Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mast Energy Developments Plc | MAST | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.135 | 08:00:09 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.135 | 0.131 | 0.135 | 0.135 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| ALTERNATIVE ENERGY |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 07/10/2024 07:21 by lurker5 Just to remind the excitables on that other board (who 'can't understand why MAST's shares are so low').1) At the full gross profit rate boasted of today, (won't be until all gensets running next year with two still to pay for) a £1m annual gross profit won't anywhere near repay the £4m Shylock Riverfort wants after two years, otherwise he can grab all of Pyebridge. 2) Pyebridge is separate from MAST. MAST is bust and is who posters are invested in. (Something the company never tells investors - they have to carefully read the accounts, which those still invested obviously never do) |
Posted at 07/8/2024 15:52 by bozzy_s Took a few minutes to work out what the business model is. I read the Pyebridge renovation stuff on their website, but still didn't get how they produce electricity.It's answered on this link They buy gas and turn it into electricity, to be sold when grid demand means extra sources are needed - hence at a higher price than 'usual'. Sounds a solid enough model, if the gensets are 100% reliable, the input cost of gas remains lower than the output sales price of electricity. Not sure it should be a listed company though, seems too small-scale to justify the listing costs. And seeing the name Riverfort will put off 95% of potential investors. |
Posted at 07/8/2024 09:22 by exotic matter 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 01/6/2024 09:28 by lurker5 What a sad individual is our Mr B ! Never contributed anything sensible. Wonder what his day job is ? Stacking red shelves somewhere ? Some investors appreciate informed opinion about their share. A mystery why he puts his little oar in here. |
Posted at 07/5/2024 07:38 by lurker5 It was all long foretold in the numbers yaki ! The likes of Coetzee don't bother to understand their own.Their 'strategy' is to fleece the lemmings who can't understand them either. Coetzee has now made a juicy living for over 12 years from AIM investors and delivered absolutely nothing from well over ten wheezes. In a wicked world, Coetzee's story will turn out the biggest scandal of all - whether you call it incompetence facilitated by a merry band of stockmarket brokers and hangers on - or not. |
Posted at 29/4/2024 06:58 by lurker5 I'm high on the need to out a fraudulent bunch, out to (continue to) fleece investors. Geddit ? What about you ? Just sitting on your sofa ? |
Posted at 28/10/2023 18:33 by lurker5 Sammy I've been following LC and all his works almost since the day he brought a rag-bag of mining projects from South Africa (which with hindsight didn't want them)to Aim some 12 years ago. I recognised that he was provIng he doesn't know and doesnt want his investors to know, the ins and outs of developing and financing projects much bigger than his own company. I was intrigued to see how he and his long chain of advisers and City hangers on (who all dropped him when they themelves twigged) consistently exaggerated whetever returns investors could expect and consistently omitted to explain crucial details so they could work it out for themselves, That carried over even more blatantly into Mast'a pre-listing raise (it was never a public IPO) which in my view was fraudulently and grotesquely over-priced and got away with without crucial detail because Mast listed via a bucket shop on the so-called 'standard' market which has much lower governance than even AIM. Over the years (under various monikers in various places)I've explained all this in great detail simply because I'm intrigued by how he got away with it among naive investors. MED is just the latest and hopefully last of wheezes where LC gets together apparently attractive 'schemes' for projects in apparently attractive industries but which don't seem to be attractive enough for anyone else more experiemced in those industries to want them. I can't see that its RP projecs are any different. He came in very late (he's always been tail-end Charlie) to the UK RP scene which is actually very competitive and I don't think he has what it takes. Just look at the fiasco that is Bordersley (and the fraudulent price LC used shareholders funds to pay for), as has been Pyebridge which is earning far less than promised. One day LC' whole history will be material for a book. (He hasn't come to be known as an amalgam of Walter Mitty and Pinocchio for nothing)I could go on but it would take too long.Short answer, I don't see how Mast can succeed without brand new management and a bucket load of new capital (raised by reputable brokers and not bucket shops). But it may already be too late even for that. All the best sites will have gone by now. |
