NextEnergy Solar Share Chat (NESF)

Okay. I got the impression from your original comment that you didn't appreciate that we haven't actually entered the new dividend regime yet. The last dividend was the final dividend of FY26. The next dividend will be the first under the new regime and will likely be c50%+ less than the last dividend. NESF haven't given any guidance that I'm aware and I'm currently assuming that they'll pay (say) 1p per quarter for the first three quarterly dividends with any additional amount being paid as part of the final dividend next year (unclear whether that'll be an ordinary dividend or an ordinary dividend plus a special dividend).

Hi TheTrotsky, I do indeed.. Still around 10% and i'm very happy with it.

The decline in SP created a high yield DIVI %, it had to be rebased.. As long as SP stays the same now with 10% Divi, keep it locked away in draw.

I'll personally miss the old dividend rate. The funds were very useful, sadly the div was unsustainable, given a multitude of reasons

You do realise that the dividend is being cut?

The prospective dividend for FY27 is 4.5p - 5.1p, dependent on the portfolio performance.

The dividend for FY26 was 8.43p, by comparison.

I’ll be incredibly happy if this is the most boring share I hold, as long as it keeps giving me the current Divi. I’ll accept it being boring indeed without Growth at all. Just keep that Divi coming

Just have to keep adding at this crazy share price to average down. Reinvested my dividend of £2200 today. GLA.

Does anyone believe management reports here?

Not a lot new.Odd to paint a negative picture of the market when Drax has just bought a solar fund.It has been tough for shareholders is an understatement.40% drop in share price.25% drop in NAV and dividend halved.10p drop in share price since strategic review.

But good news that the underlying portfolio has continued to demonstrate robust operational performance.

Who wants to wait for the NAV to grow over the longer term as is being suggested.Lets get NESF sold asap.

Douvrey,

As ToD has pointed to, the asset cost invloved in the new stratgy will be accounted for in the projected expenses and so no longer "free cashflow".

1.2x - 1.3x is still consided a very health dividend cover... a 1.8x cover could actually work against the management and SP as institutions could consider the opperation "Growth Hoarding" and not managing the capital inefficiently.

As for "Dodgy" electronics? ToD, most inverters only have a lifespan of 10-15yrs and are warrenty covered for 5-10yrs... so replacements are alwasy going to be needed... And in some situations the "NEW" inverters are actually more efficent, so the cost of replacement is offset by higher efficency; think this was something covered in the new strategy plan; and if they can get them done for free... it at least shows the asset managers are doing something! am sure there are plenty out there that would have just paid for the replacements as its not there money!!!

Investment required in shifting to battery etc. and replacing dodgy electronics that can't cope with heatwaves in UK I imagine.

I was surprised to read that halving the dividend would lead to the dividend cover going from 1.2x to 1.3x. The reason for the apparent small uplift is caused by accounting for fully amortising the debt. This was the first time I’d known that the previously advertised "fully amortised debt" was in fact not true. I had been looking for cover of about 1.8x, thinking to myself that this would be a ‘no-brainer’ for large institutions with future commitments to meet. If anyone on here has a different understanding from mine I’d be grateful to hear it.

So it remains a bit low - but it seems like it’s based upon reality. If nothing else, the candour is refreshing. Think the new leadership might yet be more attractive to the wider market.

Last year's divi was 3p more than the time value (discount rate unwinding). Next year's divi will be 2-3p less than the time value.

Thanks for your take on this Timbob, cheers for your view, guess the market not overconcerned either based on nesf price action today, albeit gov bonds taking small hit

Personally dont think Andy B as a PM will be much differant than Keir TBH. Labour's biggest stumbling block has been the wider party/MPs who seem to have differant goals/objectives then the Leader; Andy doesnt seem to be much differant, having jumpped between differant Labour philosophy's depending on who was leading the party at the time... only plus side, is he seems a more likable and relateable person, so might be able to pusuade more of the MPs to back him...

