We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited | SEQI | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 77.60 | 09:46:23 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77.60 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| GENERAL FINANCIAL |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 19/2/2025 16:22 by red ninja VHI quite like A J Bell, they have a nice feature to calculate Capital Gains and you get access to Shares mag for free. I also have HL, II and Jarvis. I split up after the Beaufort Securities went bust and they took some of the investors cash to pay off creditors,. However, now going to consolidate from 4 -> 3 and maybe then 3 -> 2. |
Posted at 19/2/2025 13:36 by value hound Boystown - I have the same issue (but have managed to buy on my ii account no problem). When I asked Hargreaves for the background, they explained as follows:--- Following an update by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), investment trusts are no longer aligned with the standard Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs) framework. As a result, these trusts are no longer required to disclose their full costs and charges in the Key Investor Document. Consequently, some issuers have opted to remove their investment charges from our website. As a distributor of these investment products, HL is required to adhere to consumer duty regulations. HL has adopted a business stance whereby any investment trusts that indicate ongoing costs as zero will be updated to sales only. Further purchases of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund (SEQI) will resume once the investment trust provides us with the necessary cost and charges data. Investment trust issuers have been notified of HL's position on this matter, as have various industry groups. We acknowledge that this is a complex issue, but we believe we have acted prudently and in compliance with the relevant regulations. |
Posted at 14/2/2025 15:35 by red ninja Check out the last Investor Meets Company presentation for SEQI that should give a potential buyer a good idea of its merits. |
Posted at 13/2/2025 09:02 by williamcooper104 Yes plus private capital is a super hot area The management company is small so any bidder would look to buy that privately and buy SEQIWould be a pain as would be yet another loss of opportunity for retail investors But wouldn't be shocked if it did happen |
Posted at 15/1/2025 22:29 by value hound Interesting article from the IC's "Ideas Farm":-- The curious case of infrastructure debt trusts Investors are tarring infrastructure debt with the equity brush As an asset class, ‘infrastructur Just cast an eye over Winterflood’s daily round-up of the UK’s investment trust sector. If it traded at book value, the renewable energy grouping would be worth £12bn, not £8bn. Energy efficiency names sit at an inefficient 42 per cent below net asset value (NAV). Battery storage plays fare worse. While some of these discounts might be explained by the dashed hopes of the 2020-21 environmental, social and governance (ESG) boom era (not to mention a dramatic shift in borrowing costs), even vanilla infra-funds look horrible, with both the ‘social’ and ‘economic̵ We might attribute equity stake markdowns to the impact of higher finance costs, rising real-world risks and investor uncertainty over where underlying asset values will land. But it doesn’t explain why the infrastructure debt sector appears to have been tarred with the same brush. So here’s a good question, courtesy of reader Alastair: why has the infra-debt discount endured, while several members of the credit, loans and bonds sector held value? He cites the 16 per cent discount on Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income (SEQI), at a time when Invesco Bond Income Plus (BIPS) trades at a slight premium, as an example of the discrepancy. SEQI has a lot going for it. It’s well diversified by geography, sector and number of loans. The average equity cushion for the subsidiaries it lends to is 37 per cent, meaning the average asset would need to go belly up before writedowns get painful. Indeed, past precedent suggests infrastructure credit providers typically recover more from defaults than ordinary corporate lenders. The combination of weak bank financing, cash-strapped public coffers, and massive demand means SEQI’s self-sourced investment pipeline is strong. Capital spending is again in vogue. If private credit really is as appetising as logic would suggest, it’s hard to see why investors should apply a haircut to the £1.2bn fund. Liquidity is clearly a factor. Many of BIPS’ high-yielding fixed-income holdings can be bought and sold on Hargreaves Lansdown. Even the type of loans that a private credit trust like CVC Income & Growth (CVCG) trades in and out of are relatively liquid. SEQI, by contrast, holds to term. However, illiquidity means different things to different assets. Unlike private equity, SEQI’s realisation events are contractual. Unlike real estate, valuations are less determined by market forces. Liquidity aside, Winterflood research analyst Shavar Halberstadt suggests that the sector’s discounts can largely be attributed to a “higher incidence of defaults and write-downs”. The latter might be true of peer GCP Infrastructure Investments (GCP), whose 35 per cent discount reflects attempts to sell chunks of its concentrated portfolio. But SEQI, by contrast, has seen its NAV climb around 13 per cent since March 2022, to 94.9p. A fully covered dividend yield of 8.7 per cent also implies otherwise. Matt Dimond, head of client capital at SEQI’s investment adviser, SIMCo, points to two other forces. First is the allure of highly liquid government bonds, which continues to drain a big source of investor capital. In response, buybacks – while a sign of confidence – haven’t 'moved the needle' on price. Second, nerves. “In terms of sustained externalities and pressures [on investor decision-making], we’ve never seen this level of uncertainty,” Dimond notes. But while sentiment is the price of any public market, it ultimately doesn’t change the fundamentals. |
Posted at 03/1/2025 15:29 by chucko1 The costs information follows some formula, pushed by bureaucrats, that is invariably either irrelevant or tangential to the real costs borne by investors. For listed ITs, it's mad as such costs run through the financial statements in the same way as a typical corporate accounts for the costs of doing business.It makes a lot more sense for funds as they levy fees external to the economics of the assets. If you had ever been close to regulators and their "thinking", you would better appreciate the difference in pay enjoyed by practitioners and regulators. I'm not saying regulators are thick, but very few have been successful in their previous endeavours unless it is of a political nature. If one were to draw up a balance sheet of occasions where regulation had successfully intervened versus where they had been incompetent - it would be an ugly sight. |
Posted at 06/12/2024 13:28 by gemlotte55 Thank you for your email.Some issuers (including Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund (SEQI)) have taken the decision to remove their investment charges from our website Following an update by the FCA Meaning they were no longer obliged to breakdown their full costs and charges on their Key Investor Document. HL have taken the business position that any Investment Trusts that populate their ongoing costs as nil will be updated to sales only. As a distributor of these investments, HL are required to consider consumer duty regulation and have taken the position that any issuers that decide to remove the charges from their EMT will be made sales only as it’s not a reasonable representation of the costs of managing the trust. I hope this has been of assistance. Kind regards Paul Biggs Hargreaves Lansdown |
Posted at 05/12/2024 16:01 by spangle93 Kepler view, in recent podcast re-results |
Posted at 22/7/2024 13:14 by cocopah #chucko1 I’m not lacking ambition, I’d love to have 8p (2p a quarter)! However the reality is they will probably only be able to maintain a reasonable dividend cover for 7p … if they choose to do so. Last time I reached out to Steve Cook, he was good enough to reply and intimated that for the foreseeable future investor returns would be focused on maintaining the share buybacks. 😎 |
Posted at 26/6/2024 16:01 by cocopah Mine was the question about increasing the dividend (which I believe we had been led to believe would be increased again following the recent increase).It was disappointing to hear that this was a “no”, however the continuing buyback program should eventually result in the NAV discount narrowing. So now might be the time to top up any shareholding if investors believe in the story and have the funds to do so. DYOR as usual but with dividend cover of 1.07 at present, nominal interest returns from lending at c9%, low default rates and good recovery rates (especially when compared to the market) hopefully we should be set fair for improved total returns again this year. |
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
