We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gore Street Energy Storage Fund Plc | GSF | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.10 | 0.20% | 50.60 | 12:27:42 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.70 | 50.60 | 50.70 | 50.50 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 12/12/2024 18:20 by cocopah Operational EBITDA of £10.9m (which is bad enough on income given more assets are now contributing since the last set of financials - we know the excuses) … but worse … costs of the company and intermediate holding companies of £4.61m.That’s before we look at the interest costs and associated fees adding up to £1m … and these will be ballooning from here! I cannot believe that institutional investors are not disturbed by the above.🫣 The more I look at the latest financials the more I become concerned at them ever managing to cover the dividend at 7p. I tried to ask questions about this on the Investor Meets Forum and was duly ignored. |
Posted at 27/11/2024 12:48 by wskill New dividend policy as below.Dividend Policy We remain committed to regular capital allocation reviews and comprehensive analytical assessments, while remaining receptive to shareholder feedback, to ensure the Company continues to be managed effectively for investors. Following this year's review, the Board has decided to adjust the Company's dividend policy to better align it with the construction schedule of the portfolio. It is the Directors' intention to continue to pay, in the absence of unforeseen circumstances, a dividend of 7.0 pence per ordinary share for the financial year subject to market conditions and performance, financial position and outlook, and fiscal environment. This is consistent with investors' expectations based on the current NAV but, from the 2024/25 financial year, the profile and quantum of dividend distributions will be more closely aligned with operational and other cashflows rather than NAV. Moving from roughly equal payments across all quarters, the Board has determined to target a dividend of 1.0 pence per Ordinary Share for each of the first three quarters of the financial year. It is intended the amount of the final quarterly dividend (announced in June and paid in July) will make up the balance of the annual dividend target subject to cash flows at the time. As with the current dividend policy, all dividends remain at the discretion of the Board. This is a prudent adjustment to the dividend policy reflecting the maturing nature of the Company's portfolio, with a transformative year for increasing operational and revenue-generating capacity. |
Posted at 13/11/2024 23:51 by pretax2 Well the mood music is definately positive on the IRA so far:hxxps://www.akingump [From para 2 if you know what the IRA is] The IRA expanded and extended federal tax credits for the deployment of clean energy technologies and manufacturing. The federal tax credits are available for solar, wind and other renewable generation projects. The IRA expanded available tax credits to include energy storage, carbon capture, the production of hydrogen, clean fuels and manufacturing of qualifying solar, wind and battery components, inverters and critical minerals. The IRA also established for the first time a right to transfer or sell the tax credit for cash, which has resulted in numerous transactions involving buyers across numerous industries. It has been estimated that $9 to 11 billion in tax credit sales occurred in the first half of 2024 which is expected to increase to $25 billion by the end of the year. The risk of material changes to the tax credits may chill investment in new projects pending resolution of these policy matters. There are five key take-aways for investors. First, the Trump administration will need strong support in Congress to repeal or materially amend the IRA and such support is not necessarily assured. Although repeal of the IRA aligns with broader Republican priorities, some party members, especially those from red districts where the IRA has spurred job growth and attracted multibillion-dollar investments, may resist its complete repeal. In August, Representative Andrew Garbarino and 17 other Republican lawmakers sent a letter to speaker Mike Johnson urging that lawmakers “prioritize business and market certainty” in considering a repeal. The letter continues: “[p]rematurely repealing energy tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground, would undermine private investments and stop development that is already ongoing.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) stated in a September interview that it would be impossible to “blow up” all of the IRA and referenced the need to use a “scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.” Elements of the IRA that may garner broader Republican support include tax credits for established clean energy technologies like solar, onshore wind and energy storage as well as the advanced manufacturing production tax credits under Section 45X with respect to the manufacturing of qualifying solar, wind and battery components, inverters, critical minerals and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). Second, any repeal is unlikely to be retroactive. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2023, more than 40 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity generation was from non-carbon emission sources or battery technologies, exceeding deployment in all previous years. Projects that achieve key milestones before any repeal are unlikely to lose benefits under the IRA. We expect investors to accelerate development efforts necessary to “earn” benefits under the IRA before any repeal. Third, sponsors will continue to make substantial investments in renewable energy, particularly solar and battery energy storage systems, during the next Trump administration. While debate over the IRA will continue, state-based renewable procurement requirements and other state-based incentives will continue to support development. In addition, as was the case in the last Trump administration, strong interest in the procurement and use of renewables by U.S. tech companies and other large corporates in the U.S. will continue to drive growth in renewables. Climate advocacy will not cease but will instead shift in focus from advocating for congressional action and Executive Orders, to shareholder activism, voluntary programs and ensuring companies uphold their existing commitments. Corporations are not expected to abandon their climate commitments as a result of the change in administration, despite likely changes in the way they publicly talk about those commitments. |