As for impact on NESF, regardless of it being Conservative, Reform, Labour, Greens or coalition, i dont think the next Govt. or PM to that, will impact NESF greatly. 50% of rev. is already driven by open market revenues and as more schemes come of the old grants, much more revenue will be from the market. As for ripping up the old grants, i think this is mostly posturing by Reform and now Cons.; the recent changes in the indexation was only "legal" as the framework was in place... ripping up agreements halfway through their lifespan would be highy controversial, most likely illegal and would most likely be challenged in the high courts. It would also undermine the governments ability to back "ANYTHING" and shock the market too much...

Think the reality is less or stop of on subsidies for new projects and more support for the historic carbon based system (which whilst more volitile) is still typically cheaper for end useres...

Question relating mainly to legacy generators such as nesf!

How do folk rate the risks of Andy being PM on the renewable sector and current subsidy schemes and associated taxes?

The only good thing about Andy as PM is less chance of a reform PMat next GE, who would likely make things much worse for the sector.

Of course don't really wish discuss politics here, I'll try avoid that but interested in risk perception going forward.

Lower overall in the long term but perhaps higher short to medium term?

There is only a cash option for the pref holders if nesf offers it to them after 2030, or the company gets bought out.

As NAV with prefs at fair is likely higher than NAV with prefs at par, best financial outcome for USS maybe to buy out company at or near NAV. But pension funds don't always go for the best financial income, given the accounting rules they have to live under.

There is no cash option for the Pref Holders? They only have an option to convert at NAV into equity. Latest Presentation assumes no conversion by 2040

PaulC,

Whilst Drax will have some fire power post BSIF, not sure they'll have enough to buy another Trust outright; but the Drax Quinlan connection could be a massive help to both via the NESF asset recycling programme; Drax more likely will want to buy oven ready schemes which they can do from NESF rather than go though the hassel of finding scheme to buy and develop...

TopFCA, Im not worried by the NAV, if anything, i think the board might have gone heavy on the write downs, getting as much out and NAV down as low as possible to improve the upsides and make them and the asset managers look like they are doing a great job down the line. Quinlan has a track record of transparency and deliverying on what has been promised to share holders...

The Prefs have lousy terms, can only convert into equity at nav. Latest Presentation shows they are still in place in 2040.

Reality is that current realisable value is a fraction of par, maybe 50%?

There’s a deal to be done here…. Probably involving a predator. Quinlan is ex Drax who still have fire power post BSIF but TRIG possible. Their latest presentation shows that they are increasing Solar to 25% from 13% by 2030

Prefs aren't the problem as by the time we get there they'll be able to refinance them due to (1) steady debt repayments taking quantum to negligible level (2) capital receipt of investment in Next Energy solar vehicle.

The worry is the low IRR and high value NAV - or more succinctly that NAV is overvalued.

The only upside here is that the Farage wheels are coming off his bus so the odds of a Reform Windfall tax are reducing.

Top FCA

The USS preference shares are exactly that, they rank above all other share holders in a sale or change of ownership. As USS can only redeem on their choice post 2036 if they decide to and at NAV it seems an unlikely event. Whilst USS may decide to forgo the higher ranking preference shares and convert to another share type they would then be on an equal footing with all other share holders, so the preference shares are effectively a bond in perpetuity delivering 4.75%. The dividend realised would increase the return, but the redemption at nav would potentially force a bid for the whole company due to the number of shares.

The main question would be do USS want to own a solar company or do they want to retain a 4.75% income bond?

Will USS's governance actually allow them to take the company into their ownership?

The USS problem is a 10 year away bump in the road, unless someone makes a bid for the company

Should be a good couple of weeks for the SP.

Hi Bunsen, would you not prefer to keep hold and maintain the fixed Yield for when you bought in at ? ?

Something like 11% isn't it ?

That's gotta be worth keeping hold off, rather than wanting the business selling up ?

Paul,

75p is 90% of 83.5, which is what I estimate the NESF NAV may be now, assuming a modest increase in power price forecasts in line with what other trusts have recently reported.

103.5 in my post was a typo as I had had that number in my head as an original optimistic target for BSIF having bought 100K GBP of it in January at 69p, and collected c.4.5p in dividends before selling out yesterday at >91p. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in my correction though I had assumed it was clear enough.

There was a lot going on yesterday with these trusts, I do apologise for my typographical error which I have already corrected and am now doing so again.

