Gore Street Energy Storage Share Discussion Threads

[jpatara3] 04/4/2024 08:09

Hold, this sector is the future. GSF is better placed than its competitors, it has international exposure and is well positioned to profit from data centre demand. I am topping up as it falls. The way I see it if GSF needs to trim the dividend that is ok, business survival and growth are the priorities. Generally the green energy sector has been hammered over the last two years. However, the narrative hasn't changed, we still need green energy - countries and companies are committed to this agenda. Having said that if Trump wins then sell to buy oil and gas.

[george stobart] 04/4/2024 08:02

never ending pain and suffering, every rally is getting destroyed and humiliated by Rathbones dumping sell orders with both fists

[waterloo01] 04/4/2024 07:59

I just think it's undervalued, esp if they hit their growth targets in MWPH this year and get close or over the divi cover. If this were listed in the US it wouldn't have such a discount.

[scruff1] 04/4/2024 07:54

Has to be looking at the price and the trade board. My faith in this is hanging by a thread - has been now for quite some time. Dont suppose the outlook for interest rate cuts this year has helped but I cant see this getting back to anything like the hoped for levels of a couple of years ago - no matter what. It would have to rise by 200%.
Only thing stopping me selling out at this point is my losses, the hope that we are at or very close to the ultimate bottom and the hope that the divi is continued - but if its cut then its game over imo. I do think that I would be better off selling and putting the cash into a more promising stock. Anyone else thinking same or with a more positive outlook?

[panshanger1] 04/4/2024 07:22

Relentless here Still a big seller out there ?

[cc2014] 28/3/2024 12:00

A NED buy of 30k shares.

[cocopah] 27/3/2024 18:27

#waterloo01 … I’m pretty sure the Irish assets will be on better contracts, so will be positively accretive … just need to cover the divi (and the upcoming debt) … I guess that might mean we need £40m net income per annum from year-end. 🤔

[waterloo01] 27/3/2024 17:17

thanks cocopah. We have to hope the deal ultimately is a good one for GSF.

[alan pt] 27/3/2024 17:05

The question around the RNS is good, it really is rather poor to have left the cash consideration off, whether by oversight or design

But dividend cover varies significantly depending on how you count it and especially depends on which period you are looking at. Hence any predictions around when full cover can be achieved (and reliably maintained) are going to be only estimates

Personally, I don't think GSF is a good fit for anyone wanting an absolutely reliable income stream. That's just not the nature of this investment

SMIF or BIPS are worth a look for this. I hold both GSF and SMIF and you'll find the SMIF thread very dull compared to this one, because it just does its thing, month after month :)

[cocopah] 27/3/2024 17:03

Got a reply which I thought was poor and told them so but they won’t comment further …
a) … the consideration is commercially sensitive, and it is tied up with development costs and three deals were announced … (to me this is immaterial because we still do not know what the consideration is).
b) … (on dividend cover) your preference for a clear distinction between operational dividend and actual dividend cover is duly noted, However, we have tens of thousands of investors each with their unique preferences for metric presentation … (basically missing the point ientirely, because the only metric that matters is whether the whole dividend is covered, the operational metric is just flattery for GSF).
c) … we have refrained from publishing dividend forecasts and the liquidated damages are due when an asset fails to performance accordance with its warranty … (on my rebuttal of this answer because they didn’t answer my question, they came back to say that if you included assets that did not generate revenue in the denominator for calculating average revenue without including the LDS, then this would distort the average … ) again missing my point that they were not painting a true picture of the revenue achieved if they had to include a one off payment of £3 million which is substantial for Jan & Feb in their case!
d) … to date we have provided revenue for every month of the financial year, the only exception is March which is not yet over … again missing the point that the January and February income included the £3 million payment and we have no idea how much more income (if any) is being driven by Stony and Ferrymuir.

Their final comment was “ while I do fully empathise with the situation and the natural frustration that you may feel, we have continued to execute against the mandate, we have been given. Operationally, the fund continues to generate a healthy and crucially consistent level of revenues through its uniquely diversified asset base. While the entire sector is trading at an average of double digit discounts which is sad for others, we in the investment manager, cap capacity have limited control of fluctuation across the market we can, and our executing in line with the mandate we have been given …”

I pointed out that I was not interested in the performance of the market or other companies and always see reference to such comments as weak management. Anyone in charge of a business controls their own destiny.

Seems like all we can do is hope and pray that there is a huge turnaround … as a long-term holder, I am roughly 40% down here.

[stemis] 27/3/2024 15:29

I think the point about dividend cover is whether it is covered on a Group basis (which is what companies that produce consolidated accounts report) rather than just on a holding company basis.

[panshanger1] 27/3/2024 14:45

Thanks @Cocopah That should keep them busy !

