Member Info for Guitarsolo

In answer to my own question, I found this:

"On 16 September 2025, the Company announced its Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025 (the 2025 Annual Report). Following the announcement, CLIG has revised language in the Chairman's Statement by replacing the following paragraph from the section entitled "Happy fifth anniversary! Our dream merger with Karpus Investment Management" on page 6:

"George Karpus had a dream as an entrepreneur and in 1986 embarked on his lifetime's passion. At the same time, Barry Olliff was planning and establishing Olliff & Partners, the predecessor firm to City of London Investment Group. George and Barry pursued and fulfilled their dreams over nearly four decades - passionately leading their teams, growing their firms and providing strong returns for clients. Five years into our relationship, I can say with confidence that our CLIM and KIM merger made good sense and added considerable expertise and value to CLIG. We draw confidence from this successful integration. While Barry Olliff and George Karpus are officially retired, we are fortunate that their teachings and philosophies are alive and well at CLIG - and both Barry and George remain strong supporters of our teams."

The paragraph has been amended from the Company's RNS announcement on 16 September 2025 following consultation with Barry Olliff, on the basis that it does not reflect his current view in relation to the Company. The revised language in the Chairman's Statement therefore now reads as follows:

"George Karpus had a dream as an entrepreneur and in 1986 embarked on his lifetime's passion. In 1991, City of London Investment Group was established. Our teams pursued and fulfilled their dreams ‐ growing the firms and providing strong returns for clients. Five years into our relationship, I can say with confidence that our CLIM and KIM merger made good sense and added considerable expertise and value to CLIG. We draw confidence from this successful integration."

Whitelye, have you seen anything more about BO's commentary on the accounts. I would have thought it would be delivered fairly quickly, but I can't see anything.

The share price has dropped c.50p (including the 22 ex-div). The spread is always wide so be careful with numbers, but that's more than usual I would say. If BO is "clarifying" his position, is this acting as a drag?

Hi Rivaldo, I agree, it's very "Renew"! They are just rock solid and deliver.

Net cash position again (I didn't see anywhere that they've paid off all the debt, just have more cash than debt). But it bodes well for the usual RNWH next step; another complimentary acquisition. Never overstretching themselves, just sensible additions.

A decent jump in the share price but this is still undervalued. I too think it should be £11-12 based on the profits, order book, low/no debt and prospects.

Guitarsolo

I watched the recent presentation yesterday. Quite a few points of interest (in no particular order):

- Dividend cover. They seem very comfortable with the level of payout. In fact, this year's cover of x1.3 is well above what they would usually target (x1.1). I don't feel quite as comfortable as they do, but that's just based on a conservative approach to financial management. They know the sun will come up tomorrow, they know the solar assets will produce electricity, they know how much they will sell most of that because it is hedged, and they know what the subsidies from government are worth (whilst we have this government anyway).

- There is a nice pipeline of new projects, which should be accretive. I wasn't paying much attention if they explained how to finance them, but I imagine it is mostly debt alongside contractually agreed subsidies.

- They mentioned the approach to NESF, but it didn't gain any traction. FSFL made many of the same points we have on here why there are advantages of merging some of these c£400m funds. But at the moment there are vested interests. Something may force one party's hand at some point.

- Some of the price hedges are going to roll off (and new prices will be lower). So that might reduce the dividend cover. But I didn't get any impression from them that they think the dividend is too high or unsustainable.

So you can currently buy in a 10-11% yield, that looks like it will be held. I expect PE and/or some big pension funds will be sniffing around these ITs at some point.

Thanks Rivaldo,

What do you think we should expect/hope for in the trading update? Earnings flat even with the slow start to rail CP7? I think last full year EPS were about 64p which puts RNWH on a P/E of about 12.5, below it's long-term average for a low-debt or no-debt cash positive company. I'm slightly surprised how much the slow start to CP7 is affecting the share price given that almost by definition it has to right itself, and everything else is looking solid as usual. But I'll be keeping my holding without doubt and might even add to it below £8, but not by much for balancing reasons.

GS

Hi Trek,

I would sound a note of historical caution! I've held RGL for about 8 years. These used to be over 100p - BEFORE they did a 10:1 consolidation..... So this is under 12p in old money! Similarly, the dividend used to be over 8p which would be 80p now!! Yes, they got hammered in Covid like many REITs, and bond yields, out-of-favour in the market etc etc. But Stephen Inglis c*cked up hugely with an expiring bond and has made poor decisions about where to own property. I'm amazed he is still there.

