Member Info for Ashershares

Its largely a pressure tactic on Trump to force his hand to stop. A huge part of Trumps poopularity / mandate was on lower prices at the pump for Americans and this war isnt helping on that front as we head into the mid-terms.

The other tactic they are now using is the threat of pulling investment from the US, up to $2trn they had promised.

There is always an agenda to government / leadership commentary.

It is also based on scenario analysis if XYZ happens. I am also not saying it doesnt happen and your point that renewables are very attractive in that case is very real.

Qatar Stops LNG Production at World’s Top Plant After Attack BN 12:02

102) QatarEnergy Halts LNG Production After Iran Attacks Facilities BFW 11:57

103) *QATARENERGY CEASES PRODUCTION OF LNG, ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS BN 11:54

03/02/2026 11:57:07[BFW]

QatarEnergy Halts LNG Production After Iran Attacks Facilities

By Kateryna Kadabashy

TOPLive in Progress

(Bloomberg) -- QatarEnergy suspends production of LNG and gas related

products due to Iranian drone attacks on facilities in Ras Laffan and Mesaieed, Iran Latest

according to statement.

• Company says it values relationship with all relevant parties and will

provide updates and information once available

• NOTE: Qatar Says Iranian Drones Targeted Power Plant, Energy Facility 

To contact the reporter on this story: 03/01 22:37

Kateryna Kadabashy in Dubai at kkadabashy@bloomberg.net

Follow the Blog | TLIV »

To contact the editor responsible for this story:

Dana Khraiche at dkhraiche@bloomberg.net

Hopefully the board goes very quiet then! haha

Agreed, managments job isnt to prop up the share price, its to run the underlying business and assets which look to be still generating same / more cash and buybacks were a smart strategic decision.

Care to elaborate more on your disgust in managment other than pure emotion to the share price move?

Yep fully understood re the ordering of the debt, what I mean more was would focus on refinancing the lower rate dates as they roll and keep some of the cash pile to pay down the higher rate debts, but it also largely depends on the re-fi rate as well. But even still, current gap to NAV still makes most sense to buy back ownership in own assets and collect NAV + yield.

Yes could well be they are working on one / some currently that may close by then.

Not quite bunsen, its a 20-25% uplift.

Looks to me, but could be wrong so please check to verify, upcoming expensive debt maturities are 7.35% 9th May 2027 with lloyds in 150mm and 7.23% with ANZ 3rd May 2028 for £75mm. So focus should be on paying those down along with the RCF which looks to be about 6.35% rate.

the increasing of the fixing of power prices would reduce the embedded call optionality on power prices this stock has (think Ukraine Russia war period) but increases certainty and reduces the current NaV drag from power prices going forward. However this is a view on whether you think the grid can cope with the projected upcoming demand or whether you would rather hedge that situation. For me, part of the appeal of this company is its exposure to power price upside, we are just in a down period / negative variance period for that.

The 500mm+ 2032 onwards is projected with re-investment funds. You must weight this with probability of potential issues to re-investment etc, i.e its not 100% certain and market will discount that fact still.

The lack of clarity on share buy backs and from my understanding is unlikely to be announced until later in March after their have "run the numbers" and decided on what to do debt wise (why havent you run the numbers before the annual presentation... 1month extra cash is only approx $20mm so you should know well enough), will also weigh on shares upside in the short term.

Really nothing inspiring, especially in the video presentation as well. A lot more could be done energeticallly to flag the discount, the belief in the current productive base and the above generation for the first time in many years. It feels very much just like a "job" to them vs how a CEO of a major company would be in this situation. We were nearly FTSE 100 a year or so ago, very lackluster unfortunatley on the mmgtment and publicity side.

However the numbers / fundamental remain solid and we are likely to continue sitting in a price range the market believe the yield is fair for the risk taken on and the opportunity cost of minimal growth. Of course things can change with future annoucments and data, but now, status quo.

Says all what exactly?

