We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gore Street Energy Storage Fund Plc | GSF | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1.80 | -2.84% | 61.60 | 11:53:43 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62.90 | 61.60 | 62.90 | 63.40 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Announcement Date | Type | Currency | Dividend Amount | Ex Date | Record Date | Payment Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/03/2024 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 21/03/2024 | 22/03/2024 | 12/04/2024 |
| 14/12/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 28/12/2023 | 29/12/2023 | 12/01/2024 |
| 06/09/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 28/09/2023 | 29/09/2023 | 20/10/2023 |
| 15/06/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 29/06/2023 | 30/06/2023 | 17/07/2023 |
| 09/03/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 16/03/2023 | 17/03/2023 | 11/04/2023 |
| 16/12/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 29/12/2022 | 30/12/2022 | 13/01/2023 |
| 21/09/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 29/09/2022 | 30/09/2022 | 21/10/2022 |
| 26/07/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.01 | 04/08/2022 | 05/08/2022 | 26/08/2022 |
| 07/03/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 17/03/2022 | 18/03/2022 | 08/04/2022 |
| 20/12/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 30/12/2021 | 31/12/2021 | 14/01/2022 |
| 07/09/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 16/09/2021 | 17/09/2021 | 08/10/2021 |
| 15/07/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.01 | 22/07/2021 | 23/07/2021 | 13/08/2021 |
| 08/03/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 18/03/2021 | 19/03/2021 | 09/04/2021 |
| 18/12/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 31/12/2020 | 04/01/2021 | 15/01/2021 |
| 24/09/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 08/10/2020 | 09/10/2020 | 30/10/2020 |
| 19/06/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.01 | 09/07/2020 | 10/07/2020 | 23/07/2020 |
| 28/02/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 12/03/2020 | 13/03/2020 | 27/03/2020 |
| 12/12/2019 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 19/12/2019 | 20/12/2019 | 10/01/2020 |
| 11/09/2019 | Interim | GBP | 0.02 | 19/09/2019 | 20/09/2019 | 18/10/2019 |
| 05/06/2019 | Final | GBP | 0.01 | 13/06/2019 | 14/06/2019 | 05/07/2019 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 15/4/2024 18:44 by masurenguy "I decided to put more of my money where my mouth is and added two more names – Gore Street Energy Storage (GSF) and NextEnergy Solar (NESF) – to my existing exposure in Bluefield Solar (BSIF), Greencoat UK Wind (UKW) and SDCL Energy Efficiency Income (SEIT). The two new holdings came with dividend yields of about 11.5%, reflecting their sizeable discounts. GSF, as I have explained previously, is much less exposed to the problematic UK energy storage market than other listed peers and should see plenty of upside as its new plants in Ireland, Texas and California come onstream over the course of the next year or two." James Carthew, Citywire Columnist, 15/04/24Annual dividend of 7.5p produces a yield of 11.8% at todays ASK of 63.6p ! |
Posted at 27/3/2024 17:03 by cocopah Got a reply which I thought was poor and told them so but they won’t comment further …a) … the consideration is commercially sensitive, and it is tied up with development costs and three deals were announced … (to me this is immaterial because we still do not know what the consideration is). b) … (on dividend cover) your preference for a clear distinction between operational dividend and actual dividend cover is duly noted, However, we have tens of thousands of investors each with their unique preferences for metric presentation … (basically missing the point ientirely, because the only metric that matters is whether the whole dividend is covered, the operational metric is just flattery for GSF). c) … we have refrained from publishing dividend forecasts and the liquidated damages are due when an asset fails to performance accordance with its warranty … (on my rebuttal of this answer because they didn’t answer my question, they came back to say that if you included assets that did not generate revenue in the denominator for calculating average revenue without including the LDS, then this would distort the average … ) again missing my point that they were not painting a true picture of the revenue achieved if they had to include a one off payment of £3 million which is substantial for Jan & Feb in their case! d) … to date we have provided revenue for every month of the financial year, the only exception is March which is not yet over … again missing the point that the January and February income included the £3 million payment and we have no idea how much more income (if any) is being driven by Stony and Ferrymuir. Their final comment was “ while I do fully empathise with the situation and the natural frustration that you may feel, we have continued to execute against the mandate, we have been given. Operationally, the fund continues to generate a healthy and crucially consistent level of revenues through its uniquely diversified asset base. While the entire sector is trading at an average of double digit discounts which is sad for others, we in the investment manager, cap capacity have limited control of fluctuation across the market we can, and our executing in line with the mandate we have been given …” I pointed out that I was not interested in the performance of the market or other companies and always see reference to such comments as weak management. Anyone in charge of a business controls their own destiny. Seems like all we can do is hope and pray that there is a huge turnaround … as a long-term holder, I am roughly 40% down here. |