Fingers crossed for you that you've bought at the right time and it will turn a profit. But beware that, in my opinion at least, the management are shoddy - as can be evidenced by the fact the trust's value is down by 88% and so is the dividend.

Good luck.

Guitarsolo

I can understand the principle; say that every two years the company will offer shareholders the chance to sell 25% of their shares back for 2% below the NAV. That way, if a large discount to NAV opens up, there should be buying from people who will avail themselves of the mechanism (e.g. buy 20% below NAV and then sell at 2% below, banking a quick profit). This effectively ties the share price much closer to the NAV, although you could argue it is doing so artificially!

I'm interested because I have seen companies try and introduce this later when it is too late (e.g. VSL). Did TFIF have it in there from the start and therefore it's share price has been more stable? If so, is that something to look for when assessing ITs?

Just a thought.

GS

Hi Trek

Agreed it's a bit of a non-starter when the tender offer price is below the market price!

But, it has got me thinking. I've got various other ITs where they have tried to introduce something like this later on once the share price is already much lower than the NAV (e.g. VSL). Others, like renewables, have continuation votes. What's interesting about TFIF is that the tender offer is there and baked in so that every two years (?) there is a chance to sell some of your holding at a minor discount to NAV. That "seems" to have held the price close to, or currently above, the NAV. Is this an example of it doing what it is supposed to do?!

Just interested in whether others' opinions of these collars (if that's what they should be called). I bet some REITs wish they had them!

Guitarsolo

The results read OK to me. Not outstanding, but not bad either. Enough to lift the share price over 400p for now. Will it hold it or push on from here?

Anyway, dividend held at 33p with rolling 5-year cover at x1.21. It probably means there is no impending increase coming along, but no danger of a cut. The dividend has historically jumped by 3p and then stayed flat for a while. It's been flat at 33p for about 5 years or more now. Personally, I would prefer something progressive but you can't have it all.

The good points to remember is that CLIG is debt free and has cash in the bank. It also has ageing major shareholders..... Now that's a recipe for......?!

IB, I think the reaction has been muted because the JORC upgrade was only "as expected" and certainly not exciting. Those of us who have been here for many years had always been expecting the 27Mt to increase to 40Mt at least. In fact, it fell just shy. Of course, they throw in the speculation of there being more in the surrounding hills but....yadda yadda..... how long will that take to bring on line? MdB is still a very good project with many things in its favour but they really need to push on with getting the DFS finalised.

But as you say, if EP can finally start to generate some excitement it would be nice.

Morning Blackfriars,

I suspect the poor share price here and with other renewable (solar) ITs is down to (i) belief that risk-free gilts are going to remain at current (relatively-high) levels for longer, and (ii) concern that power prices are going to be lower in the years ahead. BSIF made the same point in their recent update.

On the second point, it does make me wonder why they don't use any spare cash to pay down debt quicker than simply aligning it to the subsidy withdrawal. Get ahead of the curve etc. Yes, buy backs will reduce the share count for receiving dividends, but I subscribe to the adage of control your debts before your debts control you.

Regarding mergers, didn't FSFL float the idea of merging with NESF a while back? I think it was all quite informal and didn't go anywhere. But mergers would allow cost savings and, probably more importantly, scale. Surely it has to happen at some stage because, as you say, ITs worth £400m are chicken feed.

The one good bit of news today, dividend cover is expected to be near x1.3.

Guitarsolo

Thank you to the various posters providing their informed opinions here. It is nice to see.

I have to admit, my knowledge of SAR’s compounds is limited and I don’t particularly understand the relative medical applications and what they are worth as an asset. So why invest without that knowledge you may (justifiably) ask?! Well to me it was about two things;

First, probability. The potential upside versus the current share price. That to me was heavily weighted in SAR’s favour. If the tox results are positive (again, that sounds more likely than not) there should be a good upside to the share price. Then, if the asset can be sold or licensed (or the whole company sold), there should be another uplift. Keep the informed total value opinions going guys, I’m genuinely interested as if we get into that territory I am not knowledgeable.

Secondly, timing. The proximity of the hopeful re-rate is worth something against getting in at bargain basement prices. I’ve a few mining investments where I have a great low average, but have waited 7 years for progress with money tied up all that time. So fingers crossed that my expectation of movement with SAR in the next 6 months is correct.

And thanks to Krusty for leading me here in the first place!

Eckie, Simoes "keeping a low profile, it must be embarrassing".....seriously? Get real? It's not Simoes' fault that you bought LGEN at 270p (was it?) and have sold that at a loss.....nor that you have bought PHNX at 650p after it has risen 33% in the last few months! There's a pattern emerging there.

