Member Info for Guitarsolo

Pope, I'm not quite sure what you're expecting from the increased Portuguese ownership. They can't prevent the holding of local elections. They can't stop local protest against the mine since the people protesting are not shareholders and will probably reject any development whether owned by Portuguese or other shareholders. The current delay refers to access over land not owned by SAV. That has been the case for years. Do you expect the landowners to grant access just because 30% of SAV is now owned by a couple of wealthy Portuguese? Of course not.

The fact that the management is Portuguese may make it easier for them to engage with local parties, but the nationality of shareholders won't affect the relationship with anyone who fundamentally objects to any development by anyone.

I am not sure what you seek to achieve by thinking that some Portuguese ownership of shares should have removed these obstacles.

I too am disappointed by more delays. I've been here for years too.

Pokerchips, your point that the buybacks basically cover the 2% annual dividend increase without the need for higher earnings is correct. However, just to be accurate, the RNS today confirms that the £500m spent has repurchased 203.4m shares, not 300m. So it is nearer to 3.4% of the shares in issue.

"Following the above transaction, the Company holds 76,961,165 of its ordinary shares in treasury and has 1,834,281,967 ordinary shares in issue (excluding treasury shares)."

The buy back has passed 4% of the original number of shares. Probably not yet enough to start getting serious, but it's getting there. Note the shares are being held in treasury rather than being cancelled. That might just be to give INPP some flexibility (e.g. to pay for a new asset with shares from treasury rather than having to issue new ones). Does anyone know if INPP has previously held a substantial number of shares in treasury and, if so, what did they do with them?

JCB, all those insurers are up since this government came to power. PHNX is up 22% for example since 4 July 2024 (539p). That's not a judgment on this government, just what people seek to blame for today's woe.

Mr G, possibly/ probably. But do they have the spare cash to do it? Dividend cover was expected to be at the lower end of the x1.1 to x1.3 spectrum which suggests to me they don't. They could raise cash by disposing of assets (hopefully at or close to NAV) to buy back shares at a discount to NAV thereby giving a net gain. However, there is always the risk that they churn the best assets which are easy to sell and that is detrimental to the investment trust in the long run. Plus, it means the company is getting smaller at a time when size probably matters.

It's one of the problems the renewable ITs have created for themselves with high payout ratios. There isn't much money left over after paying shareholders back for cash they provided up front to build the assets. It's stalemate!

One possible answer is consolidation to provide scale. But that will lead to winners and losers.

What to do? Well, for me, it is nothing. I'll take the dividend and hope that in the background they make incremental moves to make the operating margins a bit wider.

Guitarsolo

I would like to see them paying down debt faster than simply amortising it in line with the end of subsidies. Get ahead of the curve and all that, especially if they think future energy prices will be lower. A great attraction of solar is that the fuel is free. Also, once installed, solar doesn't require much maintenance (relatively speaking). But the dividend payout is high, so there isn't much left over to help the trust grow or to absorb bumps in the road for its income. I'd like to see them engineer a bit more wriggle room.

Spank, as a regular visitor to Uganda I can tell you that the difference between driving on a sealed road and the alternative is enormous. Even within Kampala/ Entebbe the unmade roads are abysmal. Forget the UK's pothole problem, there are potholes large enough to swallow a boda boda whole! So in terms of transportation time, a proper road is probably a time saving of x5 plus other advantages such as fewer repairs, fuel etc. So I would say it is a bit more than just preferable, it's a huge advantage.

Guitarsolo

Remember as well that Aviva substantially rebased (i.e. cut) its dividend in 2018 I think it was, so it has been much easier to increase the dividend from that lower base. LGEN has continuously increased its dividend since about 2012 if memory serves.

Sure AV. is doing very well this year but make sure you're comparing apples with apples.

Agree Therosy1. Perhaps the cratered share price has tempted a few funds to pass their slide rules over the assets and they see a path where it could be worth a fair bit more than the share price. Wishful thinking perhaps on my part!

Agreed OBNW, but just remember to really benefit from the REIT status you want to own the shares inside an ISA. That way the REIT pays no corporation tax and you pay no income tax. And keep a track on your platform that they claim back and pay you the 20% as well. I have some who are very good about it and others (e.g. HSBC) that like to hold onto it and pay it to you 6 weeks later.

Jaxon; "Do we really want somebody trying to dribble out 47m shares piecemeal over months and months."

