10-Year

Anniversary

Annual Report

and Accounts

2025

Diversified Sustainable Income

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Our purpose

SEQI’s 10-Year

Anniversary fact bar

Our purpose is to generate

attractive and sustainable

returns for a wide range

of investors through

responsible and disciplined

investment into a growing

portfolio of diverse

economic infrastructure

debt. These assets would

otherwise be difficult for

investors to access, given

the specialist nature of

the origination and credit

assessment skills needed.

Our investments support the

provision of infrastructure

on a sustainable basis and

create social and economic

benefits across the range

of geographies in which

weinvest.

Company review

Highlights 1

Objectives and policies 2

SEQI’s 10-year anniversary 3

Our story in numbers 4

At a glance 5

Why invest? 6

Governance

Board of Directors 44

The Sequoia Investment

Management Company team 45

Independent Consultant 45

Corporate governance 46

Report of the Management

Engagement Committee 50

Report of the Audit Committee 51

Report of the Remuneration

and Nomination Committee 54

Report of the ESG and Stakeholder

Engagement Committee 55

Report of the Risk Committee 57

Directors’ remuneration report 58

Directors’ report 60

Statement of Directors’ responsibilities 63

Strategic review

Chair’s statement 7

Market opportunity 11

Business model 13

Investment Adviser’s report 15

Sustainability 26

Stakeholders 35

Principal and emerging

risks and uncertainties 38

Financial statements

Independent Auditor’s report 65

Statement of comprehensive income 73

Statement of changes

in Shareholders’ equity 74

Statement of financial position 75

Statement of cash flows 76

Notes to the Financial Statements 77

Additional information

Officers and advisers 107

Appendix – Alternative

Performance Measures 109

Appendix – TCFD report 113

Appendix – GHG emissions

and climate scenarios methodology 122

Appendix – SFDR product-level

periodic disclosure 124

Appendix – SFDR principal

adverse impact statement 130

Contacts 131

SEQI’s 10-year

anniversary

Page 3

Why invest?

Page 6

Our story in

numbers

Page 4

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Highlights

Diversified portfolio of 59 investments across 8 sectors,

29sub‑sectors and 10 mature jurisdictions

› 91% of investments in private debt (2024: 97%)

› 59% fixed‑rate investments (2024: 58%), locking in current

interest rates

› Short weighted average life of 3.4 years (2024: 3.9 years),

creating reinvestment opportunities

› Weighted average equity cushion

of 39% (2024: 38%)

Annualised portfolio yield‑to‑maturity

of 9.9% (2024: 10.0%)

asat31 March 2025

NAV total return

of 6.1% (2024: 8.1%) in the year

Share price total return

of 5.3% (2024: 9.6%) in the year

Ongoing charges ratio

of 0.92% (2024: 0.95%) (calculated in

accordance with AIC guidance)

Dividends totalling 6.875p per Ordinary Share (2024: 6.875p) paid

in respect of the year in line with annual dividend targets in place

Dividend cash cover

of 1.00x (2024: 1.06x)

ESG score of the portfolio increased to 64.70

∆

(2024: 62.77)

2017

Tracy Hills

Since 2017, SEQI has invested a

net total of USD66 million through

a senior secured term loan and

a revolving credit facility to Tracy

Hills, a master-planned residential

community in Northern California.

Thefinancing supported critical

infrastructure such as roads, water

and wastewater systems, enabling

the phased delivery ofthousands of

homes in a high-demand region.

