Member Info for tichtich

You buy some shares. If the price goes down, you regret buying. If the price goes up you regret not buying more.

You sell some shares. If the price goes up, you regret selling. If the price goes down, you regret not selling more.

Buying and selling shares is one long series of regrets, at least if you're a glass-half-empty sort of person like me. The best thing is to just buy and hold forever. At least that's what I keep telling myself, but so far I haven't managed to resist the temptation to meddle. 😉

FYI: LMP only increased their EPRA earnings per share by 2.4% over the last year (according to their May fact sheet).

If Saba wants people to sell, perhaps they supported the cancellation of the dividend IN ORDER to get people to sell!! Am I being too cynical?

Hi Howard. If I'm not mistaken, RESI and SOHO were trading at similar discounts to NAV. So, if you value the SOHO shares at market price (as you've reasonably done), the payment in shares is only valuing the assets at a discount to NAV. On the other hand, the payment in cash is valuing the assets at NAV. So, overall, as I see it, RESI shareholders are getting a value that is about half way between market price and NAV. Actually, I think it's a little less than half way, because SOHO was trading at a slightly higher discount, plus slightly less than half the payment is in cash (using SOHO's market price).

I sold the majority of my RESI shares shortly after the wind down was announced, at 59p, and the rest a few weeks ago at 54p. So overall I guess I got roughly your estimated value of 57p. That's a tiny profit on what I paid, plus decent dividends, so I didn't do too badly. But I would much, much rather have held for long term dividends. I've just had a quick look at the possibility of buying SOHO, to get back into ownership of these assets for the long term. But the rest of SOHO doesn't really suit me, so I'll give that a miss.

Good luck!

Well, to be fair, they did increase EPRA earnings by 3.3% last year (according to the last report).

I sold my shares recently, but would be willing to buy back in at a lower price. For what it's worth, I decided to add to my holding in VIP REIT.

I sold my shares a while back, as I don't really want to be invested in something that's winding down. But at this price I'm tempted to buy back in.

I must admit, I like dividends. But, as long as the free cash flow is being used well, the money should eventually come back to shareholders, with interest/gains (other things being equal). If the money is used to pay off debt, then effectively it is earning interest (the interest cost that is being saved).

The questions are: what are the assets really worth (in terms of future earnings potential), will the assets be sold below fair value (and by how much), and what extra costs will be incurred by the asset sales and wind down? Is a 62% discount (from an old valuation) enough to cover all that?

"The shares on a 48% discount may prove to be a bargain..."

As far as I can find, the most recent NAV/share was 87.6, as at 30/9/2025. Current price I'm looking at is 33.0, making a discount of 62% on that NAV.

Have been very overweight LGEN recently, so starting to feel ready to cut back. Moved a good chunk into VIP (a REIT) today. My long term concern with LGEN is whether the dividend will keep up with inflation. VIP has index linked rents (but capped unfortunately). It's hard to find safe dividend stocks that can keep up with high inflation. My go-to for that used to be renewables like UKW, but those turned out not be so safe. I'm thinking of getting back into MLPP (which I've owned before) if the price falls a bit more.

This whole wind down has been a fiasco. It was a mistake to start it in the first place.

"About 70% of the portfolio’s revenues or cash flows rise in line with inflation."

That's not quite what the figure means. According to the last INPP fact sheet, the inflation linkage figure is "calculated by running a ‘plus 1.0%’ inflation sensitivity for each investment and solving each investment’s discount rate to return the original valuation. The inflation-linked return is the increase in the weighted average discount rate. "

My interpretation: if future inflation is 1 percentage point higher than currently assumed (say 3.5% instead of 2.5%), then the nominal return on investment will be 0.7 percentage points higher than currenty expected. That means that the real return will be 0.3 percentage points lower.

I believe that this only applies to the first additional percentage point of inflation. It tells us nothing about what would happen if inflation was 2 percentage points or more higher than assumed. If, for example, a lot of assets had inflation indexing capped at 4%, the inflation linking above 4% inflation might be very poor.