[feddie] 27/3/2024 14:34

Are the analysts saying that the dividend cover is 0.6% as in less than 1% or they really mean 0.6 as in 60% - Citywire states 0.6% but journalists are generally bad at numbers.

[cocopah] 27/3/2024 13:58

So these are questions I’ve put to their investor relations team … I will share any response.

a) the amount of consideration in £s that was paid for the recent acquisition … without this information the information in the RNS below is meaningless …

“The total consideration for these transactions was settled via the issuance of 9,700,000 new Ordinary Shares in the capital of the Company (the "Ordinary Shares") issued at 111.0 pence per Ordinary Share[1], plus cash consideration.”;

b) clarity on the dividend cover, if it is only 0.6 (which I and others including the analysts believe it is) then investors need to hear that loud and clear AND when it will really be 1.0. We don’t need confusion about the ‘operational’ dividend cover and actual dividend cover.

c) How much income will be required to achieve the above AND service the borrowing on the debt below?

“The Company intends to utilise its debt to c.15% of GAV by December-end 2024 to build out its prioritised portfolio; this conservative level of debt will enable accretive projects to become operational.”

d) Is the post period income of £16.1 per MW/hr inclusive of the damages payment and if so what is the actual income?

“Includes estimated liquidated damages of c.£3.0m across the portfolio.”

“Post-period, the Company generated an estimated average hourly revenue of £16.1[3] per MW/hr in January and February 2024, demonstrating the resilience of the Company's diversified portfolio.”

e) accurate communication of monthly income earned until the discount to share price improves.

Long term Investors are nursing paper losses of nearing 50% and need more than platitudes to reassure them.

[george stobart] 27/3/2024 11:36

How much cash they've paid is irrelevant as it was clearly paid with cash on hand and given the low/nominal amount would have minimal impact on projected (net) gearing.

The only thing that matters is issuance of shares at NAV ~111p which will affect the share count, and per share metrics.

[cocopah] 27/3/2024 11:16

Keeping investors in the dark about the consideration is at best duplicitous … let’s say the consideration is £9m, then to all intents and purposes the shares have been issued at the current share price.🤷̴5;♂️
29763;

[yump] 25/3/2024 20:32

I’m not sure the 111p is irrelevant.

Ok we don’t know this, but surely an attempt at valuing the stake in terms of its current or future NAV will have been made, because its actual cash value is an unknown, given variations in its earnings potential. So paying for it partly with GSF shares at their NAV is one way of trying to match two intangible values. Presumably someone will have agreed that regardless of the share price, the stake can be valued in some way other than a simple likely current asset sale value ?

[alibaba42] 25/3/2024 19:13

investing in Bitcoin is not as ridiculous as many people make out. after all we see that not much is trustworthy anymore (even companies like GSF seem to be using smoke and mirrors to some extent). many other organisations being run for super short term like only the next 2 years matter. eventually it will be the last 2 years, but its best to diversify between more traditional stocks and other investments in case the currency we receive in the future from GSF etc wont be the same

[scruff1] 25/3/2024 18:02

Its too late I think for me to sell out. Its been a disaster share for me so will just sit this out til it either goes bump or gets back to 100 or so. GSF seem to have more assets under construction than than Dubai. What we need is assets producing a cash flow. The rest is wearing a bit thin

[yump] 25/3/2024 17:32

The one piece of information missing that would be useful, is the price paid, although presumably its either not a definite amount, or its a secret. But there must be a value used somewhere, otherwise the number of shares “paid” would also be impossible to define, as would the cash.

Perhaps I’ll sell up and stick it into Bitcoin, which is possibly at the point of no return upwards. Dyor or just gamble !

[cocopah] 25/3/2024 15:27

I follow the CEO on LinkedIn. He posted about the transaction today with no mention of the additional consideration so I commented “what was it?” … will let you know if he answers!

On a positive note, I think the operational assets in Ireland command greater contractual income so perhaps there is a silver lining there.🤷̴5;♂️
29300;

[stemis] 25/3/2024 13:11

The market isn't missing anything, just some of the shareholders. The '111p' is just a value the GSF directors have put on the shares. I doubt those who received them place such a value on them. All the announcement says is that GSF have bought the 49% for 9.7m shares plus some cash. The '111p' is irrelevant.

GSF haven't even disclosed how much cash they've paid.

Another smoke and mirrors attempt which some (but not the market) seem to have fallen for...

[spectoacc] 25/3/2024 12:06

Assume they're only allowed to issue at NAV? Therefore agree with the point that the number of shares is adjusted.

Answer will come in July, and whether the new shares start hitting the market at these prices.

Credit to GSF though, for not issuing at market price. Will they do the same with their share options I wonder?

[nickelmer] 25/3/2024 11:57

Two deals with partners taking shares at much higher prices, what is the market missing here?