£1.44bn

Total net assets

(31 March 2024: £1.52bn)

£92.55p

Net asset value (“NAV”) per Ordinary Share

1,2

(31 March 2024: £93.77p)

£78.30p

Ordinary Share price

(31 March 2024: £81.10p)

(15.4)%

Ordinary Share discount to NAV

(31 March 2024: (13.5)%)

£1.22bn

Market capitalisation

(31 March 2024: £1.32bn)

64.70

∆

ESG score of the portfolio

(31 March 2024: 62.77)

£5.04p

Earnings per share

(31 March 2024: £6.58p)

6.875p

Dividends paid in respect of the year

(31 March 2024: £6.875p)

8.8%

Annualised dividend yield

(31 March 2024: 8.3%)

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures (“APMs”)

2. Cum dividend

3. Includes the dividend paid in May 2025 in respect of the quarter ended 31 March 2025 and excludes the dividend paid

in May 2024 in respect of the quarter ended 31 March 2024 (2024: includes the dividend paid in May 2024 in respect

of the quarter ended 31 March 2024 and excludes the dividend paid in May 2023 in respect of the quarter ended

31March2023)

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

USD66m

Invested

1 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Principal activity

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund

Limited (the “Company” or “SEQI”) invests in a

diversified portfolio of senior and subordinated

economic infrastructure debt investments through

Sequoia IDF Asset Holdings S.A. (the “Luxembourg

Subsidiary”), Yotta BidCo Limited and Gadwall

Holdings Limited (the “UK Subsidiaries”) (all together

the “Fund”). The Company controls the Subsidiaries

through holdings of 100% of their shares.

TheCompany’s investment in the Subsidiaries

is principally achieved through the acquisition of

Variable Funding Notes (“VFNs”) issued by the

Luxembourg Subsidiary. For further details of the

structure of the group, please refer to note 1 on

page 77.

Investment objective

The Company’s investment objective is to provide

investors with regular, sustained, long-term

distributions and capital appreciation from a

diversified portfolio of senior and subordinated

economic infrastructure debt investments, in

accordance with the investment criteria as set

outintheinvestmentpolicy.

Investment policy

The Company’s investment policy is to invest in

a portfolio of loans, notes and bonds in which no

more than 10% by value of the Fund’s net asset

value (at the time of investment) relates to any

one individual infrastructure asset. In addition, the

Company intends to only invest directly or indirectly

in investments that satisfy the following criteria, such

investments to make up a minimum of 80% by value

of the portfolio at the time of investment:

› all or substantially all of the associated underlying

revenues to be from business activities in

the following market sectors: transport,

transportation equipment, utilities, power,

renewable energy, accommodation infrastructure

and telecommunications, media and technology

infrastructure;

› all or substantially all of the revenues to derive

from certain eligible jurisdictions, as defined in the

Company’s Prospectus, provided that any such

jurisdiction is rated at least BBB- by Standard &

Poors or Baa3 by Moody’s;

› at least 40% of the portfolio to be floating rate

or inflation-linked debt (floating rate instruments

converted to fixed-rate instruments through

interest rate swaps will be deemed to be

fixedrate);

› no more than 20% of the portfolio to comprise

pre-operational projects (typically projects in

construction);

› no single sector to represent more than 40% of

total assets;

› no single sub-sector to represent more than 15%

of total assets, other than a major sub-sector (as

defined in the Prospectus), which may represent

up to 25% of total assets;

› no more than 60% of the portfolio to be located

inthe United States;

› no more than 50% of the portfolio to be located

inWestern Europe (ex-UK);

› no more than 40% of the portfolio to be located

inthe United Kingdom;

› no more than 20% of the portfolio to be located

inAustralia and New Zealand combined.

Sustainability policy

The Company is committed to responsible

investing. As part of its sustainability strategy, it

has a long-established Sustainability policy, which

the Board reviews regularly and ensures is kept

up to date. The policy describes the Company’s

sustainability principles that underpin its approach

and the Fund’s three corresponding sustainability

goals that it measures and reports its progress

against.

It also details how sustainability is

integratedthroughout the investment process,

inparticular the negative and positive screening, as

well as the proprietary ESG scoring methodology

that is carried out pre-investment. Once a

loan is made, there are various methods of

engagement with borrowers that may feature as

part of our monitoring of assets that is given in

the SustainabilityPolicy. There is also discussion

of how the policy is governed through Board

oversight and delivered on by the Fund’s Investment

Adviser. For more detail, please refer to the website

where the Sustainability Policy is published in full:

www. seqi. fund/sustainability/publications/.

Dividend policy

The Company’s dividend policy is to pay dividends

in accordance with its annual dividend target.

