Member Info for Pip56

Is is being cynical to assume the Special Dividend of 1.5p will be paid in April in lieu of the quarterly dividend. The revised quarterly 1.75p dividend will then be introduced in the new FY and begin with the first payment in August.

I find it very odd and playing with semantics to say "the exact date of release is not fixed", particularly when you examine the history:

Tuesday 11 March 2025

Tuesday 12 March 2024

Thursday 9 March 2023

Monday 7 March 2022

Thursday 11 March 2021

It is true that the 'Exact Date' is not fixed, but anyone looking at the history would express a reasonable expectation that the NAV & Dividend will be announced within the first 2 weeks of March. To my mind this is deliberate obfuscation.

This from GSF today:

Thank you for the email. There is no delay to the release of the Q3 results, the exact date of release is not fixed to be exactly the same each year. Market can expect the Q3 results to be released in the very near term, which will also contain the information on regular and special dividends. Appreciate market is keen to hear on the results, and once they are released very happy to pick this up and take a call / answer questions via email if helpful.

Best wishes,

Investor Relations

Just received an e-mail reply from the Company Secretary:

“Thank you for your email. This is being shared directly with the board and a response will follow.”

Not the typical holding reply. Looking forward to what comes next.

When the company allows key dates to slide past without comment you know something is up. I thought quarterly reporting of the NAV was an important, possibly regulatory, requirement - I’ve no evidence to support that assumption though. I’ve been a shareholder of 2 other businesses that missed dates and suddenly stopped communicating. One was taken into private ownership & the other went under…. Doesn’t bode well but I look forward to hearing from the company secretary in the next 48 hrs.

Every year since 2021, between 4-12 March, the company has released a RNS announcing the NAV and a quarterly dividend for the period to 31 Dec of the previous year. This morning no such RNS appeared, contrary to expectation. As it currently stands and pending further explanation there is no quarterly dividend or even special dividend.

This morning I e-mailed the Company Secretary to enquire after the RNS and why a dividend has not been announced.

Down 1.6p today so that opportunity has already gone...

TheTrotsky's most recent post regarding SABA sent me off on an internet safari to research who they are and what they do. I misunderstood their intent, bought into the hype and believed that replacing the BoD was a reasonable approach. I now understand this is simply part of the SABA playbook that has been replicated across multiple Investment funds. Perhaps the best quote I found was this one:

"Saba is not here as a confidence vote for your manager, it is here because people did not want your fund. They are selling it to Saba for a 20% discount, and now it is the voice of those displeased shareholders"

So the SABA playbook mobilises the displeased shareholders to force a change of the BoD with replacements nominated by SABA. The next step is to isolate and undermine the management company and replace it with a SABA owned management company. Step three proposes returning the share price to NAV by selling off assets - the proceeds are used to buy back shares, not returned to investors as dividends. As the number of shares in circulation are reduced so SABAs percentage holding is proportionately increased. At some point SABA becomes the majority shareholder and the target company is either taken into a SABA fund or dissolved with SABA being the main beneficiary.

Last year SABA targeted 19 Investment Funds and, it seems to me, they are highly disruptive and destructive in equal measure. Baillie Gifford have tried to buy SABA out of their targeted funds by offering the full NAV value of SABA's share holding - SABA have refused. Imagine if GSF offered to buy SABA out of their current holding at full NAV value!

All of this is a huge red flag for me - there is sufficient evidence to show that SABA use shareholders for their own benefit. Big red flag for me so I'm not staying to see how this pans out. As an aside, and not playing into a conspiracy theory, I wonder if the special dividend was held back to provide a fighting fund?

I too have lost patience. I expected to see a significant shift in attitude, communication and SP when the US Investors took a stake. That hasn't materialised. A dividend announcement on the 12th March is logical but the way things have gone, not a given. I fully expect the Special Dividend to be announced at 1.5p but the quarterly dividend (.75p) either reduced or cancelled. Such a move would be entirely consistent with how the Board have treated shareholders in the past.

In 2024 & 2025 the dividend declarations were made on the 11/12 March. I believe there will be a declaration of the Special Dividend on Thursday 12 March when the Interim Dividend and unaudited NAV will also be declared. I don't see anything suspicious about this and I certainly don't buy into your perceived concern that lenders expect to see additional security. It's a remarkable, and somewhat bizarre, leap to say the Special Dividend has been hijacked because of Mr D Trump's administration.

The Board have continued to misdirect and fail to apoligise for their quite obvious failings. There are two good examples from the EOY report:

"The Board intends to distribute 3.0 pence per share by way of special dividends in two equal instalments of 1.5 pence per share, to be paid by the end of the calendar year" - We have reached the end of the calendar year but the second instalment of the special dividend has been delayed. I don't find the explanation very convincing.

"The Board intends to pay a quarterly dividend of 0.75 pence per share, with the first payment expected in respect of the quarter ending 30 September 2025." - The dividend recently announced isn't 0.75p it is 0.69p. There is no direct explanation why the 0.75p target was not met but references to substantial income reductions in Texas and Enderby failure (legal action pending) suggest the cause.

Every time the board release a document you realise how poor they really are.

SABA are required to declare their new 55 interest. Can we expect a similar declaration from the counterparty that is now down by 5%?