Posted at 22/3/2024 15:25 by stemis Both are fair points. If what CC2014 says is achievable and would lead to dividend cover for the Group and the company were more open and clear about performance so that investors could reach that conclusion, I'd certainly be interested in buying shares (after all, a dividend yield of 11.7% is nothing to be sniffed at). But at the moment I'm probably not... |
Posted at 22/3/2024 10:33 by alan pt GSF are saying that the dividend will be fully covered once buildout of the existing assets is complete, but that won't be until the end of this yearIn the meantime, around 0.6 is about right, though there is significant qtr to atr variability and I think there was a recent qtr which did achieve close to full coverage, so it can be a little confusing depending on which stat you read This volatility is also why there is the idea of a variable dividend for the sector (this affects GRID and HEIT even more). As I have said before, I don't think that's a bad idea - maybe a base dividend with a top up bonus. But seems unlikely that GSF will go for it at the moment and to be fair their buildout coverage strategy seems sound |
Posted at 16/3/2024 10:48 by cc2014 Hi,I have been wondering how to phrase this so it might not come over as well as I would like but I am find the negative comments frustrating. Now, we've all purchased shares which have gone in the wrong direction and I think it's fair enough to vent and it's certainly something I have done in the past and I'm sure I will do again in the future, but there's something about being constructive as well. I'm not sure the comments about lack of visibility on revenue is valid. GSF are telling us monthly what the price per unit is and the volume is fixed and published. Most investment trusts only update quarterly and some only twice a year. Here's some information that might cheer you up GSF are on ERCOT in the US. As you can see from the article prices reached nearly £800/MWh on 4th March whereas we are plodding along at about £5 in the UK. Now the US is a big place and although I know GSF are on ERCOT I don't know if GSF are in the right part of ERCOT and took advantage of this or not but it demonstrates the difference in revenue by jurisdictions. GSF may or may not have invested in the US by design or accident but either way it's good for us and that's what matters. |
Posted at 08/3/2024 10:19 by cc2014 Dividend policy· GSF reaffirms its dividend target of 7% of NAV for the fiscal year. It has met its dividend target since listing. · The Company's dividend cover has been trending upward and was fully covered in the last reported quarter (September-end 2023). Liquidity and Dividends: The Board seeks to reassure shareholders and address any potential concerns on liquidity management and dividends. While these are recognised as valid in light of recent sector news, the Board wishes to provide comfort to investors. The Company maintains a strong balance sheet, with sufficient cash to meet its contractual obligations and undrawn lines of credit totalling c.£83 million. In line with its prudent investment policy on leverage, the Company has a low debt burden and, consequently, a low refinancing risk. The Company also continues to generate a healthy operational cash flow and fully covered its dividend during the last reported quarter (September-end 2023). The Company continues to follow its mandate to deliver sustainable long-term returns for its investors. Based on the current year's performance, GSF reaffirms its commitment to a dividend target of 7% of NAV for the fiscal year. I don't think the dividend is at risk. If you take them at their word for dividend being 7% of NAV the dividend would actually increase from 7.5p to 7.9p. The market will go crazy if that happens but I see it as very unlikely |
Posted at 07/3/2024 11:15 by stemis I like a dividend as much as the next man but what puts me off vehicles like GSF is that, as an investment entity under IFRS10, they don't consolidate their subsidiaries but instead put a value on them based on what they think they are worth (based on a set of forward projections none of us have any knowledge of). Consequently I don't think the NAV has any real meaning (imagine if other non investment entities could do that, what 'NAVs' they'd come up with).GSF to be fair do produce some data on underlying performance of their 'investments' so let me see if I have this right. From their interim accounts The portfolio generated £19.3m of revenue during the period, amounting to £12.2m in operational EBITDA. Since their investments are 'valued' at £469.3m I make that around 12 x revenue and 19 x ebitda? Administrative and other expenses (3,834,334) I presume these are holding company expenses? Which if deducted from the ebitda of their subsidiaries, would mean Group ebitda for the half year of £8.4m? The Company's cash balance as of 30 September was £75.0m with a further £13.9m held across its subsidiaries So consolidated 'Group' cash of £88.9m. With market cap at 65p being £322.0m, that would give an EV of £233.1m? So around 14 x ebitda? Dividends in the period were 3.5p at a cost of £16.8m (on the share count at the time). That's double the 'consolidated' ebitda. If they did produce consolidated accounts I wonder how attractive their shares would look. Happy to have those numbers pulled apart and to be proved wrong since, as I said, who wouldn't like a dividend yield of 11-12%? |
