Mast Energy Developments Share Discussion Threads

[lurker5] 14/12/2024 12:02

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

[wi1l] 14/12/2024 11:29

Well that told me!!

Such an opposing view with the added benefit of history tarnishing your experience here.

Remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself or PK will lead a recovery story against all the odds.............

[lurker5] 14/12/2024 09:47

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.

[wi1l] 14/12/2024 09:19

Having spent yesterday more or less in an effort to validate what you are trying to tell us all lurker5 I have come to the conclusion its just a wild goose chase that you are sending me and everyone else who takes the trouble to read your garbage on.
I understand fully what an SPV is - A Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) is company structure set up for a given purpose, with its own assets and liabilities and its own legal status. These companies that you refer to were not set up at the instigation of Riverfort (ie when Riverfort came on the scene early 2024), in the main they were set up years before, infact at the outset that MED joined aim. So they were already in existance and being used as part of Med's Strategy Objectives and Business Model. Page 8 of the annual accounts for 2023 in the Strategic report it explains their strategy objective:
"The Group structure is maintained through a group of subsidiary companies (Special Purpose Vehicles or ‘SPV’), each SPV holding one site. MED’s five current sites are held within Pyebridge Power Ltd (Pyebridge Project – production site), Bordersley Power Ltd (Bordersley Project – construction site), Rochdale Power Ltd (Rochdale Project –development site), ADV 001 Limited (Hindlip Lane – development site) and ARL 018 Limited (Stather Road –development site), respectively. MED will provide flexible power solutions that are adaptable, respond immediately to demand and create multi-stream revenues. Targeting this market, MED is structured to acquire, own, develop and operate a portfolio of projects of flexible, small-scale power generation plants throughout the UK totalling c. 30 – 40 MW in the short term and a target of expanding to 300 MW over three to six years."
Admittedly the structure is complex but you are using that to twist things and confuse the situation and make out that there is a problem with Riverfort's involvement. However, I am sure the opposite is the case - without Riverfort's financial support MED would most definately gone under. With their support they stand a fighting chance of recovering from what has been quite a chequered history admittedly.

Complexities aside the company have produced their consolidated accounts in good time and with the benefit of PK being a chartered accountant have impressed me considerably as to their content - no mean feat given the complex set up.

(See page 69 & 70 of the accounts)Sloane Developments Limited holds the investments in Bordersley Power Ltd, Pyebridge Power Ltd, Rochdale Power Ltd, ADV 001 Limited as well as ARL 018 Limited, the capital contributions, net of impairment.

Mast Energy Developments PLC directly hold investment (100% interest held) in Sloane Developments Ltd and therefore indirectly holds the above investments too (100% interest held).

Riverfort does not appear to have any involvement in these companies merely a charge over their assets which would appear to be the normal way that companies like this operate to protect their investment. If MED fail to come up to their expectations then they will be at the mercy of Riverfort but thats how it is in situations like this.

[lurker5] 12/12/2024 20:39

You are muddling up ( or, rather, failing to differentiate between) River fort, Pyebridge, and Mast. I am 'scaremongerimg' about MAST, which is the listed 'parent' company you are invested in but which only has a toehold in Pyebridge. I'm sure Riverfort is looking after itself and will prevent Pyebridge from going bust. That doesn't mean MAST won't go bust (it already is) PK is holding on as long as possible to his job (having along with Venter first sold the pup, Bordersley, to LC at a fraudulent price paid for by Kibo shareholders) which he will retain for the unlisted Mast Energy when your listed Mast PLC goes bust - as the sums show is inevitable. Have you done the sums for MAST ? - ie without Pyebridge but only with whatever limited dividend it can pay to Mast plc ? Seems not. And it seems you still don't understand what an SPV is

[wi1l] 12/12/2024 18:39

Riverfort have to look after their own interests first and that must be to ensure they can get hold of any assets MED own in the event of MED folding. After all they will have lent MED £4M and they will want to protect their investment as best they can. It appears that you are just scare-mongering lurker, talk of death spiral etc indicates this to me.
PK is a chartered accountant and will have done the sums on Pyebridge which gives me confidence that the company will be able to meet its obligations. However, it is obvious that they have a history that puts their future at risk of failure. It is also true to say that this could be a company with the potential to recover from a rock-bottom position that was the case earlier this year to a flourishing and profitable entity in future years - and they have needed, encouraged and appreciated the financial support of Riverfort.
If things don't work out Riverfort will have in place the means to recover as much of the assets of MED as possible - it is what it is and what happens to any company that fails to meet its own and Riverfort's expectations................ However, everyone involved will be working very hard to ensure that DOESN'T happen and the fact that 2 of the gensets have been refurbished and put to work at Pyebridge is evidence to me that the company is starting to turn the corner and DOES have a future.

[lurker5] 12/12/2024 13:15

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."

[lurker5] 12/12/2024 11:58

Riverfort isn't telling you the whole story. I've been following this since its listing (which also didn't tell the whole story which is why the shares (as I predicted) crashed from the 12p listing price. ) If you carefully read the whole Reports and accounts, and as far as possible those of (eg) Pyebridge, which is a separate 'special purpose vehicle' (definition you should look up) you will understand that it largely 'belongs' to Riverfort (as will all the others it might fund) which is why it is happy because knows if Mast parent co (the one you are invested in) can't repay its share of the funds Riverfort has largely invested, Riverfort will get full ownership. If you do the sums you will realise that any dividend Pyebridge might pay to Mast - even when up and running at the full revenue PK is quoting (at the maximum time of the year) won't be enough for Mast to pay Riverfort what it owes, let alone enough to clear its own deficit. (Contrary to what PK implies re 'restructuring liabilities' Even if by doing so it can delay bankruptcy, it will be at shareholders' exspense). Its not for nothing Riverfort is known for its 'death spiral' funding. The trouble with the reporting standards is that it allows Mast to 'consolidate' Pyebridge's earnings when legally they don't belong to it. Its why a thorough knowledge of company accounting and structure is essential when investing in these sorts of companies.

