|
|
Post by astrogeezer on Sept 11, 2018 5:42:07 GMT
Co2***** have a website with scant information other than it’s backed by BEIS and claims to be self-funding. Hmmmm....
I ‘innocently’ asked how to participate. No reply. Then I ‘innocently’ asked what happens if they suffer an investment ‘failure’. No reply. Then I asked how much they invested with ‘M V’. No reply. Yawn. Typical non-responses from entities that don’t want information to be out in the public domain. Come to think of it, pretty much the same 3 wise monkeys performances we’ve experienced since January 2018 from all participating players.
|
|
|
|
Post by astrogeezer on Sept 11, 2018 6:27:34 GMT
PS. Cynicism would have it that certain ‘lenders’ will have first pickings in any payout, the Premiership teams, followed in the distance by the long-suffering non-league players. First pickings would consist of full repayment, up front, with ALL the 12% accumulated interest since the debenture completion anniversary date, with the non-league payouts consisting of the dregs of what’s left, payable over an indeterminate length of time. Chance would be a fine thing for the non-leaguers to be treated with the same financial RESPECT. Sadly, I’m too long in the tooth to expect anything different🤨😤
|
|
|
|
Post by GentlemansFamilyFinances on Sept 14, 2018 9:07:52 GMT
On a recent wind project that paid a return this month, there were some conditions that meant that the return was below expected and although the capital payment was made, the dividend was quite low. Two of the directors waived their fees for the year which is honourable. You might think that the world is corrupt and unfair - but maybe that's just how the world works - or you are making things up in your heads.  Is Abundance a better platform and more honest/open/ethical? We'll see what happens with MV CHP - my hope (since I've skin in the game) is that it is. |
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Sept 14, 2018 9:53:35 GMT
PS. Cynicism would have it that certain ‘lenders’ will have first pickings in any payout, the Premiership teams, followed in the distance by the long-suffering non-league players. First pickings would consist of full repayment, up front, with ALL the 12% accumulated interest since the debenture completion anniversary date, with the non-league payouts consisting of the dregs of what’s left, payable over an indeterminate length of time. Chance would be a fine thing for the non-leaguers to be treated with the same financial RESPECT. Sadly, I’m too long in the tooth to expect anything different🤨😤 I revisited the MV CHP plant at Sy***c Business Park last week. It's close the to local authority waste site. There was a distinct lack of activity and it looks to me as if the site has been mothballed.
It is my understanding that Abundance has a debenture (a mortgage if you will) against the value of the electricity generating equipment. Unfortunately the plant is of little value on the open market, so the only way forward is to use the facility where it is for electricity generation. That business is unlikely to be viable without the revenue formerly anticipated from Ofgem. In my view the best we can hope for as investors is that Ofgem agrees to a subsidy at a lower level than that anticipated. There will also have been additional costs (rents, redundancy payments etc.) that have arisen from the closure of the plant. With increases in costs and a possible reduction in revenue, it is most unlikely that there will be sufficient to repay the bond at the anticipated level. Remember, the original idea was that the 12% bond would be refunded at a lower rate of interest once the business became a going concern, which is something Ofgem appear to have completely overlooked as if Ofgem didn't actually read the proposals. The rationale for replacing a high return bond with one offering a lower rate was that once the business had as anticipated become a going concern there would be greater certainty and lower risk of non-payment. The original 12% was to counter the risk of Ofgem not agreeing as has transpired.
If Ofgem reaches an accommodation and a viable business emerges it is still likely to be crippling for the business to repay the existing bond at 12% and defray the additional costs of closure, mothballing and re-opening. The best we can hope for is a going concern in which we have a bond investment paying a rate of interest much closer to zero. That way we might get a bond which is actually marketable, albeit at a loss to face value.
I am still puzzled as to the the fortunes of another MV abundance bond to the tune of £1.4 mn and whether or not that is similarly in jeopardy.
|
|
|
|
Post by astrogeezer on Sept 15, 2018 10:23:35 GMT
Personally, I’d be overjoyed just to get my capital back, and they can keep their interest where the sun don’t shine!
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Sept 15, 2018 11:05:32 GMT
Personally, I’d be overjoyed just to get my capital back, and they can keep their interest where the sun don’t shine! You will be lucky. Even if it can be turned into a going concern. A further problem is that until there is a resolution investors cannot cash in what little their share of the business amounts to. They are locked in, pending a resolution. An orthodox business solution would resemble a bale in under which, assuming the creation of a going concern, a net revenue generating business, the debt outstanding would all be converted into shares, which could then drop to a value representing the estimated value of long term profits and could therefore be sold in order to realise their value..
The difficulty I foresee with a solution like that, which of course relies on the creation of a viable energy and revenue generating business, is that Abundance is geared up to issuing and trading bonds rather than shares
|
|
|
|
Post by astrogeezer on Sept 15, 2018 15:07:45 GMT
Unless there’s been a communication from Abundance to the contrary, what I’m hoping for is acceptance of the conditions, set out by Ofgem (whatever they are!), by M***** V*****, and for the turbines to be kick-started to produce energy as originally envisaged, for Abundance to offer a revisited second debenture to investors, as originally envisaged, and for sufficient cash thereby raised to repay the long-suffering first debenture holders the money they invested, in full, again as originally envisaged.