Theannual dividend target is 6.875p (2024: 6.875p).

Accordingly, in the absence of any significant

restricting factors, the Board believes the current

dividend totalling 6.875p per Ordinary Share per

annum can and will be maintained. TheCompany

pays dividends on a quarterlybasis.

For further details, please see note 4 to the

FinancialStatements.

Objectives and policies

Welcome Break

In 2017, SEQI invested

£18million in mezzanine

debt to Welcome Break,

one of the three main

Motorway Service Area

(“MSA”) operators in the

UK, with 34 locations

situated along the most

profitable stretches ofthe

UK motorway network.

The investment was repaid

in full in 2019.

Locations in the UK

£18m

Invested

2017

2 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

The chart shows the growth of cumulative dividends over time

2015

On 3 March 2015, SEQI

successfully completed its

IPO and was listed on the

London Stock Exchange,

raising £150 million.

2017

By the end of 2017, SEQI had

completed five successful capital

raises, growing the Fund to

£761 million. SEQI stood out to

investors by offering easy access

to infrastructure debt, driven by

the attractive risk-return profile of

mid-market, high-yielding, private

infrastructure loans.

2018

2018 was a particularly strong year for private credit and a

constructive year for SEQI, with the Fund growing to nearly

£1.1 billion. The number of investments increased from 59

to 69, across a diverse range of infrastructure sectors.

2019

A benign interest rate environment characterised

2019, with Gilt yields declining over the year. SEQI

increased its dividend target to 6.25p per share and

conducted two additional equity raises, expanding

the Fund to nearly £1.5 billion.

2020

During the global pandemic,

SEQI remained resilient. The

fund increased engagement with

borrowers on an individual basis

to understand their business

challenges and identify where

SEQI’s support was most needed.

This proactive approach contrasted

favourably with more passive

strategies that rely on broadly

syndicated loans

and bonds.

2021

Interest rates remained at record lows, while M&A

activity surged, including in the infrastructure sector.

Toward year-end, inflation began to rise, prompting

the Bank of England – and subsequently other

central banks – to initiate interest rate increases.

2022

2022 marked a step-change in SEQI’s approach to sustainability. The ESG and

Stakeholder Committee was established, and SEQI released its first sustainability

report. This outlined several initiatives, including the introduction of margin ratchets

to the Fund’s revolving credit facility, linked to ESG scores of the underlying portfolio.

Toenhance assurance, KPMG was engaged to audit SEQI’s ESG scoring framework.

2023

A volatile year driven by high base rates, elevated

default levels, and geopolitical uncertainty. SEQI

closely monitored the direct and indirect impacts of

these macroeconomic events on its portfolio – such

as exposure to unhedged commodities and cash

flow pressures on debt servicing. Withadequate

liquidity reserves and robust credit lines with

hedging counterparties, SEQI successfully

managed its FX hedging programme,

ensuring the Fund remained fully

Sterling-hedged.

2024

SEQI continues to deploy capital in key macro infrastructure

themes: digitalisation, energy transition, energy resilience,

and the upkeep of existing infrastructure. SEQI applies a

solutions-focused investment approach to generate superior

risk-adjusted returns. In 2024, this included financing a

German diagnostics business and supporting fibre-to-the-

home deployment in the UK. Over the past decade, SEQI

has delivered consistently resilient returns, underscoring the

strength of its investment process.

2025

With over £1.8 billion raised on the

London Stock Exchange and £5billion

deployed across infrastructure loans in 16

countries, SEQI has built a track record of

innovation. Asan early mover in sectors

such as fibre and data centres, and with

a diversified portfolio that has weathered

COVID-19, macroeconomic shifts, and

geopolitical headwinds, SEQI looks to

the future with confidence, committed

to continuing to deliver the returns that

ourShareholders expect.

2016

A strong year for SEQI, with the Fund doubling in

size from £291 million to £610 million, supported by

two capital raises and robust results. SEQI’s portfolio

became significantly more diversified, spanning 25

different infrastructure types. SEQI also made its first

two loans backed by data centres, positioning the

Fund as an early mover in recognising the value of

this asset class.

