We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nextenergy Solar Fund Limited | NESF | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.20 | -0.31% | 65.10 | 15:21:57 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64.00 | 63.90 | 65.70 | 65.30 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| ALTERNATIVE ENERGY |
| Announcement Date | Type | Currency | Dividend Amount | Ex Date | Record Date | Payment Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19/06/2024 | Interim | GBP | 0.0211 | 30/06/2025 | 30/06/2025 | |
| 19/06/2024 | Interim | GBP | 0.0211 | 31/03/2025 | 31/03/2025 | |
| 19/06/2024 | Interim | GBP | 0.0211 | 14/11/2024 | 15/11/2024 | 30/12/2024 |
| 19/06/2024 | Interim | GBP | 0.0211 | 15/08/2024 | 16/08/2024 | 30/09/2024 |
| 19/06/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.0209 | 23/05/2024 | 24/05/2024 | 28/06/2024 |
| 19/06/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.0209 | 15/02/2024 | 16/02/2024 | 28/03/2024 |
| 19/06/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.0209 | 16/11/2023 | 17/11/2023 | 29/12/2023 |
| 19/06/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.0208 | 17/08/2023 | 18/08/2023 | 29/09/2023 |
| 27/06/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.0188 | 18/05/2023 | 19/05/2023 | 30/06/2023 |
| 27/06/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.0188 | 16/02/2023 | 17/02/2023 | 31/03/2023 |
| 27/06/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.0188 | 17/11/2022 | 18/11/2022 | 30/12/2022 |
| 27/06/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.0188 | 18/08/2022 | 19/08/2022 | 30/09/2022 |
| 17/06/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.0179 | 19/05/2022 | 20/05/2022 | 30/06/2022 |
| 17/06/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.0179 | 17/02/2022 | 18/02/2022 | 31/03/2022 |
| 17/06/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.0179 | 18/11/2021 | 19/11/2021 | 31/12/2021 |
| 17/06/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.0179 | 19/08/2021 | 20/08/2021 | 30/09/2021 |
| 30/06/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.017625 | 20/05/2021 | 21/05/2021 | 30/06/2021 |
| 30/06/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.017625 | 18/02/2021 | 19/02/2021 | 31/03/2021 |
| 30/06/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.017625 | 19/11/2020 | 20/11/2020 | 31/12/2020 |
| 30/06/2020 | Interim | GBP | 0.017625 | 20/08/2020 | 21/08/2020 | 30/09/2020 |
| 18/06/2019 | Interim | GBP | 0.017175 | 21/05/2020 | 22/05/2020 | 30/06/2020 |
| 18/06/2019 | Interim | GBP | 0.017175 | 20/02/2020 | 21/02/2020 | 31/03/2020 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 21/12/2024 15:53 by granykity NESF how best accumulate under or around 66p - 69 range, I'm just figuring how / where people share information etc, so apology if I have posted it in the wrong place! (as a somewhat older, I have recently discovered this trusts most attractive dividend yield, (at current prices it's nicely over 11%) my question to more experienced investors here (or especially into these type of solar funds) is; 1. would you generally make larger stock purchases in several blocks so as not to start pushing the price / interest up, ? or spread them out say over a few days / weeks? I do appreciate there is always risks that these things can move up down a fair amount regardless. So just a general question also if people think it's better to average over coming weeks? is there a particularly better time for accumulating larger positions in these solar trusts? presuming that perhaps dec / jan time people are less likely to be buyers / hence lower prices? also understand it will start moving close towards the next qtr dividend into new year, so presume I'm best not wait to long. Thank you for any insights, it's just us ole' grannies have to try and invest our pension pots wisely! we all like to get a good divi and like the idea of getting a nice amount in a solar energy trust, like the ethos of how they generate income + of-course, whilst pricing is under 69p does seem a super reasonable dividend generator. (of course any other insights always welcomed) Thank you |