Posted at 13/10/2023 06:37 by infinity888 Institutional Investor will inject all required investment capital into the JV with an expected total investment value of c. £33.6m, with no funding contribution required from MED.Institutional Investor to hold 74.9% of the JV and MED to hold 25.1%, subject to the Institutional Investor recognising and reimbursing to MED its actual historic project acquisition and development related costs, totalling an expected c. £7.7m, as detailed below, and no requirement on MED to provide any further funding. Upon execution of the JVA, at Investment Tranche 1, consisting of three projects with a combined generation capacity of a minimum 26.5 MW that MED will provide to the JV, the Institutional Investor will then pay MED c. £3.7m as part repayment of the historic project acquisition and development related costs and inject c. £11m into the JV SPV. Upon satisfactory completion of Investment Tranche 1, at Investment Tranche 2, consisting of three projects with a combined generation capacity of a minimum 14 MW and up to 30 MW that MED will provide to the JV, the Institutional Investor will then pay MED c. £4m as part repayment of the historic project acquisition and development related costs and inject c. £15m into the JV SPV to cover future Capex on these three projects. The Institutional Investor will receive a preferential entitlement to 90% of the profit of the JV until the investment provided under part (i) of the Investment Tranche's 1 & 2 has been recovered in full, at which point any distribution of profits will return to the equity split. It is expected that upon completion of both Investment Tranches 1 and 2, the total expected average annual revenue to be generated by the associated assets in the JV portfolio will comprise c. £15m per annum. Therefore, MED will, assuming it can provide the projects as required, receive a c. 25% free stake in a portfolio of around c. 50 MW of assets that will be fully funded, constructed and revenue generating within the next 12 months. In addition, the JV will grant MED a five-year management services agreement ('MSA') and associated fee to manage the sites, which will further bolster MED's share of income from the JV. |
Posted at 26/8/2023 11:36 by lurker5 To recap.Many newcomers don't understand how Mast works. Especially those just arrived on that other place. They don't know its history, nor the financial structure of its peaker plants. Unlike most companies who own their assets and businesses directly, peakers like Mast hold their plants inside a series of legally separate 'Special Purpose Vehicles' whose assets and liabilities (and existence of any other investors) are not required to be disclosed even in the parent's accounts, and are therefore hidden from shareholders. Its why an alternative name for the practice is 'off balance sheet financing' which, while strictly not illegal, is frowned upon after the Enron scandal. That went bust because investors (and even Enron) didn't know the extent of its hidden borrowings, which eventually Enron couldn't service. It's this structure which obscured what was happening at Mast and is now being exposed with the Seira deal. The fact is “the institutional 'investor consortium' - now revealed as one man band Seira capital (no info or track record or shareholder lists on companies House) - is not 'injecting' funds into Mast but is in effect taking 75% of its five projects off its hands along with the liability to fund them. That is something Mast has failed to do after two years talking to Close Bros ! The deal also reveals the true cost of completing the projects - a major fact Mast and its ringmaster Kibo have always obscured from investors and was one (of two) reasons Mast got away with listing its shares at their grotesquely inflated 12p price, with a listing document which was economical with the truth that major funding was still needed. Although Mast hasn't specified which projects make up the stated 33Mw (was originally 41MW) going into the JV, they look suspiciously like the five it has been working on. Seira is taking 75% ownership of the SPV's which hold them, along with the liability to cough up all the £33.2m cost to complete them That works out at £1m per megawatt,. Adding what Mast has already spent - ie the £7.7m that Seira will reimburse - makes the true capital capital cost £1.2m per MW. which is even more than what I've always posted is needed but contradicted or disbelieved on here So for the first time Mast has had to disclose latest industry costs to be at least some £1 million per megawatt, which needs to be taken into account when looking at peakers’ true profitability. On the £15m revenue for 33 Mw quoted by Mast at the 37% gross margin it has just achieved at Pyebridge, that means less than a £5.5m return on the £41.3 total capital cost. Although there will hopefully be other income from trading the markets, it can't be counted on, and that is a paltry baseline 13.3% gross return for a limited life, and erratic, project in an industry now becoming more and more crowded and costly.. That is a lot less than the 21% LC was crowing about, which benefited from ‘gearing up’ that basic return through the use of bank loan funding - which it can’t now do. Another severe blow to what shareholders were led to expect. Now it is Seira which is benefiting , in return for baling out Masts' projects with its own funds. Not only that, but it is getting 90% of net profit (instead of 75%) until it has recovered that £7.7m- which therefore isn't a permanent 'injection' into Mast, but is having to be repaid through Mast foregoing 15% out of its 25% share until paid back. (It shows what a stranglehold Seira has been able to get through LC’s mismanagement) The clappies should work out how long that will take. Assuming all the 41Mw (originally stated but now seemingly ‘up to 33Mw’) is operating at the same margin as Pyebridge, after tax (say 20%) I make it 3 -4 years before Seira gets its £7.7m back and before Mast starts getting 25%. That looks like mid 2027-2028 ! That’s not the worst of it. Seira is also immediately getting a big stake in MED