Well yes, I can see that. But this smacks of someone with 47m shares saying to NRR that they want a mechanism, effectively underwritten by NRR itself, to buy them out at a premium to the share price otherwise they'll be forced to sell in a manner that hurts the share price. Blackmail basically! Is this approach available to parties that don't have 47m shares?!

It's just my general downer-attitude. I expect Alan Lockhart to make a statement that it is exceptional or outstanding for shareholders forgetting that he has presided over an 80% reduction in the market cap*.

*not all his fault

"The Board believes the Proposed Buyback is in the best interests of all shareholders."

The board believes that agreeing to buy back shares that a large shareholder can't otherwise offload for above the current market price is in our interests?

If a shareholder wants to sell for 75p, wait until the share price hits it and then offload. If you own a lot and believe it would drive the share price down, tough!

If the board thinks the share price is undervalued and it is a good use of shareholder funds to buy back shares, do so. Preferably at 71p.

I've been taking note of the recent RNSs about the buy back, but perhaps someone out there can inform me as a new-ish investor here as the information isn't displayed as I see with other investments.

I see there are 610m shares in issue, with 555m with voting rights. So I am presuming that 55m shares (circa 8.9%) have been repurchased and are being held in treasury rather than being cancelled (at the moment anyway).

(i) What is the total of the planned buyback?

(ii) ~9% is quite a substantial proportion already bought back. Has this had much of a material effect?

Many thanks,

GS

You make an important point Trek. I've wished for a very long time that they would not present shareholder voting forms with a "vote for all" or "vote against all" when the recommended action is a mixture of the two. It leads the lazy or confused, or those whose first language is not English, into giving the wrong instruction. Either that or stop using double negatives!

I would not want the company wound up at this price, so vote AGAINST the discontinuation.

Guitarsolo

Indeed Blackfriars & OBNW,

It sounds like a very credible investment (only preferred bidder at the moment) and exactly the sort of thing an infra fund should be investing in. If I had to find a downside we could say that it would lead to a large concentration in two particular projects (Sizewell and Tideway), but I don't fear that much. INPP is proving to be a suitable replacement for BBGI, whose loss I still lament.

it is zebbo, but my comment was about yet another 0.01p increase masqueraded as a "we've increased the divi every year" claim. in real terms its bull****, and should be called so.

"The Company announces its fourth interim dividend of 1.51 pence per share (2024 - 1.50 pence) payable on 29 August 2025 to shareholders on the register as at 1 August 2025, with an ex-dividend date of 31 July 2025.

Together with the preceding three interim dividends the Company has paid, the total dividend for the year to 30 June 2025 is 4.51 pence per share (2024 - 4.50 pence). The Company has increased its annual dividend each year since its launch in Jersey in 2007."

I appreciate that the company has increased the dividend every year, but I also think they should be transparent to admit that the 0.01p increases for the last seven years puts it way behind inflation over that period. It's almost like they're increasing it by the minimum amount to be able to claim they have increased the divi every year since launch!

Morning TT, I tend to agree that the share price has reached a temporary peak so I have trimmed about 1/3 at around 1060 for better opportunities elsewhere. Since the massive rights issue (we've done nicely there haven't we!) NG has loads of funds to build the grid for the future. But earnings will take a while to play catch up. So there isn't much appeal to hold NG on a P/E or yield basis at the moment.

I've still got a core holding which I expect to always hold barring calamity.

Guitarsolo

Lending: "In that case surely this does not hold “what it does do is give LGEN more funds to grow the wealth and PRT businesses (in particular).” Both dividends and share buybacks/cancellations cost the company capital, reducing funds more IMHO."

Companies like to present share buybacks as a "return to shareholders". I prefer to wait to consider that! A share buyback may be beneficial if timed correctly, but may not!

My point about the dividends is that cost of the planned increase is largely covered by the planned buyback. It's an easy promise to make if you're Simoes! But LGEN's shareholder payouts are significant and therefore if Simoes' plan is to clip this wing, having more funds available to grow the growing parts of the business should be beneficial.

GS- a long term fan and holder here.

Lionheart, you've highlighted what the market clocked when Simoes made the announcement about a year ago. The proposed 2% divi increase for 2025-27 is largely funded by the £500m buyback, so it is not actually using much of the net profit to pay shareholders. Perhaps that was why there was a lukewarm reception to the plan at the time (share price fell from c.240 to c.220p). But, what it does do is give LGEN more funds to grow the wealth and PRT businesses (in particular).

What I hope, as a LTH, is that accepting a reduced dividend increase for a few years puts the company in a better position long term to be more generous further down the road.

Guitarsolo