I used to have an investment in BBGI, a similar infrastructure fund. I recall that they explicitly stated that they had no caps on their inflation indexing (but not all revenues were indexed). I've seen no such statement from INPP, so it's possible they do have some caps.

Just when I had allowed myself to hope that the the next NAV update would be an increase, after a long string of falls...

I was expecting significant adverse changes in electricity pricing policy eventually, but not so soon.

Sufcessex. thanks for your honesty. I can't help thinking that some people who tell us about their trading successes may be only mentioning their wins, and keeping quiet about their losses. No offence intended to anyone. I'm sure some people are net beneficiaries from trading. Personally, I admit to being no good at it, and I try to stick to buy and hold.

Thanks for the link, Tamlin. From the article:

"What happens when those contracts finish, and the assets need replacing? Where’s the cash going to come from to renew the asset base if you’re paying it all out as dividend income?"

Fortunately, UKW (mentioned approving later in the article) is not paying out all of its cash as dividends. Last cash dividend cover was 1.4x IIRC. Hopefully it will be a little higher this year.

"These higher yields are a double whammy.

"First, they increase the risk-free rates built into the valuation models, and secondly, they make the dividends paid out by many funds less attractive, especially if you can get, say, 5pc for lending to the Government long term and risk-free (although fans of the sector might argue that gilt yields are fixed whereas many fund dividends might grow with inflation)."

That's actually the same whammy described in two different ways. (And it only affects NAV and share price, not the sustainability of dividends.) The second whammy is the higher interest costs paid by the funds, which the arcticle mentioned elsewhere and which potentially does affect dividends, though in the long run it's _real_ interest rates that matter. If interest and inflation rates both increase by the same amount, then what the fund loses in short-term interest costs it gains in the inflating away of its debt.

Bearraider, thanks for drawing my attention to ENRG. I sold out of that last September, and haven't looked at it since then, until now, so it's interesting to see how it's done since then.

ENRG saw a substantial price jump after the wind down was announced, as have some other trusts. I sold after that jump, and the share price is currently just slightly up from my sale price. Judging by the latest report, the prospects for selling the assets sound good, so maybe I should have held on. On the other hand, AERS, where I did hold on, has done very badly.

I'm still reading this board, even though I've sold, as I would consider buying back again at a lower price.

I just wanted to mention a point that I sometimes forget about: leverage magnifies gains and losses. By my calculation, given the current leverage, if the share price is at 50% of current NAV, then the assets need to be sold for about 70% of their current valuation to get back this share price.

This doesn't take SEIT's future earnings into account. But bear in mind that if we don't have our money in SEIT, we can have it in another company which is earning for us. So we should only take into account the excess earnings we expect from SEIT over those of a possible alternative investment.

For me, the question is whether SEIT will realise at least 70% of current asset valuations, after costs. That may depend on how patient the institutional investors are, and I'm not sure I want to gamble on them being patient!

Good RNS today. This is the sort of thing I was hoping for. I note that the new charter rates were agreed before the war in the Gulf, but it's good to hear that "spot rates have firmed further since these renewals were agreed". That said, it's not clear what the longer term effects of the war will be. Higher energy prices and possible recession could reduce demand for both tankers and dry bulk. So it's good to know that Tufton is focusing on the long term. (I have sold all my other shipping shares and have no intention to buy any other shipping shares in the near future.)

I decided to sell all my SEIT shares. Given the current geopolitical situation and talk about recession, I wouldn't mind having some more cash in reserve. SEIT was 8% of my portfolio (at current prices), and I made an 11% average loss on share price, but at least the high dividends received soften the blow a bit.

Good luck to those who are still in.

Damn. The RNS got my hopes up by describing the Strategic Proposal at length, before dashing them. The Strategic Proposal had some rather worrying talk about new share issuance, but I would still have preferred it to a wind down.

This leaves me wondering whether to sell now. Is there any point in waiting?

Tufton (SHIP) mentioned in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/08/us-iran-ceasefire-mass-exodus-ships-strait-hormuz-analysts

Hmm... ADM down today. I think that supports my hypothesis of high petrol prices being good for ADM, at least in the minds of investors.