Unfortunately my initial entry point for nesf was not as well timed as my BSIF one (nor my FSFL one which I bought before the prices went up last year and sold out after prices had risen), so my break even price for nesf is still 53.5 (taking divis into account). Doubling down here at 48p has left me overweight so I'll likely trim and rebalance if the price rises, but I do intend to hold it long term as I think these can do a good job for me.

Again, I profoundly apologise to the community for the typographical error in the NAV, which was very obviously incorrect. I had already made the calculation of 90% of 83.5 as 75p and then just wrote the first number for the NAV wrong.

It will be interesting to know what the actual calculated NAV comes out as. It's a shame they have to write down the NAVs because the UK CPS is being removed but cannot account for the fact that future linking UK ETS to the EU ETS will almost certainly more than replace it. I'm interested to know if the community has a view on that.

Jerry.

50% rise to a potential

Takeover price based of BSIF is insane

They were marked up 15% we would need to be 50%.

Disconnect is simply too wide

Expecting a rerate in the interim

Here we go now

50p+ coming up today I think

Got £100k here

Looks like all energy infrastructure shares are heading north

NESF the cheapest of the lot

Just look at UKW

Yup. Load load load 😉

Https://fortune.com/2026/06/01/iran-conflict-disrupted-oil-supply-gulf-states-multi-billion-dollar-investments-renewables/

Https://www.lse.co.uk/news/BSIF/drax-to-acquire-bluefield-solar-income-fund-in-163561m-deal-8bhunvmhwfpoflv.html

Can someone supply the link for this news... nothing on RNS - thanks

That has to be a great move. I'd do the same if I wasn't already weighed down by a stupid number of underwater shares. Im surprised we haven't seen a bigger jump in early trades yet, I was thinking at least a 10-15% jump from open. Maybe the day is young still.

I’ve steamed in here chaps

Equivalent takeover price factoring in the 12% discount to NAV puts it over 70p for us!

70p from 45p!!!

CHEAP

This is fantastic news for the renewable sector as a whole. My understanding is that there have been plenty of buyers looking at these funds due to the elevated discounts associated with their income streams. Drax have stepped up and fired the starting gun with their offer for BSIF. I expect others will now commit - either through counterbids for or offers on other funds in the sector.

Game very much on.

Wow, that's fantastic just in the process of reading that just now, will be interesting see what happens on open here too!! What a fantastic outcome for bsif holders

Am I reading correctly they just got an all cash offer at 90% of their NAV? Get the sales sign up you hapless BOD.

Am expecting NAV to be somewhat unchanged for Q4...

The current dip in SP is more than likely down to the last lot of people selling off at the end of the old dividen policy.

I think the Q1 update will be more meaningful and hopefully be the start of a progressive increase in NAV. and in turn support a SP recovery.

Thanks Timbob,

You are right, I noted what you posted after I posted my message. However in 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 the quarterly was always released at/around the 15th so this year is different but as you say ties in with the date range on the website. Here’s hoping the manage release a rns with some positivity and hopefully only a small decline in NAV, don’t think the market or us could stomach much more!

Dadean,

Q4 NAV & Operating RNS: May/June 2026... As stated on LSE, so not overdue till the end of june...

Imagine they are holding off reporting this as a seperate RSN and will release the figures along with Annual Report or Full Year report.

Also anticipate that they are delaying as long as possible to maximise any uplift in Energy prices will have on the NAV.

Wonder What afoot with the delayed NAV, 11 days overdue, not a good sign

They've said what they are going to do and now they just have to do it. Anything else at this point would just be BS.

However the BSIF sale process does keep the whole sector "in the minds eye", knowing news of a bid (or not) could possibly cause substantial movement.

The Q1 2026 NAV update confirmed the buyback programme delivered +0.3p NAV accretion at a cost of £13.2m. Annualised that's 1.2% NAV accretion. The £200m private placement is a refinancing of existing RCF drawings, not new money — but the board is still committing £150m to a buyback generating 1.2% annual NAV accretion. That capital could be working significantly harder.