Posted at 11/11/2024 07:50 by pretax2 I read through the results and reviewed the IMC video again. This company has tremendous growth potential given its global scope. GSF is well below NAV so can’t issue new shares - thus trying to grow organically within a generous dividend framework. The company are on the cusp of a breakthrough in income with projects completing, so I’m optimistic. Many sustainable energy trusts have been hit for six, especially if restricted to the UK and some have cut their dividend completely. Makes 7p here look excellent and the company are right, IMO, to sync this to income flows. Growth in the battery storage sector is predicted to be substantial in coming years and GSF is a market leader with global and growing reach. With sensible leadership from the founder, the fund has longevity IMV.The shareprice downtrend is obviously concerning investors (and probably the only reason for the negativity here), but if the company continues to expand and pay a health dividend I’m happy. If you reinvest, you double your money after about 6 years assuming the current yield holds. It’s a moderately risky hold though, so perhaps not for more nervous investors. |
Posted at 07/11/2024 18:32 by cocopah #waterloo01 GSF said, on the capital markets notification, that the materials would be on the company website after the event. I have yet to see them anywhere. I know GSF said that there would be no new information however it would still be interesting to see what information they were feeding to the analysts and institutional investors and more importantly what questions those analysts and investors asked and how they were answered. 🤷a |
Posted at 05/11/2024 09:53 by cocopah A cynic might say this capital markets day is all about preparing investors for reporting poor income in the December update and setting it off against jam in 2025 … no doubt that in the U.K. wind and solar are faring poorly at present. I do hope that institutional investors take #GSC to task over their exorbitant fees, personally I’ve had enough of them shilling investors. |
Posted at 10/10/2024 04:36 by route1 I agree completely.They should provide CLARITY to their investors,private or otherwise.They have the means to communicate with us via Investor Relations! |
Posted at 07/8/2024 16:19 by fordtin Not sure how long these Q&A answers have been available. Investor meet said they'd send an email but seem to have forgotten.None of my questions were answered, so presumably Gore Street filtered out any questions they didn't like. Question 1: What is the reasoning behind the weighted dividend payments to the final quarter? The Company is targeting a dividend of 7.0p per Ordinary Share for this Financial Year. This is consistent with investors’ expectations based on the current NAV; however, from this financial year, the profile and quantum of dividend distributions are more closely aligned with cash flow rather than NAV. Moving from roughly equal payments across all quarters, the Board has determined to target a dividend of 1.0 pence per Ordinary Share for each of the first three quarters of the financial year. Under the policy, the Q4 dividend target would be 4.0 pence per Ordinary Share. The quarterly dividend payments are weighted toward the final quarter, reflecting the portfolio's construction schedule. As the Company is a real asset investor, cash generation is linked to its underlying portfolio of assets. The portfolio is on track to reach over 750 MW of energised capacity by February 2025. Question 2: Is there a risk to receipt of the ITCs should Trump be re-elected as it currently looks likely? The Investment Manager has published a blog looking at the potential effects of the Trump administration, which is available to view here. hxxps://gorestreetca Question 3: What fire risk mitigation measures do you take at your facilities? The Company’s safety measures for the existing fleet are robust and significant, not only to ensure continued uptime for its assets but also to protect those working on site. As more capacity is added to the Company’s portfolio and its global BESS fleet, it is key that correct health and safety standards are maintained and supported by appropriate regulations and widely available guidance. Newer projects are being retrofitted with electrolyte vapour detection (additional mitigation through hardware to avoid thermal runaway). This measure, in conjunction with a robust health and safety strategy, mitigates fire risk. The 2024 ESG & Sustainability report, to be released in the first week of September, will have more detailed information regarding health and safety. Question 4: How do lower battery costs affect the portfolio? Lower battery prices affect the portfolio in numerous ways. For both operational and construction assets, a reduction in battery prices would result in lower repowering costs. Increasing the duration of some of the Company’s assets also contributes to the economic case of retrofitting, as lithium-ion cells and battery packs represent the largest equipment cost required to add additional duration to existing sites. The Investment Manager remains cognisant of market conditions, particularly with the lack of availability of equity capital and the high cost of debt. The Company will build out its operational capacity of over 750 MW; anything beyond this is dependent on a series of variables, including debt costs, equity availability, capex costs, falling lithium costs, market opportunities, and revenue levels. Question 5: How do you plan to deal with the batteries at the end of their life cycle? Under existing waste regulations in Europe, the producer or commercial entity that brings batteries into the market is responsible for their collection and sustainable disposal. The Company has owned assets since 2018 and has, therefore, had few instances where recycling of end-of-life battery cells is needed. Systems were removed from the Port of Tilbury asset in GB in February 2023 following a recall by LG Energy Solutions (LG-ES) after it was found that thousands of cells manufactured at two of the Company’s sites between April 2017 and September 2018 may carry defects. The Company facilitated this process by connecting LG-ES with the battery recycling firm Battri, which uses