Kibo Energy Share Discussion Threads

[frankandbeans] 11/12/2021 09:26

Still waiting for to confirm the debt amount contained with the pyebridge SPV and your valuation of the coal assets.

As you are only posting once per day moving forward you should have plenty of time to prepare this ahead of tommorows single post.

Chuckle chuckle.

[frankandbeans] 11/12/2021 08:30

Here’s something to occupy some of the time
you clearly have lots of, why don’t you find out what the level of debt is contained within the pyebridge SPV, and also whilst you are at it explain what value you attribute to the coal “assets” and why. Shouldn’t be too difficult for you.

Ho ho ho and chuckle chuckle.

[frankandbeans] 11/12/2021 08:23

“1. RNS 20th October 21... Close Leasing LTD a subsidiary of Close Brothers Group plc the lender have offered facilities to fund the development and construction of the company's two owned reserve projects Bordersley and Rochdale. The facilities are offered subject to the successful completion of due diligence.
Note the wording owned ie equates to 100% in my book.
Someone asked us to speculate on what the next news could be.? Successful due diligence of our business model from a Global finance giant and full steam ahead with Bordersley and Rochdale..”

>> they have offered facilities to fund, the terms of this have been omitted for some reason. Also both of these sites have been shovel/construction ready for how many months now? Hardly “full steam ahead”.

Speaking of modus operandi and agenda I’m just going to post this here as well before you decide to edit the content to suit your commentary.

“The type of agreements I am interested in re Mast Energy Kibo 55% ownership... Moving forward re Pyebridge, Rochdale and Bordersley, to give an example
1. RNS 20th October 21... Close Leasing LTD a subsidiary of Close Brothers Group plc the lender have offered facilities to fund the development and construction of the company's two owned reserve projects Bordersley and Rochdale. The facilities are offered subject to the successful completion of due diligence.
Note the wording owned ie equates to 100% in my book.
Someone asked us to speculate on what the next news could be.? Successful due diligence of our business model from a Global finance giant and full steam ahead with Bordersley and Rochdale... Not sure about everyone else reading this but that's the type of agreement that interests me... :-)

Re Beanz/jax05. 8 points down to one.?
1.I came to the realization you do not warrant the space on this board, so shortened.
2. Your modus operandi is to post within minutes of any post that does not fit with your agenda...
3. Similar to JAX05Just take a look at London South East board JAX05. its a disgrace they still let him post and in a way they are complicit in facilitating that type of behavior all this time. Despite removing 100 plus posts of his. Some for libelous comments. So they cannot claim they are unaware of this.”

I would also suggest that if you have issues with posts on LSE then contact LSE rather than whinging about them on ADVFN.

Nobody likes a cry baby.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 16:30

I see you have edited and deleted your other 8(!) points.

And I still don’t agree with you.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 13:02

“ If there is debt in the SPV, that is accounted for when coming to the free cash flow figures “

No, you presume that it is, but you don’t have any idea of what’s contained within the SPV other than price paid for it, as for some reason they have not published those figures.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 12:18

And it’s still not the correct use of pronouns regardless.

Chuckle chuckle.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 12:08

You really are obtuse.

If there is debt contained within the SPV those figures have not been published, so how could you possibly know there isn’t, and given this was already built there would have been equity investors into this SPV at the outset, guess what that infers?

As for the other projects they aren’t even anywhere near being brought online, care to suggest what impact that will have on the cash flows from them which is currently zero it seems.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 11:39

No mistake at all, I meant to say “sold orf” but it obviously went well over your head, much like what’s actually going on with this SPV.

Chuckle chuckle.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 11:12

You realise you are quite obviously posting with two accounts?

And as I have already explained, you need to know the debt contained within the SPV before you can make any calculations.

It’s really not that difficult to grasp, is it?

So the question you should be asking is what’s the debt in the SPV? And what actually are the coal assets being “sold orf” that’s two for you which for some reason you can’t/won̵7;t answer.

One of those “wit olifants” I suppose.