The disposal and reinvestment trap

If a buyer acquires TRIG assets at or near carrying value they must believe those assets will generate profitable returns. TRIG is handing future profits, plus transaction costs and adviser commissions, to someone else — on assets it already owns at a 34% market discount. Recycling proceeds into acquisitions at full market cost makes it worse — the market immediately applies its 34% discount to whatever is acquired. Value is destroyed at both ends of every transaction. The only consistent beneficiaries are advisers collecting transaction fees and InfraRed, whose management fees are based on gross assets and are unaffected by how much value the recycling destroys.

Where capital should actually go

Projects like Ryton and Spennymoor represent a fundamentally different proposition. Where land, planning, and grid connection are already on the balance sheet as sunk costs, incremental build cost could be materially below 69p — yet the completed asset sits at a NAV of 104p. That is £1.04 of provable, construction-cost-grounded balance sheet value for every 69p or less spent. Genuine NAV accretion, not model-derived, not dependent on power price assumptions.

Exhaust that internal pipeline first. Then retain disposal proceeds as auditable cash rather than recycling into acquisitions the market immediately discounts. As free cashflow grows from new income streams, special dividends become the natural distribution mechanism — and income investors will position ahead of that event in a way they never will for a buyback.

The worst possible use of capital is acquiring operational assets at or above NAV. Every pound spent is immediately worth 66p to shareholders. That is destruction dressed as growth.

The question for 11 May is whether the board has the conviction to change course, or whether the current strategy continues to serve the fee base rather than the shareholder.

I did some more research on prices of consumer bills a few days ago ....

The "Supplier of Last Resort" (SoLR) Levy

The collapse of nearly 30 suppliers (most notably Bulb) added a massive "stealth tax" to every bill. Under the SoLR process, the costs of migrating millions of customers—and honoring their credit balances—were socialized.

This resulted in a bill levy that added roughly £80–£100 per household just to clean up the industry’s lack of capital.

This one shocked me:

Poor Hedging & the "Price Cap Trap"

The Ofgem Price Cap effectively forced suppliers to hedge in a very specific window. When the market became hyper-volatile, suppliers who hadn't bought enough gas in advance were forced to buy at "spot" prices that were astronomically high, leading to the bankruptcies mentioned above. It turned a protective cap into a floor that trapped prices at the peak.

... with VAT still in place.

One should not forget of course ... that a weak £ post 2016 Brexit voted added another £75 to household bills meaning that in addition to supply concerns post the Ukraine war ... the Truss budget and collapse of the £ in 2022 added to Natural Gas price increases and profits for the sector ....

.... the FX £ exchange rate simply leaks into almost every valuation ... is it worth "investing" as a result? Possibly not .. stick to FX.

"today's RNS from TRIG " ... hence my "where there is to my mind an advantage in downsides being protected." yesterday.

Worth looking at today's RNS from TRIG to see their view on the changes.

"CFD replaces the wholesale market pricing part." .... The government are trying to force legacy renewables onto fixed contracts ... the only reason to shift is in the event of fixed contracts being beneficial to shareholders with the advantage that downside are protected for the life of the contract. If the deal offered is poor there is no obligation to shift ... where there is to my mind an advantage in downsides being protected.

Thanks for posting the link @jerry004

Ref the following article

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/21/uk-shifts-older-wind-and-solar-farms-to-fixed-price-deals-to-reduce-price-shocks

Would I be right in thinking that the affected assets would keep the fit or roc and only the merchant revenue would operate under the CFD?? With alternative being fit or roc plus merchant revenue with egl levy?

If they put a CFD around total revenue, (fit or roc plus merchant) that would be the end for this....

Gla

Good to see people putting a more positive spin on this. Reality is we (renewables) are likely to be under more pressure due to this.

Are Labour trying to make renewables non investable like NS oilers. Smells of Labour desperation !!!

The Nesf NAV is based on prices dropping to £60 pmh from 26/27, this is shown in their last quarterly rns where they detail the proportion of future income that is fixed.

My points are (1) These future prices never anticipated a future energy 'event' like we have now (2)They don't assume delays in nuclear new build (3) They don't price in reduced inclination to build renewables given the increased risks that the government are imparting. As a business you price for risk, so new renewable costs are rocketing with the govt changes in the playing field. Any sensible business would divert all cash to buy backs.