In effect, this would be an act of wipeing the slate clean of the mayhem created by Ofgem’s delays, refusal to accredit, variation (aka overturning) of the RHI refusal. Given the undoubted complexities of energy regeneration caused by the shutdowns, perhaps a comparatively long time awaits the first debenture repayment, but at least we would reach the ‘promised land’. That was the original intention and, if everything is put back on track as we all hope for, then I’m as optimistic as can be under the circumstances. We shall no doubt see fairly soon.
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214 
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Sept 16, 2018 8:23:49 GMT
If I've understood you both correctly, my suspicion is that a middle way will emerge.
Assuming the parent(?) company is still viable, then I'll be surprised there will be much in the way of interest on offer from the first debenture. Probably there will be an option of getting most (all) of your money back or having it converted to a longer term debenture which could offer the eventual prospect of a more attractive return.
It's been a good learning experience all round - and has at least encouraged me to look multiple times at my other Abundance holdings and act accordingly. I'm completely out of a number of others, and reduced my holdings in a few more substantially. It hasn't dented my enthusiasm for Abundance or their offers in general though. Everything I've seen to date suggests they are still trying to do right by us.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Sept 16, 2018 8:48:26 GMT
I have no grounds for thinking that any viable heat and electricity generating business will generate sufficient revenues to defray the £3.9 mn debt in its entirety.
1. I suspect that grant funding will be scrutinised to ensure that there are not two subsidies one for the heat required to dry the fuel and another to turn that fuel into energy.
2. There will be additional accrued costs from redundancies, continuing rents etc. plus the new costs of recruitment, training and restarting the plant.
3. There will need to be new contracts for sales of heat and electricity assuming the original ones have fallen in to abeyance and a degree of trust has gone from the relationship with customers.
4. The intended paying customers, the potential paying customers are the industrial estate on which the facility is located. Yes, the very paying customers to whom rent is owed, assuming that rent is no longer being paid from non-existent revenues. The industrial estate appears to consist of a network of related companies often sharing directors.
5. There will need to be new contracts for the supply of wood and wood chip which have presumably also fallen into abeyance and need to be regenerated with partners who may or may not have lost confidence on the business.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Sept 17, 2018 15:50:44 GMT
Just fancy that
"The second whistleblower, who has asked to remain anonymous, worked on the renewable heat incentive (RHI), which offers financial rewards to promote the use of new technologies such as green boilers."
We would never have guessed.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Sept 17, 2018 16:10:35 GMT
This may work in our favour. Ofgem may start to move faster to reduce adverse publicity under difficult conditions. If we are fortunate they will bung us to go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by astrogeezer on Sept 18, 2018 15:15:42 GMT
Should we be surprised? See my earlier posts relating to the shenanigans Ofgem, CO2***** et al. The three wise monkeys are alive and well. It is all eerily similar to the old ‘D’ notices slapped on the media to avoid sensitive information getting into the public domain. I admit to circularising the national media and the local Hereford Times newspaper, who were extremely interested in what I relayed to them. Last I heard, this is still a free country and nobody, but nobody, is going to prevent me from relaying information to the press. However, even though I scrutinised the local newspaper on a daily basis, there was absolutely zilch, nothing, nada, zero. Sure there where stories about the local bowling club, cats up trees (or similar), etc etc but the absence of reports about S****** P*** was extremely suspicious. In fact, the 4th Way P2P independant review people were stonewalled and were laughably told that they reason everything was kept ‘shtum’ was to protect Ofgem getting a kicking in the media, poor things.
And I have to add the following; to all those entities (you know who you are!) who troll this site, your game’s up.
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Sept 18, 2018 15:41:12 GMT
The Telegraph did cover the topic a few days before the varying decision was published with a story on their home page. It was a good summary of what had been made available to debenture holders and IIRC not particularly slanted either (although the below the line comments were).
|
|
|
|
Post by astrogeezer on Sept 18, 2018 16:00:32 GMT
The Telegraph and The Mail were two of the Nationals I contacted at the same time as The Hereford Times. I wonder whether the latter newspaper will now pluck up the courage to go to press. Doubtful methinks......
|
|
|
|
Post by astrogeezer on Sept 18, 2018 18:02:39 GMT
Ofgem appear to be answerable to nobody. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When I quizzed The Rt Hon Claire Perry, the Minister for clean energy and BEIS via email, it was clear that even SHE was hamstrung by the absolute power wielded by Ofgem. Nevertheless, for fear of being ‘outed’, Ofgem bossed are suddenly concerned about the vulnerability of their pay cheques.
Trying to discover who the Hell Ofgem ARE answerable to is impossible. Google all you may, the best of British luck. Try it.
|
|