through the shares it can get in return for clearing Mast's existing £729,750 outstanding loan. (now reduced to £623,000) At 2p, that would give Seira 18.2m shares in year one, and the same in year two unless the shares get above 2p (which I don't think they will for reasons below) On top of that, in the next few months, Seira can get an astonishing further 86.8m shares as warrants at up to 1.76p (ie they might convert soon) taking their stake to a potential 122.9m - adding 52.6% to the 232.2m Mast shares currently in issue. All in return for a paltry £1.5m cash. So existing shareholders' stake in the 50MW projects it is surrendering is diluted firstly by 75%, and then by another 46% - while Seira gets a 36% stake in Mast (on top of the debentures it is taking as security) And yet someone on here thinks LC has never ‘diluted’ And if anyone thinks the shares (if converted at at 2p) are ‘cheap’ then why is the conversion price set so low ? They value the company at £5.7m, or 1.76p per share - which in my view is all they will ever be worth - if that. The reality is that the Seira deal is disastrous for Mast shareholders. The £33.2m ‘injectionR That little has changed is shown by the end result in shareholder earnings The £15m projected income for 33Mw at the latest 37% gross margin (which could of course change) would deliver only £550,000 to Mast for the first four years, before its own admin costs which are nearly £1m.. AS for the plant management fee estimated at £240,000 for 33Mw it will come out of the projects’ gross profit (£5m before Mast's 25% share otherwise it would be double counted) and will be subject to Mast’s own cost to operate, and its tax. So a big deal ! And as for the 750% ‘capacity market uplift’ being crowed about, it takes revenues only to just over £300,000 ! At 37% gross margin and after tax, another big deal ! You can also add whatever new projects Mast can find. But where is the cash coming from to develop them ? ‘Up to 300MW’ ! Strewth !( Anyone totted up all those other Walter Mitty ‘ambitionsR Once all warrants and shares are issued next year, Mast's less than 25% of 33% of £15m revenue, plus its fees, will amount to not more than £1m on 340.3m shares - ie 'earnings' of less than 0.3p per share before tax. As a limited life business (with no dividends in sight) the market wouldn't accord more than a 6 times PER (if that) which means the current 1.8p share price - for earnings that won't be seen for nearly four years. And on shares likely to be horribly more than 340m. What sensible investor will touch it ? On top of it all, the balance sheet looked dire even three months ago. Only £87,000 current assets against £2m of current liabilities and another £787,000 slightly longer term. How far is the £3,8m from Seira that Mast is hoping for going to help that ? - what with nearly £1m pa other outgoings. Why else is this statement with the latest results ? “Therefore, the ability of the Group to continue as a going concern is dependent on the successful implementation or conclusion of the below noted matters as it will address the liquidity risk the Group faces on an ongoing basis. · Conclusion of the signed JVA agreement with the institutional investor, which is expected to be completed in quarter three of 2023. · Further successful conclusion of funding requirements of the Group in order to complete construction of the Group's existing and/or new sites. · Successful cash generation from the Pyebridge power-generation facilities in order to achieve net cash positive contributions to the Group. Although there is no guarantee, the Directors are confident that the above matters will be successfully implemented and have a reasonable expectation that the Group will be able to raise sufficient financing to support its ongoing development and commercialisation activities to continue in operational existence in the next 12 months Note “only for the next six months” and “only for the ‘existing̵ No wonder ‘restructuring And no wonder a significant fund raise is 99% nailed on. (although I don't think would succeed. That would mean the final curtain) I’ve seldom seen such a basket case. And I doubt even broker Novum - the same team behind Do!fort's misleading coverage of Kibo and its grotesquely inflated price 'targets' - will have the gall to try to polish it. |
Posted at 21/5/2023 20:02 by lurker5 MAST - Still the same jalopy. Not 'injected' but 'rescued'.I said kick the tyres. And peer through the smoke and mirrors. Many newcomers here (I include Sunday Roast whose latest pod shows their usual naivite) don't understand how Mast works. They don't know its history, nor the financial structure of these peakers. Unlike most companies who own their assets and businesses directly, peakers like Mast hold their plants inside a series of legally separate 'Special Purpose Vehicles' whose assets and liabilities (and existence of any other investors) are not required to be disclosed even in the parent's accounts, and are therefore hidden from shareholders. Its why an alternative name for the practice is 'off balance sheet financing' which, while strictly not illegal,is frowned upon afer the Enron scandal. It went bust because investors (and even Enron) didn't know the extent of its hidden borrowings, which eventually Enron couldn't service. It's this structure which explains what is really happening at Mast. And the investor' - almost certainly Riverfort which has effectively also rescued Kibo and who Kibo was very reticent to name - is not 'injecting' funds into Mast (which some seem to think it is