Therefore (1) I believe this chatter is for a risk against a benefit that isn't yet in the forecasts (2) The lowly prices that are in the forecasts are undercooked.

As an investor I relish scenerios like this. As Buffet said, "Be fearful when others are being greedy, and be greedy when others are being fearful"..

TF

Thanks Jerry - Guardian speculation vs deployed policy is also a factor as you say! As is cost of debt (all jumped up 1%+ since Iran, which hits).

Interesting if batteries not affected by EGL - strategically makes sense when the grid will need more as we decarbonise.

Lots going on, but stay calm and sit tight feels the appropriate response.

Jimothy,

Good points. May I add a couple of others to consider.

I am pretty certain batteries are not included under the energy generators levy. These forms is dispatchable stored energy are system balancers not generators.

Regarding the UK carbon price support (18 GBP) that is being removed in 2028. The plan is to align the UK emissions trading scheme with the EU one prior to that. This is likely to add back more than the 18gbp that is a lost.

Also the EGL is a already in place but due to end (45% tax on annual profits made when average prices gained for the year are over 82GBP/MWh and these profits are over a certain amount (? 10M)). But there is the suggestion in the guardian that this might be increased. However (IMO) they might want to do this if the carbon pricing scheme is likely to go up as per point above, and they want to nudge supplier towards CFDs).

I can only imagine the proposed CFDs replacing the market pricing component, personally. With PPAs, NESF effectively does that anyway.

In a nutshell the main difference is how they are structured as businesses - BSIF being alot more simple and transparent, NESF being more complex. I could elaborate but would take a while, taking into account sites/growth/shareholder and corp structure/fees/more steps between cashflow and shareholders.

Both badged as Solar, but different animals when you look under the skin

Hi Anderson

I think you’re spot on re BSIF. A pension fund would love the reliable cash flows and the corresponding sale of the Asset Manager provides the development pipeline expertise.

Joining up the dots means that the acquirer could well be interested in Foresight Solar and NESF with further economies of scale in operations, and more importantly, displacement of Investment Manager fees..

Am hopeful of some news on BSIF soon given that they started their sale process in November and had narrowed down the number of parties in due diligence as of 3 March.

Watch this space..

TF

I will absolutely be voting for wind up, as I did last time. Carrying on structured as we are will only benefit the terrible managers. Hopefully we will have seen from the BSIF sales process what the market values us at before then but regardless of that outcome I am voting discontinue.

"others thoughts on this" - sent the same points broadly to NESF investor relations this weekend.

In Nov25 BSIF agreed to put their assets up for sale and the SP is up ~20% since then. Over the same period NESF is down ~20%. I think NESF's assets are broadly comparable to BSIF, so the ~40% share divergence is largely due to strategy (BSIF NAV discount has narrowed vs increased discount for NESF). On this basis I plan to vote for discontinuation at the AGM in August, but might reconsider if management merge NESF with a complimentary trust such as GRID and GSF with a fee reduction. I would be interested to hear others thoughts on this.

No apologies needed Opti as my rant didn't exactly paint a clear picture, looks like a lot of us are in a similar position, hold until SP is better then decide.

Love the last paragraph. :-)

My apologies TC, I assumed that your income drop was rather more catastrophic overall. While I still think a 10% weighting is a little excessive, I understand your thinking behind it all and feel much the same way but to a lesser degree. I also took a punt on the green approach for some of the right ethical reasons, and a belief that govt support would continue for the sector, but I must admit there was a tinge of greed also for that meaty yield. Investments in both this and UKW were to offset lower yielding generators such as Artemis Income but I came in way too late and too high. I will hold for the long term and try not to watch it daily.

I do have some sympathy with the management, operating in an environment where the revenue stream is not entirely within their gift. At least we are not operating in the US where the administration's policies depend on the amount of paranoia medication DT is on at any given tine.