I think its clear to see I am not a raging bull on the stock but a long term holder. I like to think my analysis is at least thoughtout and balanced. So my question to you is, other than raging tech and AI stocks that you buy on strength, how do you find value and opportunity if the stock you are looking at hasnt been declining over recent years? Isn't that sometimes how opportunity is formed? Its all about the future expectations, not whats happened in the past. If you think that kind of performance continues, then clearly its not a good investment, if you think there is sound rationale and merit for it to change, then therein lies the opportunity.

Neither inspiring or uninspiring results, right down the middle of expectations I would say.

Continues to favour the share price finding the equlibrium real rate of yield large investors need to hold.

I would say however interestingly both Rathbone and Blackrock holdings decreased vs HL and II up (more retail participation) which shows the apathy of the asset manager / real money community.

There was a real attempt to remind the market that this company has growth prospects through the opportunities that arise in the AR7 round and that opportunities comtinue to be presented to the company. Market will need to see accretive action on this matter to start believing more of a growth story here too.

persistent underperformance of wind speed and generation will continue to weigh. Normalisation of wind speeds in 2H still resulted in -3% generation. They will need to do a strong job of telegraphing how generation is running above budget in 2026 and the market will need to see data to confirm this in the next results and likely see this confirmed over multiple time periods for confidence. But looking at the below budget trend, it makes for a grim investment case for many larger funds.

However net cash generation remains good (again confirming its a yield story in the short term 2-3 years). Further optimisation can help improve this further, finance / tax / amortisation -- which should improve as reduce debt. Future divi cover increased to 1.7x so again, strong candiate for income players.

No specific mention of buyback amount - surprised not in results but lets wait for presentation.

Power prices continue to be largest factor in NAV depletion, followed by Divis (which we recieve so not quite the same and is offset by cash generated). Not sure how this ties in to the fact that the company already discount the prices it recieves on power, I thoguht more of this should be baked in to the share price but I need to think / look at this more.

There is some truth to Zac0_4 "Shambloic" thread with respect to dividend paying REIT and why the share price continues to decline. Having thought about this more recently this week, the market is clearly pricing in the net yield it needs to hold UKW based on the probability of future cash flows to cover dividend ex all costs, future expectations of real yields for the economy and importantly for NO GROWTH in the underlying asset base. Therefore like Z04 has implied, it becomes purely a dividend play and therefore a risk adjusted yield is necessary for the real money to get involved. By this I likely mean asset managers and pension funds, hedge funds will be less attracted by a 6% real annual return when we are making those returns monthly. You will notice there aren't pension funds in the top holders and they are likely steering clear for now due to a) piling into green trades and getting burned last 4-5 years and b) policy risk (their number one hate) - pension funds largely go in direction of policy, not against it.

I believe I pointed out months ago how the lack of future growth was problematic and whilst the discount to NAV is attractive there isnt anything to suggest we should immediately rebound to this, other than higher generation of cash flow off existing base through higher wind yield or power prices. Then the market re-rates the real effective yield it needs to hold this equity. To get back above NAV and higher, the market would need to see a solid re-investment plan / growth plan to expand the generating capacity. This doesn't look on the cards for a while, too attractive to buy share below NAV instead of buying assets of other producers at NAV (which I do understand) but sometimes management should also consider taking risk to growth the underlying business.

You really do have to think long term for this company and have a strong belief that energy generation is a key sector on a 10 year horizon (probably hard pressed to find anyone on an inherently biased bulletin board to not believe that). I hope people listened to the macro voices podcast.

Again for me, my strategy lately has been to use the quarterly income to buy into other stocks / sectors where returns have been more fruitful.

Lastly and a little off topic, I do think it would be wise for some large oil and gas producers to be soaking up shares in this sector at these discounts. The market-to-market noise is irrelevant to them and eventually if they are forced to go greener in the future they will be snapping these companies up above NAV for a quick result. However that is purely my thoughts from a business scenario analysis perspective and has no real relevance to our value / current situation.

I believe you should be tracking the real yields more for UKW given the inflation linked cashflows. Nominal is useful in such as impact from refinancing debt so still holds value but real yields is more likely to be a valuation factor here.