doing as if an endorsment) but is in effect taking 75% of its five projects off its hands, along with the liability to fund them. That is something Mast has obviously failed to do (due to its dodgy record and finances and the seemingly less than prime nature of the projects) after two years talking to Close Bros ! The deal also reveals the true cost of completing the projects - a major fact Mast and its ringmaster Kibo have always obscured from investors and was one (of two) reasons Mast got away with listing its shares at their grotesquely inflated 12p price, with a listing document which was economical with the truth that major funding was still needed. To explain further - although Mast hasn't specified which projects make up the stated 50MW going into the JV, they look suspiciously like the five it has been working on. Riverfort is taking 75% ownership of the SPV's which hold them, along with the liability to cough up all the £33.2m cost to complete them. (That works out out at £672,000 per megawatt, which is almost exactly what I've always posted is needed but which investors have ignored. Adding what Mast has already spent - ie the £7.7m that Riverfort will reimburse - makes the true capital capital cost £826,000 per MW. For the first time, Mast discloses latest industry costs to be some £1 million per megawatt, which needs to be taken into account when looking at their true profitability. (On the £15m revenue quoted by Mast at the 33% gross margin it has achieved (fleetingly) at Pyebridge, that means less than a £5m return on the £41.3 total capital cost. Although there will hopefully be other income from trading the markets, it can't be counted on, and that is a paltry baseline 12.1% return for a limited life, and erratic, project. Its why few of these peakers are getting bank fnance now) In return for baling out Masts' projects, Riverfort is getting not just 75% of them, but initially 90% until it has recovered that £7.7m which, in reality, isn't a £7.7m 'injection' into Mast, but is having to be repaid by Mast foregoing its 25% share until paid back. Riverfort is also immediately geting a big stake in MED which will dilute existing shareholders' residual 25% share by another 1/3rd, firstly through the shares it can get in return for clearing Mast's existing £729,750 outstanding loan. At 2p, that gives Riverfort 18.2m shares in year one, and the same in year two unless the shares get above 2p (which I don't think they will for reasons below) On top of that, Riverfort can get, in the next few months, an astonishing further 86.8m shares as warrants at up to 1.76p (ie they might convert now) taking their stake to a potential 122.9m - adding 56.5% to the 217.4m Mast shares currently in issue. All in return for a paltry £1.5m. So existing shareholders' stake in the 50MW projects it is surrendering is diluted firstly by 75%, and then by another 36% - while Riverfort gets a 36% stake in Mast (on top of the debentures it is taking as security) If the co (and the innumerate Sunday Roast) thinks the shares are 'cheap' at 2p, then why is the conversion price set so low ? They value the company at £5.7m, or 1.76p per share - which in my view is all they are worth for the next few years. The fact is that nothing has changed financially as far as Mast is concerned but it has lost major ownership of its projects. The £33.2m is what it was going to have to raise to complete them which it has obviously failed to do through normal channels and whose size it is only now admitting. That little has changed is shown by the end result in shareholder earnings. The £15m projected income for the 5 projects at 33% gross margin (which could of course change) would deliver only £1.25m to Mast, before its own admin costs which last year were nearly £1m. You can add its plant management fee which I've estimated at £750,000 except that it will come out of the £5m before Mast's 25% share, otherwise it would be double counted. You can also add whatever new projects Mast can find. But they will face the same funding challenge. So, once all warrants and shares are issued next year, Mast's less than 25% of 33% of £15m, plus its fee, will amount to not more than £1m on 340.3m shares - ie 'earnings'of less than 0.3p per share. As a limited life business (with no dividends in sight) the market woudn't accord more than a 7 times PER (if that) which means a 2.1p share price. But that is for earnings that won't be seen for nearly two years. So no sensible investor would pay more here and now. If anyone thought this is a super deal for Mast's shareholders - sorry ! As the bloke kicking the tyres might have said 'You din't see the trubble you got there Mate' So this deal is nothing to shout about. Its structure and those of the generating plants are complicated, so newbies galloping in - brains in their hobnailed boots - ignored the clear warnings of elephant traps ahead by the game hunters in LC's jungle gone before And - not unrelated to smoke and mirrors and as (not) an aside - while good to see the broker (spread bet) outfit which oversaw the fraudulent 12p Mast listing price has been sacked. He's been replaced by the same team now at Novum which was behind Do!fort's misleading coverage of Kibo and its grotesquely inflated share price 'targets' (See the earlier bits of my Kibo and Mast threads which detail it all and correctly forecast punters would lose their shirts in both) The fact is LC has never been able to secure reputable brokers for any of his wheezes Have a nice day . |
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