Forgot to mention I do have CTY in my pot and have had for about 7 years :-)

All very valid Opti, however I am aware of the risks of investing in a single company who can drop divs, also I am invested to 10% of pot so whist not tragic is still a chunk to risk. My main moan isn't so much the drop in divs which I can cover by restructuring my spending, it's more about the supposed green future and should have been a safe bet. To see the SP drop due to all matter of reasons just proves to a point that the grass isn't always green. Yes the divs are/were great and that is what lured me in having done a bit of due diligence. If I kept my previous funds that I used to fund this then after the div cut parallel I would have been no different, so yes I am peeved by the cut but it's the sheer drop in SP that annoys me. I haven't shafted myself, I'm shafted by the management of the company, Oh and a government who change the rules at a whim to suit their needs i.e. my solar panel increase going up by CPI rather the RPI to which I have a signed and agreed contract with the government ???

It might be suggested that you shafted yourself by over-reliance on a fragile income source. NESF yield should ideally only be the peak of an income pyramid with solid underlying foundations, such as CTY or JGGI. Anything with a running yield above 4-5% will obviously have a progressively greater degree of risk attaching. I got enticed in but only risked 2.5% of my income portfolio and averaged down when that had fallen by 25%. I am now looking at a 33% loss but have now had c.8% back. So it hurts, but only a bit.

Bought 8200 more with TRIG dividend.

I thought the managements recent presentation showed a decent road map for better returns,I can't see this going lower,renewables will soon be back in fashion.

I don't think future wars will be over wind turbines and solar panels which definitely makes this an ethical investment.

AIMO

GLA holders.

Happy weekend 🙂

Only good buy at 30+ levels

better don't touch his **** any more... there are no any signs of stoppage,it's one way going down...

Thing is Shanie, now might be the best time to reinvest divs, likely we've bottomed here you'll get 10pc yield nearly, plus your buying a £1 for 55p approx..

Never had it been so derisked, but dyor, we all keep getting stung with the likes of this, investing cert ain't that easy

Read your post there Jerry, good to read your views, yes nesf somewhat derisked at these levels and company doing what it set out to. My ability to buy greatly more somewhat limited now as I have already bought most of my holding. Bought mine between 70 and 50p, so limited fire power left, guess new div policy fair at the end of the day we used to get approx 8p with 4p anually decay in the NAV, now we get 4p so same result.. Approx 10pc return and that's where I aim. The possible gold lining is the 44pc discount to nav, it may pay out one day

I topped up with some of the proceeds from the Wood Group takeover. I don't mind the price being low when I am buying. I am only interested in the price being high when I sell. In the meantime I am happy to take dividends.

For a little over 44p

Thanks for clarifying the basis of your conclusion, Senator. It’s clear we’re looking at different metrics—you’re focused on the statutory P&L and accounting depreciation, whereas my thesis is built on the cash flow waterfall and the discounted cash flow valuation of the grid-connected infrastructure. I’m comfortable with my position, but I appreciate the debate

First, the £56M is net cash income so repayment of debt is never before or after this number as it never hits the P&L. Second we don't use the term amortisation of debt, it is just repayment. Amortisation is reserved for goodwill & intangibles, the amortisation of which does hit the P&L but not the net cash income.

Second, amortisation most certainly is a negative to the balance sheet, it is the credit to the P&L debit.

Third, the £56M is net cash income, depreciation is not relevant. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Your fourth point is as rubbish as all the rest, as the £56m referred to is net cash income so excludes all depreciation & amortisation which are non cash items.

More uninformed rubbish.

Senator,

1( That 56M Is actually after amortisation of the fixed debt not before it.

2) In any case amortisation is not a net negative to the balance sheet.

3) The 56M is also after OPEX, which will have made a dent in depreciation costs.

4) Depreciation is an accounting number, not a true indication of the rate of depriciation of the assets as a) the panels can outlive their accounted depreciation, b) there is now some real value to be recycled out of those silver heavy old panels and 3) most importantly, replacement cost is now only 30% of initial purchase cost, so that rate of accounting depreciation is far higher than what is needed to replace the panels.

Strategic or not, it's a buy for me....at 40

At the end of the day Senator we're all trying to read the underlying performance of the fund to allow us to either invest, stay invested or sell. The surface level narrative is quite grim but dig a little deeper and there's quite a lot of cash floating. Now as to my post being rubbish, each to their own but it fulfills a purpose for me. As to yours, you come across on the slightly darker side of a pessimist, things may not be as poor as you think. Certainly I hope your not invested here with the poor roe as you see it

After 8 or so irrelevant paragraphs, he summarised the reset, then said a recovery remains to be seen. Im finding IC a lot less useful than I once did.