£610m

£1.5bn

£1.1bn

£5bn

SEQI’s 10‑year anniversary

£800m

£700m

£600m

£500m

£400m

£300m

£200m

£100m

£0m

Cumulative dividends paid

Fund NAV values are reported as at calendar year end.

3 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Our story in numbers

What we helped power

What we helped store What we helped connect

Over the past decade, we participated in the financing

of 21.5 GW of power generation capacity across North

America, the UK, and Europe.

To put this into context, the UK’s electricity consumption

in2023 was approximately 315 TWh or the equivalent

of 34.2 GW facilities running at full capacity for the year.

On that basis, the assets we helped finance could have

supplied around 60% of the UK’s power demand.

While we are not the sole lender in most cases, and some

assets are not designed for continuous full-load operation,

we believe it remains that we have made a noteworthy

contribution to the provision and upkeep of energy security.

Our credit investments supported the construction,

acquisition, and operation of over 25 major generation

facilities, including high-efficiency combined cycle gas

turbines (CCGTs), cogeneration units, and peaker plants –

critical infrastructure underpinning system reliability during

the energy transition.

One of the reasons behind surging demand for power

infrastructure is the dramatic growth in data centre

development, driven by the computing needs of artificial

intelligence, cloud adoption, and the shift to digital-first

services. In response, we have provided financing for the

construction, expansion, or refinancing of 39 individual

data centres, providing over 348 MW of data centre

capacity, across both established and emerging digital

hubs in Europe and North America. These assets include

high-density hyperscale centres fully leased to Tier 1

tenants, as well as edge and regional platforms delivering

hybrid-cloud services to small and mid-size companies.

The digital capacity we’ve helped finance could house

the compute equivalent of millions of consumer devices –

powering everything from generative AI model training and

real-time financial transactions to remote work and video

conferencing across global enterprise users.

Just as data centres require high-capacity fibre connectivity

to function, so too does the broader economy. Over the life

of the Company, we have helped deliver next-generation

fibre infrastructure to more than 2 million premises across

the UK and the United States including large cities and

underserved regional communities – enabling wider access

to the continuously expanding digital world.

This infrastructure now delivers gigabit-capable,

symmetrical fibre to the premises (“FTTP”) connectivity to

homes, small businesses, and public institutions. These

networks also support wholesale access to major telecom

operators, providing the platform for competitive, future-

proof broadband markets.

The fibre networks we have helped finance could provide

high-speed broadband to nearly 1 in 13 UK premises

– roughly equivalent to every household in Greater

Manchester, Birmingham, and Edinburgh combined.

In addition to terrestrial fibre, we took part in the

construction financing of a 14,000-kilometre transoceanic

subsea cable system, now delivering high-capacity, low-

latency connectivity between major international internet

gateways. This system supports global cloud, enterprise,

and research connectivity across the Pacific.

Technologies

financed

Geographies

active

21.5GW

of power generation capacity across

North America, the UK, and Europe

315TWh

UK’s electricity consumption in 2023

Combined Cycle Gas

Turbines (CCGTs)

Steam and Dual-Fuel Plants

Cogeneration (CHP)

Peaker plants

ERCOT, PJM, NYISO,

ISO-NE, CAISO

Ontario

Ireland & Spain

Highlights

See the “Energy Security and Resilience” section for more on our contribution to energy reliability during the transition.

348MW

of total capacity across

US & Europe

data centre sites across

Europe and North America

Strong

sponsor backing

~2m

premises provided withFTTP

14,000km

subsea fibre cable delivered

Gigabit‑capable

symmetrical broadband deployed

Highlights

4 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

At a glance

Fund NAV values are reported as at calendar year end.