Weakness to fundamentals comes from:

exposure to weak periods of wind, or declining wind patterns. Completely out the control of managment. Again likelihood we deviate from long term averages for sustained periods of time is difficult to value but its a real risk.

DCF model is inadequate to value NAV (not to just talk to positives but it is the industry standard in the sector). Call it "NAV" distrust. Which there is likely to be plenty of in the sector as focus has been on declining NAVs over multiple years (real fundamental infomation) as well as share price declines (largely emotional effect).

Debt Restructuring and Rolling is done at increasing interest rates / less favourable terms. Prioirtising cash generated away from buybacks and dividends to debt repayments and thus reducing investors NPV of returns.

Difficult to grow cash flows organically when shareprice is below NAV as favoured action is to perform buybacks and not look at widening assets.

Power prices sensitivity is two way, whilst we have an embedded call option, we are also subject to declining prices that are largely outside our control.

And of course the well telegraphed policy risk (which fwiw exist across many many sectors - think EV cars, tobacco, uranium historically, defence stocks recently (positive), UK banks post 2008 etc).

I am sure there are more parts to the fundmentals I am missing but hopefully I have caught the most significant factors and create real discussion around those (in addition to some of the discussion thats been going on in them).

Weighing up these positive and negative fundamentals to the business, with an approx 40p discount to NAV at 2025 FY of 133.5p we have the following scenario priced in I believe, but please do your own maths.

A) 3.3% increase in the discount rate = approx 40p NAV hit.

b) 30% drop in power prices = approx 40p NAV hit.

C) Policy risk ... Will have more of a think how to find a parameter to estimate the effect of this on NAV, if its possible.

There is clearly a lot of talk simply around the shareprice, which I understand however it is clearly an emotional reaction / discussion vs actually discussing the fundamentals of the company. To a degree, Bunsen does an ok job of this although caution warranted that also downside risks to fundamentals should be covered as well. However opportunity lies when fundamentals diverge from shareprice and from understanding what drives that divergence, Buffet was famously good at understanding the business and cared less about the shareprice on any given day - fwiw he didnt even have a computer in his office.

I get the frustration on this company and yes it can keep going down of course, it can go to 0 in theory (or very clse to) and this is true of almost any company (Amazon famiously dropped 90% from the highs before its incredible run - definitely not saying thats the case here but a powerful example that even todays mighty did fall before).

For those of us who have bought recently (last few years) and are frustrated with the share performance (before we get onto the fundamentals), remember we were buying into a declining sector on a stock we thought was undervalued or "distressed" to NAV. What made you think that once you bought in, or bought more, that would change quickly? Was the execution strategy just wrong? Should you have layered your buys and if so, how different would you be feeling today if you were only just getting the last of your layered buys.

Fundamentals wise UKW contributes around 2% of total electricty demand to the UK, I would argue that is at least close to being a structural part of the framework.

Cash Generation of £280mm FY 2024, £290mm FY 2025. This is currently approx 13% of current market cap. Here I also note this is at a period of below average wind (which a few have flagged is unlikely to be the case next week - results on the 26th will be very interesting).

Dividend is linked to inflation, not share price. As long as the cash is being generated in excess of needing to maintain / repower / service debt then I personally dont see why they would suddenly link it to a declining share price.

£200m accumlative buybacks below NAV, approx 10% of current market cap and naturally accretive and again show enough cash generation by the company, these have become more "structural" in policy.

Disposals acheived at interim 2025 NAV. Third party / market validation of NAV. Other infrasturter companies achieved the same, I believe ORIT at the very least.

