Member Info for Therosy1

IMVHO, whether the shares bought back are held in Treasury or cancelled makes no difference. The Board probably has, or at least could have by way of a vote at the AGM, a mandate to issue new shares (up to a limit) with no pre-emptive rights.

The granted mandate to buy back or issue new shares places restrictions on numbers and prices (and, if my memory serves me right, is regulated by the FCA). This will have been spelt out when put forward to a vote by Shareholders and will be available in the Investor section of the website - if anyone has the time to look for it.

Jrise - there amy or may not be something in this:

"Additionally, the project is expected to benefit from Investment Tax Credits covering up to 30% of eligible capital costs under the 2022 US Inflation Reduction Act, which significantly reduces the project's capital costs."

The key word is "expected".

Third Quarter Update is available from VSL's website. As usual, it paints a bleak yet optimistic picture. I have done some work in the past on the asset values and will update that over the next few days.

I am still unsurprised at the continued selling today. Other Investors have a different timing strategy and may need a better performance in the short term. I am currently in a long term investment mode and will keep holding. There may yet be a decent outcome in a few years - or I might no longer be around to benefit!

Just call me psychic! Hardly unexpected given the recent track record of falling capital values and their continued restructuring of debt (paying interest that would fund the dividend) into equity that keeps being written down in value.

It really is time that heads rolled both at Board level and within the Investment Manager.

Hardly surprising that so many shareholders have headed for the exit today. Me? I am a sucker and eternally optimistic that this will come back somewhat - even if it is 2029. Trump's victory was hailed as positive for the kind of company owned by VSL. Time will tell. GLA - we will need all the luck we can get.

Broomtree - I am also heavily into HFEL and BSIF and NESF and GCP and TFIF and VSL and EJFI and RECI and SEIT all for the dividends. Current share prices are largely irrelevant as I won't sell while the divis keep coming in but nobody likes to see their capital values fall on a consistent basis. GL

Share price in freefall again. Capital Markets Event obviously overtrumped by Trumps US election victory with his campaign promise to repeal IRA. Looking at GSF's website, it seems that the final 4p dividend is dependant on receiving tax credit. Some clarity on the timing of its receipt would be welcome. I understand that it all depends on when the tax credit is available to sell. GLA

Very true, broomtree. And with the way that debt is being converted to equity, the prospect for income is not looking great. Although they have "promised" to pay dividends of 85% of net income. I don't expect the 1.89 pence dividend to be maintained for long. Having said that, I am holding on for the duration in the hope of getting something back that will recover a decent amount of the almost 50% unrealised capital loss currently being suffered. Dividends received to date have helped over the three years or so that I have been holding these. GLA

My HL account states that buying is not possible but selling an existing holding is possible. From past experience with other shares, the problem lies with HL not having an updated KIID or similar information. Not helpful, I know, but it will be resolved in time. I have previously contacted the errant company to express my thoughts on the matter. Not sure if it helped but it made me feel better :-))

Very well put. Gravis have recent history of compulsory purchase at NAV with GABI. There is another compulsory purchase announced.

NotBot,

You are correct in what you say and having read the Gov report, I can see what you mean. I read a newspaper report on the report that only mentioned hydro.

However, since GSF rely on lithium-ion battery storage at the moment, it would need a change in direction for GSF to benefit from this scheme. IMHO, the potential is for GSF to be adversely impacted by more entrants into the battery storage field - in the UK. See the Annual Report for the Company's view on competition within the UK.

GSF has the advantage of being in diversified markets. It would be good for the share price if Mr Market viewed this as a good thing for the future.

As a dividend seeker myself, I intend topping up my holdings in the next few days. I was about to buy last Thursday at 56.1p but went for more TFIF when the ex-div date was announced. Turns out to be a good move so far.

Hi,

If only that could help GSF. The article refers to hydro storage whereby cheap off-peak electricity is used to pump water up to a reservoir. Then, when prices are at their highest, the water is released to a lower reservoir to create hydro powered electricity. This is called energy storage but does not use batteries.

GSF share price will not be helped by this, sadly.

Hi monkeyman99. Well done to you for breaking even on this one. I am in this for the income but down over 40%!

I have had discussions with the Investment Manager over the last few months to express my disappointment at the NAV collapse month on month. My latest gripe has been the lack of information on how the NAV will be affected by the "takeover" of Heyday by Branded to form Essor. I imagine the debt will be converted to equity and then written down as has been the practice in the past, losing future income and a reduction of capital. I am told that the answer will be provided in the August Monthly Newsletter that is due to be published before the weekend.

For me, the change from debt to equity goes against the principles the the Investment Manager is supposed to uphold by minimising risk. The debt, after all, is supposed to be "asset backed lending". When the debtor company is in trouble, bite the bullet and get back as much capital as possible from the security held. Or perhaps the Investment Manager has some other motive for using OUR money to keep their jobs and management fees?

Recent history is not good with tens of millions of dollars consistently being written off investments after the Investment Manager has taken performance fees from "highly inflated" valuations.

Rant over - any thoughts welcome!