Constructive criticism of LGEN is valid. Blaming Simoes for your bad investment decisions is not.

Merchantbanker, if hypothetically the project was all financed by AFC on a debt and equity basis, how much equity would a project of Orom Cross' size and quality need to give away? In other words, how much dilution is there in return for the financing? I appreciate it's largely guesswork, but just looking for comments from investors who have been through similar proceedings.

Manfor, of course the possibility of a Reform government is a risk to all renewable ITs. However, Tice is showing himself to be a complete amateur by threatening to renege on the current government's legal commitments. As even the Telegraph (owned by climate sceptics with huge fossil fuel assets) highlights, this would severely undermine the integrity of the UK government and make us no better than some tin-pot country. Even suggesting doing so, as Tice has done, is damaging and will have actually increased the risk factor and increased costs. Well done Tice!

Labour didn't like the oil exploration contracts issued by the outgoing Conservatives but they honoured them knowing that threatening to undo them causes more harm. You have to accept that what a previous government did was lawful, even if you don't like it. Reform can't see that which highlights how amateur they are. Dangerous would be another word.

But with regard to the threat itself, it is legally questionable. Two parties are allowed to freely agree to contract terms, which is what solar assets are agreeing with the government. A court would uphold that (cue Reform to start calling judges the enemy of the state!). If (if) there were to be a Reform government they would learn quickly that it is much harder/impossible to do what they want to do. (cue Reform to go full Truss and complain that the "blob" is stopping them and nothing is their fault!).

One could pull apart Reform's argument with ease. For example, their will to scrap solar is because they want to "prioritise low cost, reliability and security of supply". Err, solar IS low cost, reliable and secure (unless Russia is going to find a way of blotting out sunlight!).

Or as the Telegraph wants to summarise Reform's agenda; "Renewable energy needs billions of pounds to build and connect to the grid and is generally not competitive without subsidies. That means investors will only commit to build wind, solar and other renewables if they have a guaranteed minimum price for the power generated – effectively a subsidy." - Nuclear needs many billions to build and connect to the grid, with an even higher strike price. Oil/ gas receives enourmous subsidies in the form of tax breaks, and is the direct reason our energy costs are so high. Basically, all forms of energy require the things that Reform say are the reasons to scrap renewables. It's blind dogma by Reform and I hope they will be scrutinised appropriately.

Bottom line, in my view, yes it is a threat but the UK still has the rule of law.

Apologies for long post!

To date, INPP has spent c.£80m of the proposed £200m for buy backs. The current programme is due to complete on 31st March 2026 which is about 140 trading days from now. That means they need to spend about £850,000 a day on the buy backs, or over 700,000 shares. That's quite a lot more than they have been averaging, in fact I would estimate it's about triple. So they either need to ramp up the buy backs, or they'll miss the target. It would imply there could be buying pressure between now and next March.

[NB. They could be arranging an off-market agreement with a large shareholder for xMillion shares. But that's just speculation.

NAV_Mike, I'll take some credit for the spurt of buying as over 20% of today's volume (361k) has been me. And I did get quite a lot of it under 25p Victoria! Congrats to those who have built fantastic positions at lower prices. But it's a bit like some of my mining stocks, you don't mind paying a bit more if you can jump in close to the inflection point. Fingers crossed that is the next 6 months.

Guitarsolo

I've been building a position here too, buys between 56-66p. I've seen a lot of REITs come off the rails since 2020 and believe there comes an inflection point when the discount to NAV proves too much, the share price bottoms, and things improve. I've been on the other side of that equation (particularly with Covid) but believe that CLS is basically as low as it can reasonably go. Time will tell whether that is the right judgment.

"Absolutely right 2reincarserated. They say I'm probably the smartest president the world has ever seen. I don't know, they're probably right. I've stopped wars that didn't even start. Trump did that. Did I claim I could resolve the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours.... I don't remember that. Next question."

Jaari, I think you're overplaying the importance of a small manufacturer of carbon ceramic brake discs!

Shame though, the Trump speech writers could have a field day......

"We're going to build some beautiful carbon semantic break discs....they're really beautiful. Orange calipers, just cos of me. They can help stop our horribly heavy 'Mercian gas-guzzling, muscle cars......Oh, they say they're perfect for electric vehicles.... I don't like them........or Elon.......or windmills. But they're going to be built in America..... and that makes them beautiful."