hydrometallurgical to extract black mass material from cells for use in future battery systems. As assets approach their end of life, the Investment Manager will explore available options to ensure that batteries are disposed of sustainably. The Company is conscious of the overall supply chain of batteries, not just the end of their life cycle. As such, it is a member of the Fair Cobalt Alliance, which aims to improve working conditions for cobalt mining. The 2024 ESG & Sustainability report, to be released in the first week of September, will have more detailed information regarding the Fair Cobalt Alliance. Question 6: What will the Company’s cash and debt position be following the receipt of the ITC payment? As of 31 March 2024, the Company had £60.7 million in cash or cash equivalents, as well as £58.6 million in debt headroom on its existing debt facilities, sufficient to cover all contractual obligations and build out the Company’s portfolio to over 750MW. The Company has two debt facilities; a $60m facility secured at the asset level and a £50m revolving credit facility at the fund level. The Investment Manager has advised that the Company is expected to draw both facilities fully to complete the assets currently under construction. Once both facilities are fully drawn, the Company is expected to run a gearing ratio of c.15% of GAV. The cash inflow following the transfer of the investment tax credits (c. $60-80 m) is not included in the above 15% of GAV figure. The Company maintains optionality over the use of the cash associated with the ITC. Question 7: Would you ever consider a tolling agreement to offset revenue risk in the future? The Company regularly tests the market for tolling agreements and are yet to be convinced they offer an attractive alternative or addition to our diversified approach to revenues. The recently and widely reported large tolling agreement in GB appears to fall in line with the price levels seen when testing the tolling market and, while it may serve to improve confidence among lenders, locking in an agreement at a low point in the market has considerable disadvantages. Any upside from market recovery is eliminated for the tolling agreement period which, for investors, means they are forced to settle for a certain but potentially low return. Remaining merchant allows the Company to retain any potential upsides across a portfolio that is already derisked by its geographical spread across five uncorrelated markets. More importantly, the Investment Manager has the control over each asset to optimise the Company’s revenue strategy to ensure these upsides are accessible while ensuring they maintain best-in class operational performance. Tolls often come with increased cycle rates, which can degrade the battery, while putting in place stringent availability requirements and penalties if they dip below that level. The Investment Manager has an in-house commercial and asset management team working in unison to maintain availability while engaging in a wide range of optimal revenue streams. Question 8: Is the RA (resource adequacy) contract in California, the same as the capacity market contract we see in GB? There are a couple of differences between capacity market contracts in GB and the Resource Adequacy contract in California. For resource adequacy contracts, 4-hour duration is required, but in GB, there is the opportunity to bid as a one-hour asset. Also, the contract is not obtained through public auctions, but through bilateral negotiations with the suppliers, so there is no clear market price available, it’s all negotiated bilaterally and not necessarily disclosed to third parties. Thirdly, there are more stringent and technical requirements for the CAISO RA contract. For GB, the Company is only expecting roughly 10% of revenue coming from capacity markets, for CAISO projects, the Company expects 40% from this long-term RA contract. For the overall portfolio, this adds a significant portion of contract revenue. Big Rock is a large asset and will contract a large portion of its capacity under RA. Under the RA, the Company will have a higher percentage of contracted revenue. |
Posted at 10/7/2024 16:40 by cocopah #cc2014 that’s pretty ridiculous. There is no chip on my shoulder, just a genuine concern that investors are not being treated in good faith.As an example, we probably all thought that FerryMuir was contributing well before June and therefore income to improve the dividend cover was being earned. I am not bothered about other BESS companies, but there are other companies that produce income based factsheets and I have given an example earlier in this thread. There is also the fact that Gore Street Capital are taking bucket loads of fees from #GSF during the same period that investors are way down on their investment (the former are owned by the CEO and other management). If investors fail to put senior management under the microscope they will get away with this continuous ‘smoke and mirrors’ approach to communication.ԍ |
Posted at 07/2/2024 17:58 by cocopah #scruff1 … so as requested, some feedback from my discussion with Ben at Gore Street Capital Investor Relations.Firstly, they are very welcoming of a discussion and interactions with private investors. I get the sense that they are frustrated with the current share price and whether the message is getting out to investors about income in the near-term future. I asked about the difference between operational dividend cover and fund-wide dividend cover and the reason the latter is lower is that it includes more costs. I asked if this could be made clear to investors. I also asked about the income and whether or not they could be more forthcoming in terms of forward-looking statements. For example whilst Stoney may not be contributing at the average £15/kwh revenue, it is contributing in absolute terms (as will Ferrymuir when it is energised very soon). He is taking that feedback back to the decision makers. He said it was unlikely that we would get a monthly unaudited NAV but understands that for GSF to be seen as a buy, investors need to be convinced that dividend cover is improving (ie. income) and NAV stability and growth is on an upward trajectory, because that drives the absolute level of the dividend. I left him pondering about how investor information (that would assuage current concerns) could be packaged and communicated in a simple way. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
