Invinity Energy Systems (LON:IES) adds UK£9.0m to market cap in the past 7 days, though investors from five years ago are still down 82%
It is a pleasure to report that the Invinity Energy Systems plc (LON:IES) is up 34% in the last quarter. But spare a thought for the long term holders, who have held the stock as it bled value over the last five years. In fact, the share price has tumbled down a mountain to land 83% lower after that period. The recent bounce might mean the long decline is over, but we are not confident. The million dollar question is whether the company can justify a long term recovery. While a drop like that is definitely a body blow, money isn't as important as health and happiness.
While the stock has risen 15% in the past week but long term shareholders are still in the red, let's see what the fundamentals can tell us.
AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early.
Invinity Energy Systems wasn't profitable in the last twelve months, it is unlikely we'll see a strong correlation between its share price and its earnings per share (EPS). Arguably revenue is our next best option. Shareholders of unprofitable companies usually desire strong revenue growth. That's because fast revenue growth can be easily extrapolated to forecast profits, often of considerable size.
Over five years, Invinity Energy Systems grew its revenue at 52% per year. That's better than most loss-making companies. So it's not at all clear to us why the share price sunk 13% throughout that time. It could be that the stock was over-hyped before. While there might be an opportunity here, you'd want to take a close look at the balance sheet strength.
You can see below how earnings and revenue have changed over time (discover the exact values by clicking on the image).
If you are thinking of buying or selling Invinity Energy Systems stock, you should check out this FREE detailed report on its balance sheet.
While the broader market gained around 7.5% in the last year, Invinity Energy Systems shareholders lost 28%. Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. However, the loss over the last year isn't as bad as the 13% per annum loss investors have suffered over the last half decade. We would want clear information suggesting the company will grow, before taking the view that the share price will stabilize. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Consider for instance, the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 2 warning signs with Invinity Energy Systems , and understanding them should be part of your investment process.
Of course, you might find a fantastic investment by looking elsewhere. So take a peek at this free list of companies we expect will grow earnings.
Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on British exchanges.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads and £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles – named after John Reith, the first director-general – to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Wayne Garvie, Sony Pictures' international boss, said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue. Instead of trying to do more with less, it may be time for the public service broadcaster to simply do less. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Newcastle Hit Back at ‘Saudi Tax' Transfer Demands
Summer Strategy Built on Realism, Not Riches There's a perception Newcastle United are flush with cash, a perception the club believes is both outdated and damaging. As Luke Edwards revealed in his excellent report for Telegraph Sport, Newcastle are 'growing increasingly frustrated by rival clubs putting a 'Saudi tax' on transfers and refuse to be held to ransom over key targets.' Advertisement It's an accusation that's been hanging in the air since the PIF-led takeover in 2021. The expectation is that Newcastle will, and should, spend extravagantly – but the club is pushing back, constrained by the Premier League's strict profit and sustainability rules (PSR). Edwards was given rare insight into the club's negotiating table, and what's clear is that Newcastle are walking a tightrope. They are attempting to add quality to Eddie Howe's squad without blowing apart the financial structure that's slowly, carefully, been built. Value Takes Priority Over Vanity Newcastle's business so far has been quiet, but deliberate. There's clarity in their strategy. They want to recruit in four key positions – goalkeeper, centre-back, right-sided forward, and striker – but they 'cannot spend upwards of £60 million on players when wages are also a consideration.' That's where the Bryan Mbeumo situation becomes telling. As Edwards explains, Mbeumo was 'a leading target by Newcastle's recruitment team' but wage demands and a hefty transfer fee forced the club to walk away. Signing the Brentford man could have meant making him the top earner at the club. Doing so before star striker Alexander Isak is rewarded with a new contract – talks for which are set to begin in July – would be a recipe for dressing room unrest. Advertisement And so, Newcastle hold firm. No player, however talented, is worth tearing up the wage structure for. 'Mbeumo would have likely been Newcastle's highest earner if he had signed,' Edwards wrote. 'That would have inevitably prompted others at the club to ask for parity.' Photo: IMAGO Talent Targets Still in Sight – But on Newcastle's Terms The ambition hasn't waned, but the method is clear. Newcastle have eyes on several exciting players. Burnley's James Trafford remains a top goalkeeping target, while Bournemouth's Antoine Semenyo and Nottingham Forest's Anthony Elanga are being considered for that right-sided role. However, progress is limited – so far – by inflated price tags. Advertisement Brighton's Joao Pedro fits the mould of what Newcastle are after: young, versatile, and Premier League-proven. Yet his price – reportedly up to £70 million – risks consuming a huge chunk of the budget. It's a fee Newcastle could theoretically pay, but not if they want to fill all four positions. As Edwards reports, 'it has caused pause for thought internally.' Eintracht Frankfurt's Hugo Ekitike has long been admired, but the £80 million fee means any move is unlikely unless things change. Likewise, Crystal Palace's Marc Guehi remains of interest in central defence, but Newcastle will wait for his value to drop, knowing his contract is entering its final year. Contract Talks with Isak Key to Summer Stability Everything this summer revolves around Alexander Isak. Newcastle are planning to make him the club's highest earner – a just reward for his performances and potential. But the negotiations won't be easy, and the club knows that bringing in players on higher wages before that deal is done could be destabilising. Advertisement 'Bringing in new players on significantly more money than that before those talks begin is fraught with danger,' Edwards warns. It's a point of sensitivity at St James' Park – one that highlights Newcastle's desire to build a sustainable elite club rather than simply buy one. The Magpies are still shopping in the upper tiers of the market, but they're doing so with calculation, not chaos. Other potential names include James McAtee, liked by Howe and potentially available at £25 million. West Ham's Mohammed Kudus is another admired target, though his future may hinge on finding the right financial compromise. As ever, there will be quiet moves, too. 'Some of their biggest transfers, like Bruno Guimaraes from Lyon and Sandro Tonali from AC Milan, were only known about 48 hours before they signed,' Edwards notes. Newcastle haven't stopped moving – they've just learned to move smartly.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tax bill is undermining the foundations of global finance