[jfreshfield] 10/12/2021 10:14

What's the next news here please?

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 10:01

Oh and “none” is a pronoun btw. It’s quite irritating the way you use it.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 09:58

Logged in with the wrong account there old chap, you have been using “iamthebest221; don’t forget.

Keep up.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 07:55

You can regurgitate the same figures over and over, but you are still missing the point. Now you are either being deliberately obtuse, or really that naive.

You seem to have grasped how to post correctly on here though, well done.

Sadly you do seem unable to differentiate between other users on here - those “figures”; are from a post on the MAST board as I already explained.

Where are the actual SPV numbers? And you are correct they provide no figures for Bordersley or Rochdale - odd concept for an investment proposition wouldn’t you say.

What’s the debt saddled in the SPV I ask again?

Oh and what constitutes the coal “assets” that are being flogged orf? You seem to think that there’s something tangible?

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 06:28

What status are the other sites sat at? Shovel/construction ready? A poster on the MAST board indicated one was still a car park at their last visit.

[frankandbeans] 10/12/2021 06:24

You really aren’t getting it are you.

Why aren’t the figures readily available?

How much debt is in this SPV?

Without knowing that you can’t reliably calculate the EBDITA.

It’s already been explained on the MAST board but you don’t seem to understand.

“ "Based on the MAST optimised financial model, an EBIDTA of c. £488,221 per annum was projected in the Company's RNS of 12 August 2021. This projection has now received validation in the following"
and "Revised optimised Internal Rate of Return ("IRR") now expected at 21%."

But not the slightest, teenyweeniest hint, of the vital information investors need re the capital cost of the plant (which will hve been over and above whatever Mast paid for the Pyebridge SPV 'owning' it) - and also details of the structure of the Pyebridge SPV itself.

What is usually 70% of the capex that will be raised as a project loan ( which enables the irr to be 'optimised' asa result of the gearing) has to be repaid from that EBITDA. To arrive at the 21% irr quoted (and assuming it is calculated over 10 years, and that the £488,000 pa is taken as earnings) the initial capex met by the project equity (ie having to be met by equity shares in the SPV which will have to come either from Mast or someone else) needs to be £1.9m. Assuming the total cost of the plant has been £6m (based on info from other such plants but possibly too low) that £1.9m is 31% of the capex which seems right.
The remaining £4.1m will be a project loan, which over the 9 yrs at 8% which is similar to others, will cost £615,000 pa to repay.
So no free cash to pay out to Mast to help buy other SPV's, or to Mast shareholders, or to Kibo, while meanwhile the SPV will have little value (to be resold) until that loan has been repaid in nine years time.
Without any more detail (not provided of course, either in RNS's or in the prospectus) and with its broker having been asked to clarify but omitting to reply, an investor can only conclude that the whole Mast caboodle is a waste of investors time and money.
One question relevant to Pyebridge itself is - bearing in mind it is complete and building must have started before Mast arrived - who put up the original equity in te SPV to start building ? ie there must be another shareholder in Pyebridge we haven't been told about. While Mast paid £2.5 m for the SPV, this isn't necessarily for the whole plant so has it acquired 100% of the SPV ? We haven't been told. To understand what is in it for Mast shareholders they need to know exactly what Pyebridge 'contains' - ie how much other equity ? How much project loans already raised ? And the total capital cost of the plant. Over how many years has the irr been calculated ? Without any of that information, the EBITDA Mast (and Kibo) is trumpeting is completely irrelevant and useless.
But that is the norm for any 'project' Kibo has been involved with.
And it is so convenient that its 'Standard' listing means there is no Nomad who can demand that Mast answer such questions.

And I'm sure Mr Yaki will come up and, as back in Octobr he said 'there are too many errors in my analysis for him to bother' (in reality over all the years I've seen his posts he demonsrates complete ignorance about how company finances work)
So, this time, let him come up with a proper critique of my calcs, and at the same time get the broker or Mr Venter to answer the questions I've asked (and at the same time to ask him if he still has his 19% or so holding)”