For those with a subscription to Investors Chronicle, their columnist Mr BearBull has written positively about the share.

Gore, looks good on the strategy front. Very clean targets and what will happen if targets are not hit + 13% while we watch and wait

Happy I dumped these in the 50s. If they hit 40 I may take a few NESF, but cashflow based divi has more risk further out

For what it's worth, Interesting gore street battery fund just increased their divided from 4p I think to 7p, new yield 13% on share price, quite the increase.. Looks like was part of new strategy.... Certainly more positive than this one was

It strikes me as being fairly obvious that NESF has reconfigured itself to fit the kind of long term total return asset that private funds such as LTAFs are buying at or near NAV.(these being potentially IHT exempt and will be holdable is an ISA as I understand it).

Senator,

Otherwise OK?

By the way, what is a "partial right off"?

They wouldn't even attempt to open that discussion with the Pref holders as they know it would be stupid. The existing share base provides a 25% cushion to the Pref holders against further gross asset value declines. If they allowed a £100m buyback that would reduce to 15% which they would never allow. In a forced sale 15% would be the minimum haircut applied by buyers and then the Prefs would be in danger of a partial right off. They are probably feeling uncomfortable with the current 25% as they are certainly not being paid for the risk inherent in that cushion. There is only one solution here and that is the Board putting all contracts on a 1 month rolling basis and putting itself up for sale, like Bluefield. Year to date it is up 25% and NESF down 8.4%. What should have happened if the Boards were thinking about shareholders was a 3 way Nav-nav merger between NESF-FSFL and BSIF and create the listed scale the market wants. Strong Boards disentangle the existing contracts and then tender for the required contracts after merger. This would require strong, independently minded Chairmen who could divorce themselves from the investment management group who put them there to begin with. That is never going to happen so you have the listed garbage that will go absolutely nowhere but then the people with the contracts don't really care. The longer they get to milk this opportunity the better for them. From a shareholder perspective this whole sector is total garbage and best avoided.

Re powering wth additional DC-coupled battery is an absolute no brainer IF there is sufficient export headroom. Fiskerton is NESF’s best asset in this respect with over 100% headroom

Battery viability is very site specific .

Definitely needs to be validated

there are flaws / pro.s ,& cons with all forms if power so we could shoot the **** on the merits for eternity

personally i always refer to the big picture to enhance my overall vision

i bought into seit & nesf ( renewable energy ) as a supposedly safe havan and a hedge against geopolitical fallout and black swan events such as current events in the middle east , one would assume the fallout from hostilities is a tight squeeze on energy supplies and consequently renewables on home turf should prove there worth ( taking into account the abysmal caliber of british management especially in these 2 stocks ) despite the cloud currency hanging over both trusts i hold firm

i.m certain many on here have been bitten in the past from unscrupulous management running aim & footsi stocks with there smoke & mirrors fwd looking statements but energy assets are a bedrock despite cracks and fissures. the current sell off has been demoralising and a lot without merit .

this * war * will run its course but whatever the outcome it can only strengthen the case for home turf renewables

@BPm1 Quote "If NESF have done this then they should be able to provide a business case."

In their 11th March 2026 strategic update, NESF provided a specific case study for an 11 MW solar site repowered to 19 MW with a 5 MW 4-hour battery. They are seeking to increase their energy storage limit from 10% to 30% of Gross Asset Value (GAV), claiming this diversification is essential to offset declining power price forecasts that have hit their NAV.

@BPm1 Regarding your point on verification: validating information is a prerequisite for any research tool, whether human or mechanical. Engaging in basic due diligence rather than accepting data at face value is a standard requirement for any investor, not a caveat exclusive to AI.

Regarding the "flaws" of battery storage, the mathematical reality often depends on the cost of inaction. There are arguably more significant risks and opportunity costs associated with excluding storage from a renewable portfolio than there are in including it. Evaluating the viability of BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) requires an analysis of multiple variables and configurations; the pros and cons shift significantly depending on the specific model and grid-connection timeline chosen. Consequently, the "maths" will differ for every option, including the option of doing nothing.