We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mast Energy Developments Plc | MAST | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.005 | -2.44% | 0.20 | 11:15:40 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.205 | 0.195 | 0.205 | 0.205 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| ALTERNATIVE ENERGY |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 27/1/2025 15:13 by lurker5 New website ? Matthew 23:27 comes to mind - "Whiting the sepulchre" - ie colourful gloss to obscure that none of the info an investor needs is there (except in the small print of the reports and accounts). ie that the projects will effectively belong to whoever finances them - which won't be Mast, who not ony doesn't have the dosh, but owes more than £4m it won't be able to pay. |
Posted at 28/12/2024 09:18 by lurker5 -I don't have time to teach one-and-one-makes-twBasically you're right about (part of) PK's 'strategy' It is to try to fend off creditors while he trumpets what he's doing to rake in cash to pay them. But the sums don't really add up, and his other strategy you can't see and that he doesn't tell you, is to hide the facts from investors so as to push up the shares, when he will then try to raise it from them - at a very bruising discount. On past record he'll fail to do that. (And its exactly what he did on listing. weasels don't change their spots) |
Posted at 27/12/2024 19:59 by lurker5 'fraid wi you've overlooked the current liabilities. What counts for solvency and ability to spend is the liquidity position -ie current assets less current liabilities (immediate debts in other words) . Within that, cash comes and goes on a daily basis as creditors demand their money and debtors pay or don't pay . End June current liabs were £2.49m against a paltry £0.38 current assets. That's why I've always said 'look at the balance sheet', which for Mast is dire. But inexperienced investors never do and PK studiously avoids mentioning it. That's why he's a weasel. And I'm afraid to say you are a mug ! You really must read that long note in the last Report and Accounts re going concern (or not in Masts case). |
Posted at 26/12/2024 15:42 by wi1l Well its still early days with regards to Powertree, however with Riverfort so far yes I do actually. Because it is a loan or "secured facility" ie they will lend up to £4M under the terms in rns dated 28/2/24. Which are:New Funding Agreement Key Highlights · Funding Agreement between MED subsidiary Pyebridge Power Ltd ("Pyebridge"), MED and RiverFort by way of a secured facility (the "Investment") for a commitment amount of up to £4m. · An initial advance of £450,000 following execution of the Funding Agreement ("Initial Advance"). · Further advances will be made by the Investor on the same terms as the Initial Advance. · Use of proceeds of the Initial Advance: o To lift MED's Pyebridge 9MW flexible power generation asset (the 'Site') out of care and maintenance (see RNS dated 1 December 2023), by initiating first phase of the overhaul work programme of the Site's reciprocal generation engines in order to recommence production and trading revenue generation during April 2024. o General working capital purposes of Pyebridge and MED. · Further funding up to the commitment amount of up to £4m which will predominantly be used to fund the Site's overhaul work programme in order to achieve full generation, efficiency and profitability potential, as well as the further development of MED's other existing sites and additional sites in the future. · MED and RiverFort in renewed discussions with a number of debt providers including Close Brothers to complement RiverFort's funding for MED's projects' capex requirements. This is part of an approach to create a scalable financing framework anchored by RiverFort. · Drawdowns under the Investment will have a term of 24 months and attract an annual interest rate of 12% rolled up and paid at maturity. · Any outstanding balances are to be repaid in cash on the Maturity Date (excluding any balances converted pursuant to the Equity Rights (as described below)). · MED to act as guarantor to Pyebridge for the re-payment of drawdowns under the Investment on an unsecured basis. · RiverFort will hold senior security over the assets of Pyebridge while there remains an outstanding balance on the Investment, save to the extent that this will be released by RiverFort to facilitate project finance on a secured basis. · RiverFort will have the right to convert the outstanding balance on the Investment to Preference Shares in Pyebridge once it exceeds £1million of outstanding balance pursuant to the Investment. The conversion into Preference Shares will represent 12.5% of the issued share capital (on a fully diluted basis). This can be increased up to 20% of the issued share capital (on a fully diluted basis) by the conversion of outstanding balances during the term of the Investment up to £2,000,000 ("Equity Rights"). The Equity Rights will: o Provide a preferential return on all income or capital distributions with 12.5% representing 50% of all distributions with the balance due to the ordinary shares in Pyebridge, such percentage increasing with further investment and transformation into Preference Shares; o Provide a preferential return on capital risk representing the value of the Investment converted into the Equity Rights prior to distribution to the shareholders of Pyebridge; o Provide a right to appoint up to 2 directors and an observer to the board of Pyebridge; o Include veto and consent rights customary with an investment of the nature of the Investment (including approval of any material disposals or investments by Pyebridge); and o Not include any fixed returns, coupons or other guaranteed returns. · MED and RiverFort have agreed on an allocation budget for drawdown funds and will cooperate on restructuring the liabilities of MED and Pyebridge to ensure the on-going viability of the MED Group by reducing short term creditors. |