[wi1l] 12/12/2024 09:32

· 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.

[wi1l] 11/12/2024 18:25

Looks to me that you are viewing this with increased negative commentary, lurker5, whereas the opposite should surely apply?

Riverfort's financial support was summarised in the rns dated 28/2/24 and before you comment further I would recommend you give it a good read, as it may resolve the majority of the issues you refer to...............

[lurker5] 28/11/2024 18:06

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.

[dpr1881] 28/11/2024 17:48

Mr. Louis Coetzee and Mr. Dominic Traynor have stepped down and retired as directors from the board.... Goodbye good luck and... Good riddance!

[lurker5] 24/11/2024 13:22

Delusional posts on LSE continue. All forgetting to look at the balance sheets for both MAST (their listed co) and each SPV (not all theirs, not listed, but viewable on Companies House although not up to date).

[lurker5] 24/11/2024 12:25

You're correct. Bordersley acquisition in 2020 was £2.4m - paid to Krugel and Venter in Mast shares. But I think I remember Coetzee claiming it was 'worth' £5m

[wi1l] 24/11/2024 09:22

Nope I have looked back in their accounts and can't find any more impairment write-offs so you were exaggerating slightly which doesn't matter as it looks as though they have just mothballed the site awaiting for the financial resources to continue and construct.

[lurker5] 24/11/2024 08:16

There were earlier Bordersley impairments.

[wi1l] 24/11/2024 08:00

The impairment write-off for Bordersley came to £2.5M rather than £5M - what happened there ?? In the ye 31/12/22 a/cs thay were predicting a potential future income of £1.5M per annum and now it has been shelved and the costs w/o as impairment. Looks to me that there could be a hidden value carried forward if they ever construct?

[lurker5] 23/11/2024 19:16

The maths going forward shows that they will never generate enough cash for Mast itself to dig itself out of its hole. Its obvious Riverfort will take over all the plants eventually, leaving Mast shareholders with as little as LC left Kibo's. The reasons for each are the same, unsustainable business models undercapitalised from the start and left in an inescapable downward spiral, having misled shareholders and in Mast's case having cheated them through falsely inducing them to pay £5m for a Bodersley now worthless.

[wi1l] 23/11/2024 16:01

They appear to be up against it admittedly, however they are also making quite an effort at turning things around and with Riverfort's financial support now have the ability to generate enough income (with the 2nd genset refurbishment completed end of Nov) to make ends meet going forward. They need to procure one more site with 10MW capacity to feel more comfortable however, in the meantime the proceeds from the sale of Rochdale site will help immediate cash flows.

In addition to this Riverfort have the right to convert the outstanding balance on their investment to Preference shares.

At the very least MED are now starting to generate a monthly income and are keeping a close control over costs in an effort to achieve a profitable outcome for the business.

The past is the past however,it would appear in the last six months, with the financial support of Riverfort that there is a different story unfolding full of positive news and potentially a very different future for the company going forward.

[lurker5] 22/11/2024 10:17

Frighteningly ignorant posts on LSE completely unable to understand the elephant in the room. Mast parent co (this listed one) is bust, and whatever the (legally and financially separate) SPV's will generate (for parent Mast) after expenses, tax, and Riverfort's capital repayments and/or profit share will be far les than Mast needs to repay its debts. Even if enough generating capacity is got together at Riverfort's expense so PK can crow about 'revenue' (which Mast shareholders won't see) there will sooner or later have to be a massive Mast fund raise and equally massive dilution for shareholders. PK's strategy is obviously to persuade the ignorant to push up the share price to try to limit the damage. And the roast numpties will continue to help him obscure the real picture.
(Not to mention what happens when the wind blows again and wind capacity far outstrips the gas generators' . Making a 300MW 'target' a probable fantasy!)
Just to remind. In June Mast owed £3.8million net to short term creditors. By Dec Pyebridge will have earned c £220k net profit, and Mast overheads will have been c £400k. Rochdale will net £258k and £0.5m additional loan has been drawn from Riverfort. Its why the market cap is only £640k. And probably why 'Fortified' Securities is now the only broker to take it on (Work it out)
PS. Maybe most pi's don't understand that 'consolidated' accounts can allow a co to pretend that every subsidiary (of which it might only have a small share) belongs to it 100% (disclosing the opposite reality is only shown in separate small print or in each subsidiary's unpublished accounts). Thats why some think Mast's 'assets' are a lot more than in reality they are, when in fact they are not available to pay off parent company debts.

[iamthebest] 22/11/2024 08:43

Window dressing

[oilbuy] 22/11/2024 08:14

Kibo need to be taken out

[imjustdandy] 22/11/2024 08:12

Way undervalued. What an update.

[wi1l] 22/11/2024 07:45

Great RNS today.

The recovery play continues.

This share is miles undervalued IMV and should do nothing but improve today.

Minimal shares on offer too.

[lurker5] 07/10/2024 07:21

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)