Posted at 06/12/2024 09:39 by cc2014 To complete the story on the £25k trades, which people have only just noticed. I would not normally share this sort of information as it gives me an edge but I don't think it's going to make any difference.The £25k lots have been going on for at least 2 years. If you want to look back at the trades the other day you will see that very many of them are matched with sales on BSIF. The sale goes through on BSIF and the buy on NESF is literally within 30 seconds, sometimes within 15 seconds. Not all of them were BSIF. I could not be 100% sure but it looked like there were further sales on SUPR matching buys on NESF. There were a few I could not match but that is hardly surprising. The ones they sold on BSIF, IIRC, they only bought the day before and made about a 1p turn on them on average. Whoever is doing it knows what they are doing and have some sort of insight which suggests to me they might know what trades are coming later. As if they are front running some other party. Of course we all try to get an edge by front running a large investor if they do not hide their plan well but it seems whoever is placing these £25k's has more insight than anyone I have ever met. IIRC it was Friday when they bought all the £25k's and £50k's before 9:30 and then sold them all in the last half hour of the day. They don't look so stupid now as we've seen them buy them all or most of them back in the 68.5p area. Now who would know that selling NESF as low at 69.2p on Friday was a good idea? They've got more insight than me knowing that if they waited a bit they could buy them back even cheaper. Whoever is doing this has been operating on NESF for at least 2 years to my knowledge, but sometimes you can go 2-3 months without seeing them. And sometimes they operate in larger scale than they have been of late. I've seen runs of £100k's placed in the same way. What surprises me most is that the MM's are tolerating the actions of this party as it's not "good form" to place trades so close apart as the MM's don't have time to hedge. Certainly when I was day-trading in size, the brokers sniper policies would not have let the trades to be placed. Further I cannot understand why the party is placing trades in this way. It is not efficient and they would get cheaper prices and be more able to disguise their trades through a hybrid direct access broker. having said all that sometimes the trades are placed very poorly and perhaps that is why the brokers tolerate it as they on average are making good money out of it. In the end what we have seen here is that some party has made 1p by buying and selling some BSIF. I assume some money by buying SUPR near the low and then selling out. Then they switch to NESF, but around 70.5p, sell out around 70p and then buy back around 68.5p. They are still sitting on them unless of course they were shorting them from higher up and closing out their position. Someone knows how to short term trade and they have access to a decent sized pot. Or someone has access to privileged information and has access to a decent sized pot. |
Posted at 05/12/2024 18:04 by chucko1 "Smoke and mirrors ...". Not how I see it.I see the debt, which I had previously argued was within the SPVs - not the TopCo, whereas the Prefs are in the TopCo. There was a previous posting here which argues that interest must be further taken off the declared free cash of £63mn (or £80mn prior to Prefs and Op Ex), thus implying that the dividend is NOT 1.3x covered etc. I see the interest on the debt as being deducted from the profits of the SPVs, and therefore the net income from the SPVs sent to the parent as truly distributable cash. Were that not the case, there would surely be cash deficits all over the corporate structure that would have led to strange rebalancing payments over the 10 year period. This is not the case. What does appear to be a tangible concern is the sustainability of the dividend as the hedged portion of power prices diminishes, and further contracts are agreed. Recent contracts indicate roughly £50 per MWh, and basic calculations indicate this is not conducive to the current dividend amount. However, NESF argued in their recent presentation that asset management and lower costs would make this possible. And it will take a number of years to validate this claim. Hence a fractious share price if certain investors go into doom or bad mood mode! It's so common with ITs for a section of investors to get antsy when the share price is "low", including getting angry with management. Well, at least we know that management do own a reasonable amount of shares. That said, I was not massively impressed with the presenters on the call of two weeks back, but that is a totally different issue to that of current dividend cover and its definition. Q: can anyone offer up an IT where there has NOT been a big gripe about it during its history? It's all part of the experience! |