For decades, investors have been able to rely on a simple truth: the US bond market is a safe place to put money. When wars broke out, economies crashed or other calamities struck, money flowed into US Treasuries, as Washington's bonds are known, to protect wealth. As a result, the US has been able to rely on a ready supply of investors willing to fund the country's ever-increasing appetite for tax cuts and public spending. Investors wanted US debt and the federal government was only too happy to provide it. Not even half a year into Donald Trump's presidential term, however, decades of orthodoxy are being turned on their head. 'The US has generally benefited from demand for Treasuries from overseas investors. It's viewed as the global risk-free asset,' says John Stopford, a fund manager at Ninety One. 'The concern is that a lot of those beliefs or tenets about the US are being called into question, in terms of how reliable, how safe an investment are US Treasuries?' Offshore investors, battered by volatility and bewildered by uncertainty since Trump took office, are becoming increasingly wary of the US bond market. Returns have suffered as Trump's trade policies have weakened the dollar and the president's planned debt splurge has raised questions about just how sustainable US borrowing really is. The latest flash point is Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill, which the Congressional Budget Office said would add $2.4 trillion (£1.8 trillion) to the deficit over the next decade. Elon Musk might have hogged the headlines this week with his outbursts against the bill but investors and traders are airing the same concerns, especially as higher deficits mean the US treasury will be asking them to buy more and more of its bonds. 'We're seeing it in the asset management community, some insurance funds, some pension funds, and foreign investors overall as well. It's just more caution in the buying, rather than a full-blown 'sell everything',' says Gennadiy Goldberg, head of US rates strategy at TD Securities. A crisis in the US bond market, or even just a slow ebbing of investor confidence and faith, could be the most profound and revolutionary legacy of Trump's second term. The US market and its currency might no longer offer the safe haven against risk, nor the anchor for markets worldwide. An end of this financial exceptionalism would mean higher borrowing costs for the US and pose a challenge to the entire American economy model. Moody's became the last major credit rating agency to strip the US of its gold-plated borrower status last month and analysts have raised the prospect of Trump facing his own 'Liz Truss moment' as investors baulk at his spending plans. For now, concern is centred around where all this fiscal ill-discipline will leave the US in the 2030s and beyond. So investors are shying away from longer-dated Treasuries with terms such as 10, 20 or 30 years, and parking their money in shorter-term bonds that mature in one or two years. 'I see investors who are even cautious about the five to 10-year space,' Goldberg says. If this caution turns to panic, then a meltdown – with worldwide consequences – isn't out of the question. 'If there was a big deleveraging that happened – and there was a big source of selling, whether it's from foreign investors or hedge funds or levered investors or basis investors – it could potentially overwhelm the system,' Goldberg says. Foreign investors are also having to contend with a big drop in the US dollar, which is reducing their returns. 'It's fine to see bond yields rise if the currency is stable or appreciating. That's not what we're seeing at the moment. We're seeing bond yields rise in the US, and actually the currency, on a broad basket, is about 10pc down from its highs last year,' says James Ringer, a Schroders fund manager. The lack of buyers and the potential glut of bonds raises the possibility, or 'tail risk', that the market could cease to function properly. 'That would mean sellers overwhelming buyers,' says Goldberg. This could drive a sharp surge in rates and force an emergency intervention from the Federal Reserve. 'That is the risk going forward – that the system is unable to function if something goes wrong,' he adds. At the moment, there's little prospect of a panicked sell-off – mainly because investors have so few genuine alternatives. America's star may be on the wane but it is still the brightest light in the sky. 'The US is absolutely a mass market in terms of marketable debt. The second and third closest markets are an order of magnitude smaller, so that makes it really difficult for a lot of these investors to really get away from dollars,' says Goldberg. 'There's just no place for them to go.' But equally, with Trump at the helm, nobody is ruling anything out. 'Even if it's a tail risk or something that's unlikely, because it's there at the back of people's minds, potentially they do begin to change their behaviour,' Stopford says. 'They do begin to think, 'OK, well, I should have less exposure to the US, I should have less exposure to the dollar, I should be looking for alternatives that are safer, more reliable.' 'That's not bond vigilantes speculating. That's just people making rational decisions based on concerns about risk.' Scott Bessent began the week by telling the world: 'The United States of America is never going to default. That is never going to happen.' The comments to CBS News were meant to reassure. But the sheer fact that the US treasury secretary had to spell out something that has been taken for granted for decades highlights the fact that the fundamentals of the US financial system have been shaken. Whether they go on to crumble depends on what Trump does next. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
