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 | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nextenergy Solar Fund Limited | LSE:NESF | London | Ordinary Share | GG00BJ0JVY01 | RED ORD NPV |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.90 | -1.31% | 68.00 | 1,441,834 | 14:36:20 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67.90 | 68.30 | 68.90 | 67.80 | 68.40 | |
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Investors, Nec | 8.82M | -8.36M | -0.0141 | -48.23 | 407.08M |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14:36:30 | O | 22,041 | 68.0273 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/12/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
| 04/12/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
| 03/12/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
| 02/12/2024 | 07:01 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Total Voting Rights |
| 02/12/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
| 29/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
| 28/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
| 27/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
| 26/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Publication Of First Nature Strategy Report |
| 26/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited Transaction in Own Shares |
Nextenergy Solar (NESF) Share Charts1 Year Nextenergy Solar Chart |
|
1 Month Nextenergy Solar Chart |
Intraday Nextenergy Solar Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/12/2024 | 08:07 | NextEnergy Solar Fund | 1,279 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14:36:32 | 68.03 | 22,041 | 14,993.90 | O |
| 14:36:20 | 68.10 | 50 | 34.05 | O |
| 14:36:20 | 68.00 | 1,362 | 926.16 | AT |
| 14:36:20 | 68.00 | 1,373 | 933.64 | AT |
| 14:36:20 | 68.00 | 4,736 | 3,220.48 | AT |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 11/12/2024 08:20 by Nextenergy Solar Daily Update Nextenergy Solar Fund Limited is listed in the Investors, Nec sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker NESF. The last closing price for Nextenergy Solar was 68.90p.Nextenergy Solar currently has 590,821,185 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Nextenergy Solar is £404,712,512. Nextenergy Solar has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -48.58. This morning NESF shares opened at 68.40p |
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 06/12/2024 08:54 by chucko1 Bounty, 95% or 90%? Not been following too closely as I am not a fan of clown shows, but I thought it was 90%. In any event, the walk-back from 100% is likely a long term material concession to the bleeding obvious.Back to the share price, I am surprised that far more has been written about the opaqueness of the accounts (partly true) than the actual trading that has occurred the past week, starting with the sudden buying and then selling of lots of 35k etc. This is far more likely to have kicked the share price than a sudden realisation that NESF was based largely on deceit. On the issue of management, I wrote that I was not wholly impressed, but what I should have made clearer is that they were moderately poor presenters, and answered questions without the same gravitas and control as compared with, say, SUPR and SREI. But in no way did it make me question any more than already whether or not the current divi level was good in near perpetuity. At the current sp, I see a heck of a lot of pessimism baked in. This one has moved from being about my 5th largest holding to about the 3rd upon the recent weakness and hence large purchase upon the drop of a few days back below 69.5p. |
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 24/11/2024 14:43 by chucko1 It was not deducted from the Group earnings because the loans are at the subsidiary level. What turns up at the Group level is the Investment Income (page 116 - £57mn), which are the earnings from the Subs which would have had interest expense deducted.If you add (reverse) back the loss of £72mn to the net Comprehensive Loss of £8mn, you get a cash earning of £64mn, which basically tallies with the declared 1.3x cover of £48mn in distributed earnings. Far more important is what is expected in the future. The future power curves, along with the statement of hedged power prices for the next 4 years seems to make grim reading. £77 per MWh average for the current year, followed by around £84, but then far lower numbers thereafter, being around £50. However, the higher numbers reflect essentially hedged PPAs from the volatile price era, whereas the lower numbers are more reflective of what is a pretty stable long term average. Were you to look at the 2017 Annual Report, you would see that long-dated power was priced at around £50, with very low spot prices of around £35. In 2017, though, gas prices - which are significantly deterministic of power prices - were a half of what they are now. Or, more accurately, EU gas prices are. But those in the US are about where they were in 2017. So spot prices will be affected by the increase in US imports into Europe, I suppose, assuming LNG prices in the US are not out of line with Natural Gas. NESF stated somewhere that they expected hedged prices to be generally lower than spot prices, so it is possible that the experienced average price for their solar output will rise a little above the currently stated levels. Also worth pointing out that although the very long dated prices are around £50, these are stated in real terms, and so the stated expected inflation rate of 2.25% will bring numbers closer to £60 in the next few years. Or at least that is the expectation, and that is why inflation is such a large component of NAV calculation. In 2017, they had 2.75% as their central expectation, so it does seem odd that it is now 2.25% If we assume around £55 in the long run, and slightly higher output, you would get a cash income after expenses of around £43mn with additional costs from higher refinancing rates of around £4mn leaving £39mn. This implies a dividend cover of 0.81x, but that still would generate a yield of around 9.5%. As for the NAV, best of luck with that! It's a number that is dreamed up by the accountants and consultants who stick their finger in the air to arrive at a discount rate and an expected long term inflation rate. I could do that and arrive at any NAV between 67 and 127pps. By comparison to all this, the issue of humidity/flooding or mice gnawing at cables is not really that significant. There is something a little more important and that is the issue of subsidies. These are rolling off over the coming years, but it's really tricky to get any good feel for what effect that will have, given that management make comments to suggest that this reduction would be somewhat commensurate with lower costs of future solar production. But it was quite vague. |
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. |
Posted at 18/6/2024 22:40 by insanityideas Additionally to the good points Chucko made... The dividend payments that a fund gives out are equivalent to the interest payments on a loan. Buying back shares means fewer shares receiving a dividend so the overall cost of the dividend is reduced.A fund Issuing shares is like taking out a very long term loan (with the flexibility to cancel interest payments). Buying back shares is like paying down a loan. Long term Shareholders should view this as increasing the security of the dividend, short term shareholders can take their profits should this positively affect the share price.Buying back shares when they are cheap is a smart move (and explicitly written into the terms of the fund - if price falls below NAV directors have authority to buy back shares). It's only throwing money away when companies do it when the share price is at an all time high.If they don't currently have any decent assets to recycle funds into purchasing then this buyback puts those funds to use by reducing dividend outgoings. The only potential red flag is why can't they find suitable assets (that's part of the asset managers core job), and in the current climate a new share issue wouldn't get a good price, tying their hands on raising back this capital until share price gets closer to or above NAV. |
Posted at 25/11/2023 16:44 by masurenguy NextEnergy Solar Fund Manager says share price "unjustified" after solid interimsNextEnergy Solar Fund Ltd (LSE:NESF) Manager Ross Grier visits the Proactive London studio to speak with Thomas Warner following the release of interim results for the six months ended 30 September 2023. Grier discusses the fund's performance, noting a slight decrease in net asset value, primarily due to an increased discount rate for UK assets, reflecting the current high-interest rate market. He says NESF successfully launched the Whitecross Solar Farm (36 megawatts) in the UK and is advancing the construction of the Camilla Battery Storage asset, set to be operational in the first half of 2024. A key achievement highlighted by Greer was the progress in NESF's capital recycling program, which involves selling assets to fund growth opportunities. This strategy was exemplified by the profitable sale of the Hatherden asset at a significant premium. Focusing on generating total returns for investors, NESF prioritises operational excellence and dividend growth, maintaining a strong track record as a dividend payer with a current target of 8.35 pence. Looking ahead, Grier says that NESF will continue emphasising operational efficiency across its assets, advancing the capital recycling program, and integrating the Camilla battery storage asset into its portfolio. He suggests that the current share price is "unjustified" given the performance of the fund so far this year. He projects a positive outlook for NESF, anticipating a share price increase aligned with net asset value as market sentiment improves. Disclosure: I have a holding here. |
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