Posted at 04/12/2024 19:31 by value hound From UK Investor FWIW (I bought recently):Three reasons to consider NextEnergy Solar Fund shares after the recent dip The NextEnergy Solar Fund’s share price has softened slightly since the Investment Trusts announced net asset value fell marginally due to energy price forecasts. The trust regularly updates the valuation of its portfolio of solar assets to reflect the discount rates and expected future cash generation. Looking past the short-term gyrations in underlying energy markets, we explore three factors central to the NextEnergy Solar Fund investment case. NextEnergy Solar Fund yields 12% The NextEnergy Solar Fund is a dividend juggernaut. The trust has consistently increased its dividend and is on track for another year of growth. The full-year dividend is expected to increase to 8.43p for the year ending 31 March. Highlighting the sheer scale of the dividends distributed by the NextEnergy Solar Fund, the trust has paid out £370m in dividends totalling 72p since its IPO. This compares to a current share price of 69p and a market cap of £400m. Dividend yields above 10% are treated with scepticism. However, the NextEnergy Solar Fund has set a dividend cover target of 1.1x -1.3x for the full-year dividend, meaning the dividend paid is more than covered by income, reducing the risk of any reduction in the dividend payout. The income that covers the dividend is remarkably reliable. A common misconception is that solar power heavily depends on the weather and how bright the sun shines. Of course, the weather has a degree of variability, but its impact on a solar facility’s ability to generate power is minimal. NextEnergy Solar Fund uses Power Purchase Agreements to lock in prices for the power it generates and provide income security. Share buybacks The NextEnergy Solar Fund’s commitment to share buybacks further underpins its attraction. The trust has a programme of up to £20m, of which £6.2m was utilised up to 20 November 2024. The share buyback programme isn’t massive, but the fact that one is in place demonstrates the underlying health of the trust’s finances, adding an extra layer of reassurance to its ability to pay dividends. Share buybacks are currently playing a major part in shareholder returns for UK equity investments, and investors should be encouraged to see NextEnergy committed to a programme. Asset sales at a premium to book value NextEnergy Solar Fund shares trade at 29% discount to NAV. Wide discounts are a common theme across renewable infrastructure Investment Trusts. However, recent asset sales as part of NextEnergy’s capital recycling programme reinforce why their discount is unjustified. Discounts across the sector partly reflect the higher interest environment and partly reflect concerns about a potential disparity between the achievable valuation of assets and the reported valuation. Concerns about the achievable valuation of NextEnergy Solar Fund’s assets may be misplaced. As part of its capital recycling programme designed to manage its exposure to higher interest rates, NextEnergy has disposed of a limited number of assets at a premium to their holding value, delivering a 2.76p uplift in the trust’s NAV. This highlights two things: first, NextEnergy Solar Fund NAV calculations have proven conservative compared to the price acquirers are prepared to pay, and second, any discount to NAV due to the trust’s portfolio’s achievable NAV could be unwarranted. In addition to the benefits outlined above, investors must consider the risks, as with all investment trusts. NextEnergy Solar Fund is exposed to power prices that can be unpredictable, and there is an element of exposure to inflation through subsidies. |
Posted at 30/11/2024 16:46 by bountyhunter A snippet from the recent proactive interview.."Proactive: What does the future market landscape look like for solar and energy storage, given the government change? Rosser: I think it’s very positive. We’ve seen momentum from the government and clear commitments to achieving clean power by 2030. We’re excited about the roadmap that the solar taskforce is set to publish and other engagements with the government about achieving net zero. Additionally, base rate cuts this year provide optimism for the sector. We are starting to see capital returning to infrastructure and renewables after a hiatus, which is promising. Within NESF, we have a proprietary pipeline of projects with flexibility for deployment when the time is right. Proactive: You mentioned the 11% dividend yield that NESF currently offers. Why should investors look at NESF? Rosser: It’s fantastic value for investors. The high yield and the unjustified discount in the share price to net asset value make it an attractive opportunity. The portfolio is performing in line with expectations and is positively generating cash, covering the dividend comfortably. It’s a solid foundation that makes it a great entry point." |