Embedded upside optionality in power crisis and price spikes. This stock has a call option on power prices embedded in it via non-fixed price supply. This call option has a value (nailing down exactly what the value of that is is difficult).

continued in anotehr post as running out of space.

| **Rank** | **Shareholder** | **% of Shares Outstanding** | **Notes** |

| -------- | ----------------------------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 1 | Rathbones Investment Management Ltd. | 5.409% | Largest reported holder ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 2 | Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd. | 5.276% | Second largest institutional holder ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 3 | BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. | 4.631% | Major global asset manager ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 4 | Schroder Investment Management Ltd. | 4.417% | Part of Schroders investment group ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 5 | Interactive Investor Services Ltd. | 3.989% | UK retail/investor platform ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 6 | Newton Investment Management Ltd. | 3.885% | Investment manager ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 7 | Evelyn Partners Investment Management LLP | 3.187% | Financial advisory & investment firm ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 8 | FIL Investment Advisors (UK) Ltd. | 3.038% | Part of Fidelity group ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 9 | Schroder & Co. Ltd. | 2.618% | Related entity within Schroders group ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

| 10 | Hargreaves Lansdown Fund Managers Ltd. | 2.086% | Fund-management arm of Hargreaves Lansdown ([MarketScreener UK][1]) |

[1]: https://uk.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/GREENCOAT-UK-WIND-PLC-12888956/company-shareholders/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Greencoat UK Wind PLC: Shareholders, Shareholding Structure ..."

I share a very similar view to this, also as part of a wider diversified portfolio however UKW is slowly becoming an overweight in it.

My current (last 18 months or so) strategy has been to NOT automatically re-invest the dividends and use that to ensure not missing out on opportunity costs elsewhere, if I do wish to top up UKW for various reasons I then do with either fresh capital or re-allocation but at a time of my choosing.

It is however some what concerning to see the FTSE100 rallying 150bps on the back of lower inflation, lower rate expectations but UKW down 180bps - Bunsen this doesn't tie out with your rates rhetoric and I wonder if you have done any actual correlation study of price for this or just expect it to be so due to NPV maths. Markets are more multifactor than that and lower discounting rates might not matter until NAV trends upwards become of NPV effects.

The 100th company in the FTSE 100 is approx 3.32bn currently (I see this as Rightmove), we were close to this level when price was closer to 150p or so. The mmgt should focus on this as a strategy, it would bring greater stability and passive index flows and likely cheaper debt.

The point is long term that model wont work, you dont maintain security in something by eroding the value for the investors / risk takers. The current government and trajectory I agree would suggest what you are saying, however my point is this will need to change and it is in this change that the opportunity lies for this sector. I think if people dont at least subscribe to that view but are still investing in this sector (without BESS) then you are trading a perpetual high yield bond with an embedded call option on power prices (doenst mean thats a bad thing, but its different to thinking the sector is structurally important long term and there is asymmetric upside when this is realised and changes are made).

Its interesting because the analysis shows, at the global level, renewables with a focus in BESS or LESS (long term energy storage solutions) outperforming those without and continue to attract significant inflows of capital. This is likely where money being invested in the renewable sector is going when it comes to an allocation within the renewables sector.

Wind is still a structurally important sector in the UK, regardless of current policy or viewpoints, it’s very hard for an island nation to destroy 30%+ of its energy production. Short term market dislocations do happen, but for now I stick to my long term 9+ years now view that this sector (and energy security as a whole) remains important.

I do wonder if some of the excess cash generation UKW produces could see strong ROI from investing in better BESS to help compliment the wind farms but also just may simply be unnecessary whilst paid to shut off turbines (probably more food for thought at this point).

Another kicker to the ownership I think is at some point for big O&G companies, when needing to boost renewable generation again for the rebound of ESG (things do go in cycles), companies like UKW are cheap ways for them to do it (low probability optionally in shares right now but it wouldn’t surprise me few years down the line when public perception shifts again).

Looking into NESO more thanks to Sam:

New Record (Dec 2025): On December 5, 2025, at 17:30 GMT, wind generation set a new record of 23,825 MW, supplying 47.4% of Britain's electricity demand at that time.

Previous Records: This broke the record set just a few weeks prior on November 11, 2025, when wind generated 22,711 MW.

Market Share: In 2024, wind overtook gas as the UK's largest source of electricity, accounting for 30% of total generation, according to NESO data