The Dividend Policy of GSF was unwrapped and exposed in my post of 18 July. I copy my original post here:

"From the second quarter of the financial year, the Board intends to pay a quarterly dividend of 0.75 pence per share, with the first payment expected in respect of the quarter ending 30 September 2025". So the revised profile is:

Ex Div Sep: Paid Oct = 1.5p (special only)

Ex Div Dec: Paid Jan = 0.75p+1.5p = 2.25p

Ex Div Mar: Paid Apr = 0.75p (may be augmented if income is above minimum expectations)

Ex Div Jun: Paid Jul = 0.75p (may be augmented if income is above minimum expectations)

The total dividend for FY 25/26 will be a minimum of 5.25p (approx 9% yield on the closing price) with the possibility of increases in the 2nd half if income allows. Dividend for FY 26/27 to be a minimum of 3p (as stated in the Chairmans Report)

The dividend policy was opaque and difficult to interpret because of the way it was written and because the pertinent information was spread over several paragraphs. There was no single place that provided an 'executive summary' of the key points and that is why I wrote my own analysis and posted it.

#StarBright - thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that - I've been using HL for 11yrs and this has been the first time that I've seen/used the on line voting system.

The latest RNS, proclaiming the full support of independent proxy advisors is very odd. My initial assumption was that it refers to organisations such as HL who hold the shares of private investors. A small proportion of these will use the voting tool but the remainder will allow HL to act as a proxy - effectively an independent block vote. So if my understanding is correct it seems GSF have rung around all the major private investment platforms and asked them to use their proxy votes in favour of the company.

Who contacted you? Was it GSF or RM?

I manage my grandsons ISA so also low 10,000's .... I look forward to them trying to contact him for voting insight, he is 11yrs old!

Quote from Starbrights transcript : "If shareholder value matters to you, do you think taking assets out, selling them quickly, turning them into cash and moving on is the way that is going to redeem the value". It's an interesting position given the company are already intent on selling off the pre construction sites that have planning and grid connection consent - thats effectively selling off the future and opening the door for a competitor. I appreciate the income will be turned into 2hr storage elsewhere but two sites - KBSL and Middleton - represent 320MW. Why not build those out at 2hr capacity and sell off the legacy smaller systems that are more difficult to upgrade - hand the upgrade problem on to someone else and stay focused on the future?

Thank you PhilipFG for bringing the note on RMs Funds website to my attention. I disagree with Therosyl1. I believe much of what has been written in the note reflects the views of many shareholders who comment on the board.

The evidence clearly points toward a sustained depreciation on the share price and, like RM, I believe the Board has developed tunnel vision and become overly focussed upon short term challenges. The recent engagement of consultants to advise on the disposal of income from tax credits was indicative of a Board that had not thought ahead and developed contingency plans - they applied for the credits so they must have known what they wanted to do with the income?

I also note RM state they were not consulted over dividend policy - this is a complete contradiction of what the company have stated in a recent note to shareholders. I said on this board that widespread consultation with shareholders had not occurred as stated and it seems RM agree. It undermines confidence in the Board, a situation that has been made worse every time the dividend policy has been revised.

Members of the BoD have been in place for 10 years. Well done to them for getting the company to where it is now. However the situation has changed, as has the BESS and Infrastructure environment. It's time for new leadership and if that aligns with the expectations of others looking to make a bigger profit then I support them.

Pip

Thank you all for the check. I had indeed misread the report and the critical sentence is "From the second quarter of the financial year, the Board intends to pay a quarterly dividend of 0.75 pence per share, with the first payment expected in respect of the quarter ending 30 September 2025". So the revised profile is:

Ex Div Sep: Paid Oct = 1.5p (special only)

Ex Div Dec: Paid Jan = 0.75p+1.5p = 2.25p

Ex Div Mar: Paid Apr = 0.75p (may be augmented if income is above minimum expectations)

Ex Div Jun: Paid Jul = 0.75p (may be augmented if income is above minimum expectations)

The total dividend for FY 25/26 will be a minimum of 5.25p (approx 9% yield on the closing price) with the possibility of increases in the 2nd half if income allows.

Dividend for FY 26/27 to be a minimum of 3p (as stated in the Chairmans Report)

Hopefully this is closer to the mark.

Pip

I have read and re read yesterday's report to understand what the new dividend profile is for FY25/26. They have not made it easy because the information is fragmented. The minimum target dividend is 3p to be made up of 4 x .75p payments. In addition there will be a 'special' dividend of 3p made up of 2 x 1.5p payments. So the profile should look like:

Ex Div Sep: Paid Oct = 0.75p+1.5p = 2.25p

Ex Div Dec: Paid Jan = 0.75p+1.5p = 2.25p

Ex Div Mar: Paid Apr = 0.75p (minimum and may be augmented if income is above minimum expectations)

Ex Div Jun: Paid Jul = 0.75p (minimum and may be augmented if income is above minimum expectations)

The total dividend for FY 25/26 will be a minimum of 6p with the possibility of increases in the 2nd half if income allows.

The confusion is with the comment made in the Chairmans Statement where he states no additional dividend will be paid in respect of the Jun 25 dividend. He is referring to yesterdays ExDiv of 1p for which there is no increase or 'special' - it remains at 1p making the total for the FY 24/25 all of 4p and not 5.5p as stated in the table in the report.

Happy if someone could fact check me on this.

Pip