Posted at 25/11/2024 09:06 by chucko1 They have been reporting in pretty well the same way since IPO about 10 years ago. If they were truly not covering their dividend, by the amount suggested (by it being only 0.79x covered), there would be a mighty great hole somewhere. This could only be at the multiple SPV level, but were that the case, the banks who are continuing to lend to them would have to have been fooled similarly, which is extremely unlikely.In the case of interims 2024, they repaid just over £20mn in borrowing, and as previously suggested, this borrowing largely occurs at the sub (SPV) level. So, instead of sending cash to the parent to pay the dividend, there was a reduction in borrowing (a repayment of cash) which required an internal accounting entry, it would seem. Or, in other words, what ever cash would have been sent would have been sent straight back to satisfy the borrowing repayment. Just because this cash never made it up to the parent should have no bearing on stated dividend cover. They have stated annual dividend cover of between 1.1x and 1.5x for many years. They have, as a matter of fact, paid the dividend, and no one is making noises about any large balance sheet hole. One message (above) commented upon the loss and the disappearance of cash - well, the loss is simple - reduction of asset value (as ever), whereas the cash balances are lower owing to the loan repayment and purchase of shares in excess of the difference between the generation income and dividend paid. All that is opaque here is that we do not see 102 financial statement from what are effectively the operating companies. I assume the auditors do their work properly in at least this regard. |
Posted at 24/11/2024 20:45 by marktime1231 Everyone else is reading the Interim Report chucko, you know the one with the latest results published last week! I will continue to read and refer to that, I am surprised you are not.We are both right/wrong. Group debt such as the RCFs is considered to be held by Holding Companies eg NESH, NESHIII, NESHIV. These are intermediate entities between group and the subsidiary operating companies. So a figure for group debt service costs is not presented at Group level, it is distributed among the Hold Cos. I presume from your remarks there is also debt servicing at specific spv / subsidiary operating company level. I haven't found an explicit statement of what debt service costs were paid at any level. There is complexity in the company structure and in intercompany financial arrangements which had not dawned on me until now. I note from p101 that all-in gearing grew to 48.2% as at 30 Sep, very close to the 50% limit which must have been in danger were it not for recent asset sales. So "capital recycling" is not an optional exercise, it is essential to stop NESF from breaching its mandate, something which presumably would force another wind up vote. As SteMis warned a couple of days ago, looking at p103 of the Interim Report, the figure of £45.2M for NESF cash income is not a transparent measure of net operating income. That headline £45.2M figure includes repayment of £15.2M intercompany loans from the HoldCos to Group, a capital fudge. Real group level cash income from generating operations was only £30M less £2M change in working capital. That takes us to the £28M net cash generated from op cos figure in the Statement of Cash Flow on p77. Deduct a further £8.5M for Management Costs and Pref Divis. Distributable net income therefore was only £19.5M, versus £24.7M Divis and £4.6M Buybacks. By that measure which seems the fairest one to me the dividend was only covered 0.79x. Telling us cash dividend cover was 1.5x is not telling the whole story. OK going to leave the analysis of the report there. |
Posted at 23/11/2024 08:24 by masurenguy NextEnergy Solar Fund: 11% dividend yield, share buybacks & future growth plansInvestment director and UK legal counsel Stephen Rosser talked about the fund's latest developments, including highlights from its interim results. Rosser shared that the fund generated £45m in cash from producing nearly 600-gigawatt hours of clean electricity. He emphasised the fund’s 11% dividend yield and its strong cash coverage, which enhances its appeal as an attractive investment. Rosser discussed the fund's efforts to narrow the discount to net asset value through strategies such as a £20m share buyback program and a capital recycling initiative. He revealed the completion of phase three, which included selling the 50 MW Staughton asset for £30.3m — a 21.5% premium to its carrying value. He also outlined a positive outlook for the renewable energy sector, citing government commitments to clean power and a promising pipeline of projects within the fund. "Plenty of reasons to be positive and potential to drive value for shareholders," Rosser remarked. The company remains focused on disciplined capital allocation and delivering cash-covered dividends. |