Posted at 01/2/2024 19:21 by cocopah I am currently in correspondence with investor relations, funnily enough this started before the news from #GRID today. I have a call booked to discuss why there seems to be a reluctance to update NAV monthly (like #SEQI do) and also to give forward guidance on dividend cover (until the issue goes away). I also want to understand the difference between operational dividend cover and fund-wide dividend cover (the latter being the cause of the recent slump since the Jefferies note).The call is booked for next week, so I am also going to bring up investor frustration at the lack of communication following today’s announcement by #GRID. Unless #GSF have some bad news to share it seems ludicrous that they do not put a statement out saying that dividend is covered or (say) 90% covered on an ongoing basis and that the dividend is safe. After all, they were keen to tell us all about dividend cover being above 1.15 for the last quarter so they can’t have it both ways (i.e. say that they don’t want to say anything now when they made such a hullabaloo about the dividend cover at the last update). In fairness the investor relations team at Gore Street are approachable and will communicate, so I suggest investors on here should contact them … if nothing else a significant number of approaches by those on this forum will probably result in an RNS.🤷 |
Posted at 25/1/2024 13:04 by mr george stobbart Jefferies Note published today on Battery Storage Trusts (25/01/2024)Battery Storage - The Dividend Imperative The uncovered dividends for the battery storage funds across 2023, coupled with pressures on GB battery revenues that are unlikely to ease until at least the tail-end of 2024, may prompt a reassessment of current dividend policies. Here flexible policies based on net cash flow could be more suitable and provide less of a constraint to capital recycling. Uncovered dividends: The highly challenging revenue environment for GB batteries throughout 2023 has resulted in all three battery storage funds being unable to cover their dividends. We estimate calendar 2023 dividend cover to be 0.1x for GRID, 0.5x for GSF and 0.0x for HEIT (i.e. costs are offsetting cash income). Coupled with the funds' capital constraints, requiring capital to fund construction projects, this results in material risks to current dividends, particularly as the pressures on GB battery revenue are unlikely to ease until at least Q4 this year. Flexible dividend policies? While the energisation of additional projects throughout the course of 2024 will provide a tailwind to income, the shift in the revenue mix from frequency response to trading means higher (indirect) exposure to merchant power prices, and so bodes for more flexible dividend policies, versus the current fixed or progressive dividends. Here dividend policies where the funds pay out a defined proportion of net cash flow may be more suitable in light of the volatile nature of the revenue. Moreover, releasing the funds from their current 'fixed' dividend commitments will provide less of a constraint to capital recycling, supporting the sale of operational projects that could help validate the highly subjective longer-term revenue assumptions. Alongside the revised dividend policies, any excess liquidity could also be returned to shareholders via share buybacks, offering seemingly attractive levels of NAV accretion at current discount levels. YTD battery performance: Since we published our Q4 State of Charge note on GB battery performance (here), Modo Energy's revenue benchmark has fallen further, with average annualised revenue since the year-end dropping to c.£18,800/MW from c.£35,700/MW in Q4 for 1-hour batteries, and to c.£27,400/MW from c.£53,300/MW for 2-hour batteries. Here winter revenue has proven to be weaker than expectations thus far, in part driven by lower power prices. We also recognise that the positive impact to revenues from the balancing mechanism reforms will be gradual, meaning investors may need to wait until next winter to see a meaningful improvement in trading performance. |
Posted at 16/1/2024 08:51 by cc2014 I've been wondering whether to post for days.As Melody points out you know the £ per MW hour and the capacity so you can work out the revenue in about 30 seconds. Indeed since the price per MW hour is the same for the quarter as the previous half year you could take the published revenue for the half year, halve it and add a bit. It's hardly time consuming or difficult. I'm more focussed on where GSF is going. We know they've stated the Texas summer revenue which was massive is likely to be repeated in 2024 and 2025. I don't know how they can look as far ahead as 2025 but if I believe them then the 200Mw Big Rock project they will building now which is due for completion in Dec 2024 will be a money printing machine at least for one year as it will take their installed capacity in Texas from 30 to 230. For info Texas revenue was £140MW/hr for the Sept qtr end vs about £15MW/Hr in the UK. One could exaggerate that the UK revenue on this basis becomes almost irrelevant. What I also want to understand better is the likely revenues coming out of their other US projects. I know the grid is in a bad place over there both in terms of the grid and generation capacity so my working assumption is the US looks a good place to be. Certainly the California project seems decent to me. I know nothing about about the power situation in Dallas so I will have to trust GSF on that one. Which leaves me with final thoughts about the UK where too much battery capacity has been brought on-line too quick and GSF/HEIT/GRID plus no doubt others continue to build more for another year until they run out of borrowing capacity. I suspect things aren't going to rebalance in 2024 as it will take some time for the extra wind to take affect. If GSF had any sense (imho) they would pull the Kilmarnock projects but since they aren't until 2026 they have time to do that if they wish. All of which kind of brings me to the view that 2024 won't be an exciting year for GSF in terms of revenue and profits, but 2025 will bring a massive step change. |
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
