support its illegal wars in Central and South America, and the Caribbean - anybody even remember Oliver North these days?) and annexes its natural resources for its own use! It's Iraq 2.0 (at least in Iraq they were attempting to overthrow a genocidal dictator, based on spurious intelligence, who incidently the US financed into power in the first place and supported throughout the war with Iran). Not only that, the US now looks set to grab Greenland by any means (destroying NATO in the process if necessary); against the wishes of the population. Putin must be laughing all the way to the bank!

RGG operates in a sector that's only now coming to fruition as a result of recent changes that have been made to government guidelines. I also believe that I'm correct in saying that Aviva is an investor in RGG.

Have a look at this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNf4nHE6fw

RGG is mentioned as the third (speculative) tip from 1:28 onwards; should at least explain why the trading losses to date aren't necessarily a guide as to how RGG might perform from 2026 onwards.

It's actually a very good podcast if you have the time to listen to it in full. Hulse may come across as a bit "scruffy" (doesn't immediately strike you as being your typical investment manager but appearances can be deceptive) but his analyses are quite compelling; he and his investment team have clearly taken the time to look in detail at these small caps and they are a proactive investor.

PS. I'm not currently an investor (no spare cash) but I am keeping a watching brief. If you don't like having all your eggs in one basket then ONWD (Hulse's IT), which also happens to be one of Total Market Solutions top 10 tips for 2026, has exposure to RGG and a few more exciting companies that Hulse discussed in the podcast. The only real problem for ONWD and Hulse is that they invest in mainly AIM-listed companies and they often tend to be overlooked by the larger main stream investors (the Wild West) regardless of their backstory (so you're often really looking to PIs to drive share price movements). Caveat emptor as always

Sorry about that. LSE seems to be "censoring" the link.

Try searching for "10 companies to follow in 2026 - Total Market Solutions"

try again: **********************************/ 2025/12/10-companies-to-follow-in-2026/

take out the space between the "/" and "2025".

here's the link to the article referred to by burtond: **********************************/2025/12/10-companies-to-follow-in-2026/