Posted at 22/11/2024 13:27 by stemis What we have is a holding company (NESF) which is 100% owner of a lot of subsidiaries. 'Normally' in this situation the company would produce a set of consolidated accounts in which all the assets and liabilities of the holding company and subsidiaries are added up to produce a consolidated balance sheet. The group would then have a net asset value (and you could work out a NAV/share). It would also produce a consolidated profit and loss, adding up the profits and losses of the holding company and the subsidiaries and eliminating any transactions between them. The result would be a net profit for the Group. The dividend cover would the number of times the net profit of the Group covers the dividend cost.That's not what happens here. Because NESF is an investment company, it doesn't have to produce consolidated accounts. Instead it values it's subsidiaries as 'investments', typically by doing a NPV calculation of the future cash flows of each subsidiary, discounted by an appropriate rate. We don't know what future growth in the cashflows the company are assuming or often (not sure about NESF) what discount factor they are using. Consequently the NAV of NESF is simply what management think the cashflows of the subsidiaries are worth, using assumptions for which there is no visibility. Bear in mind that the investment manager who in reality do this calculation, have a vested interest in this being as high as possible. How the valuation of subsidiaries changes year to year can depend on all sorts of things; - unwinding of the discount (as profits move closer in time, they are discounted by less) - changes to the discount factor - changes to the expected lives of the installations in the subsidiaries - actual cashflow performance compared to forecast - changes to future forecast cashflows (affected by output, prices etc) Any changes to the value of the subsidiaries is recorded as a profit or loss in the NESF accounts. The holding company also levies management charges on its subsidiaries and possible interest on intercompany funding. As NESF doesn't produce consolidated accounts these are not eliminated but are recorded as profit in the accounts (less the holding company, but only the holding company, costs) Dividend cover is calculated solely on the profits in the holding company. Here's the rub. In the extreme it's possible (ftaod, I'm not saying it's the case here) that the whole group could be making a loss but because the holding company is still stripping management charges and interest from it's loss making subsidiaries, the holding company is making a profit and showing a healthy dividend cover. The value of the 'investments' could still be going up if management assume the losses are going to be recovered by future profits. |
Posted at 21/11/2024 17:52 by marktime1231 A prompt response from IR, who say they have been monitoring our discussion, so fire away if you are also in some doubt.The income for the period was as per the NAV dcf model, or actually below because they revised NAV downwards. How much the half year income failed to meet expectation is not explicit, but the report did say down from £50M to £45M yoy, not just lower prices so less sunshine too. If there had been a surplus income it would have shown as a positive increment in the NAV bridge, but all we got was a decline from weaker price outlook and "project actuals" which I think means cost overuns. And yet they scream in the headlines that net income and cash flow covered the dividend 1.5x, which implies a massive surplus. Doesn't it? Something doesn't add up, even if it is just in the telling. Maybe concentrate then on disappointment in the NAV decline. I will trawl through the report detail to see if I can spot where things don't add up, but without a surplus income declared in the NAV bridge it seems we should not be drawing too much comfort from how well they say the dividend is (was) covered. As this reality sinks in I note the share price has settled lower. Given the wide discount maybe NESF is another candidate for a formula which calculates management fees based on MktCap or share price rather than NAV. Share our pain why don't you? To restore faith NESF need to convince us of the strategy of selling off good assets, in order to replace them with ? Or not. In the meantime let's hope better trading conditions will stop the NAV rot and that we can truly believe the dividend is sustainable. |
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