Posted at 24/12/2024 11:53 by lurker5 'fraid the numbers show that the plants can never deliver enough income (as dividends from the SPV's which are the only way cash can get to Mast plc) for Mast to pay off its creditors. And how far do you think £258,000 wll go in developing Hindlip ? These sites are costing some £1.5m just for the infrastructure, connections, and planning, while each 1 MW of plant installed costs the best part of £1m (which is what will be financed by banks or Powertree or Riverfort). They may see the SPV's (ie the plants) as good (if volatile) businesses in themselves which they will majority own and might support through the sort of downturn seen in 2023. For Mast to retain any share of them or their income it has to stump up a proportion of the equity - a few £million for each plant at least to be of any use. And it hasn't got it or any hope of it without a massive share issue. Powertree and Riverfort won't give it to Mast plc, They only stump up for the separate plant SPV's which they will majority own. They won't care if Mast plc goes under because they'll just take the plants. They're probaby only keeping PK & Co for the moment so as to get a toehold in the sector. No-one seeing his record of mismanaging all his plants so far would want to keep him on. Its this structure of the company which investors don't understand and which PK is obscuring (and has always obscured from even at the listing) from them. Is why he doesn't in my view deserve the credit you want to give him.But he will be able to keep pretending (by way of the 'consolidated' accounts) that whatever profits and cash the plants deliver will belong to Mast plc (and you as a shareholder) whereas in reality they arise within the separate SPV's which will overwhelmingly be owned by Powertree or Riverfort and who will take their proportion of cash generated (which will be low in any case after the loans are repaid). Only a good analyst (or an honest accountant) will point that out. You would do well to study Powertree Holdings and its subsidiaries' (listed in them) accounts on Companies House to see how any Mast project will work. Also look all the 'going concern' statement page 32 and 33 of 2023 Mast report and accounts. None of the events that would rescue Mast from insolvency have materialised over two years except the Riverfort and Powertree promises (subject to due diligence) which along with financing the plants (of no value to Mast plc itself as I've said) MIGHT advance something to Mast plc itself. But if so it would dilute exsiting shareholders just as share issues would. By the way, there are other companies called Powertree at Companies House, but they seem unconnected with these Hartree Holdings' ones. |
Posted at 15/12/2024 09:31 by lurker5 First I'm retired and like to keep my hand in. Second, I've countered (in the courts,incl the European Court) some injustices and nonsenses along the way and think its useful. Third, for years I wrote for private investors and don't like to see them either being fleeced or fleecing themselves. Fourth, I don't like to see crooks getting away with it. Fifth I've started (in 2016) so I'll finish - until the FCA does something about companies like this. |
Posted at 14/12/2024 12:02 by lurker5 Sorry W11l. I've been consulting and reporting on all sorts of companies, large, FTSE 100, and small, for over 40 years and my opinion here isn't 'tarnished'. ! And I've been following Mast (and previously Kibo) and commenting in great detail because they've been among the most dishonest I've ever come across - and the most to have bamboozled investors due to the use (and failure to explain to investors) of SPV's which most pi's (and a lot of brokers's analysts) just don't understand. eg the latest, WH Ireland was bamboozled at first - and then hurriedly scuttled away. Others, ditto, previously |
Posted at 14/12/2024 09:47 by lurker5 I'm afraid you are still showing that you don't understand how cash and profits flow or don't flow inside Mast's structure. Consolidated accounts hide it. The investopedia quote tells you to unravel at the level of each SPV as well as at the 'top' parent co. Being a 'chartered accountant' didn't stop PK and LC and PV misleading investors when Mast listed (shown clearly by subsequent events) - And neither did it help to avoid the mismanagement whereby 1) Bordersley was promised to be in operation many years ago and is currently stalled and worthless 2) Paying far too much to buy decrepit Pyebridge 3) Buying and crowing that Rochdale would soon be in operation and then selling (for a tiny profit)4) Trumpeting ever since listing that it would obtain funding for its schemes only for no-one to step up until Riverfort with its onerous terms (look them up and compare with the project funding no one will give Mast). 5) Desperately signing up to a non-existant Indian outfit and then ignominiously turning to Riverfort. You show not only naivite but the sort of blockheadedness that cost Enron shareholders their shirts and the losses Mast and Kibo shareholders have born so far. And you don't seem to know that 'chartered accountants' can be merely bean counters and, in PK's case, certainly not competent managers. |
Posted at 12/12/2024 13:15 by lurker5 wi1-I'm sure the savvy you will have read this on Investopedia "Financials of an SPV The financials of an SPV may not appear on the parent company’s balance sheet as equity or debt. Its assets, liabilities, and equity will be recorded only on its own balance sheet instead. An investor should always check the financials of any SPV before investing in a company. Remember Enron! The SPV can therefore mask crucial information from investors who aren’t getting a full view of a company’s financial situation. Investors must analyse the balance sheet of the parent company and the SPV before deciding whether to invest in a business." |
Posted at 28/11/2024 18:06 by lurker5 Dear oh Dear. The LSE children now think 'assets' are worth £7m, when the latest accounts show them as £0.6m negative, and liquid assets (what counts to make for legal inolvency meaning Mast can't pay its debts) in £2m deficit within the year and £3.8m over the medium term. But of course PK is repeating the lie LC used in pretending Bordersley was 'worth' more than £5m by totting up the next 25 years income it 'would' make if it were up and running (as if anyone sensible would pay that up front anyway, and as if it would enable Mast to pay todays debts). Its the way this lot gets away with their dishonesty among some naive private investors that makes blood boil. (But, then, some fund managers have also been known not to understand company financial accounts. They, like LSE kiddies, treat investing like a night at the dogs)Anyone tempted by this company should understand corporate company structures, where 'published financial results are not the whole picture - grotesquely so for Mast. |
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