North America UK and Europe

Top 10 assets

Sector

1 AP Wireless Junior

2 Infinis Energy

3 Workdry

4 Hawkeye Solar HoldCo 2030 1, 2 and 3

5 Expedient Data Centers Senior Secured 2026

6 Project Sienna

7 Project Tyre

8 Sacramento Data Center Senior Secured 2028

9 Project Nimble

10 Euroports 2nd Lien 2030

Utilities

Power

Renewables

Accommodation

Digitalisation

Transport – vehicles

Transport – systems

Other

SEQI targets mature, investment-grade jurisdictions,

including the UK, Western Europe, North America

and Australasia, ensuring strong geographic

diversity and access to resilient, high-quality

infrastructure credit.

5 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Why invest?

The Company seeks

to provide investors

with regular, sustained,

long‑term distributions

and capital appreciation

from a diversified portfolio

of senior and subordinated

economic infrastructure debt

investments. The Company

is advised by Sequoia

Investment Management

Company Limited (“SIMCo”).

A focus on regular, stable

income with opportunity

for NAV upside. SEQI has

provided investors with

10years of quarterly income,

consistently meeting its

dividend targets from

stableportfolio cash flows.

Infrastructure credit

market resilience

SEQI’s infrastructure credit investments target resilient,

non-cyclical, long-term cash flows from essential services

and evolving sectors, offering strong real asset backing

and returns distinct from broader corporate credit

markets.

Find out more

Transparency

and liquidity

SEQI, the largest credit fund on the LSE, provides

leading transparency, monthly NAV reporting, FTSE 250

membership, broad investor support, regular analyst

coverage and ongoing share liquidity.

Find out more

Access to investment

expertise

SEQI benefits from a dedicated infrastructure credit

manager, offering deep international expertise in private,

illiquid markets and a strong track record of attractive

returns for investors.

Find out more

Sustainability goals

SEQI, an EU SFDR Article 8 fund, actively drives ESG

improvement across its portfolio, combining internal

expertise and third-party analysis – earning SIMCo a

global award for best ESG infrastructure investment

strategy for 2022.

Find out more

Portfolio

diversification

SEQI’s actively managed, globally diversified portfolio

spans sectors, geographies and credit structures, offering

time-based and thematic diversification while providing

compelling risk-adjusted returns across varying market

conditions.

Find out more

92.55p

NAV per share

6.875p

Target annual

dividend per share

8.8%

Dividend yield

£1.44bn

Total net assets

6 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

“ The diversification and the credit

quality of the portfolio will stand

us in good stead and we remain

confident we will be able to meet

our target returns.”

We operate in challenging

times, but believe

lending to infrastructure

projects remains a robust,

differentiated strategy

that can deliver strong

risk‑adjusted returns for

investors.

James Stewart

Chair

It is my pleasure to present to you the Annual Report

and Audited Financial Statements of the Company

for the financial year ended 31 March 2025.

The Fund’s diversified infrastructure debt portfolio

continues to demonstrate its resilience by generating

significant levels of cash in the face of a challenging

market environment and volatile macro-economic

backdrop.

The Company’s underlying investment portfolio has

had a steady year, delivering a NAV total return of

6.1%, slightly below its target of 7-8%. The Board

remains confident in the investment qualities of the

infrastructure sector and infrastructure debt as an

asset class. We have successfully deployed capital

in accordance with our strategy of maintaining

portfolio diversification and credit quality by

continuing to target loan yields of 9-10%.

NAV and share price performance

Over the financial year, the Company’s NAV per

Ordinary Share

declined from 93.77p to 92.55p,

after paying dividends of 6.875p, producing a NAV

total return

of 6.1% (2024: 8.1%), compared to our

target return of 7-8%.

The change in the NAV has been largely driven by

interest income during the year (8.17p per Ordinary

Share) and offset by dividends (6.875p per Ordinary

Share), operating costs (1.59p per Ordinary Share)

and negative valuation changes (1.45p per Ordinary

Share). The share buyback programme delivered

a positive NAV gain of 0.70p per Ordinary Share

over the year. The negative valuation movement

is primarily due to a 1.45p per Ordinary Share

write-down of one of our non-performing loans.

Our Investment Adviser, Sequoia Investment

Management Company Limited (“SIMCo”),

discusses these movements in more detail in

itsreport.

Our portfolio underperformed the liquid credit

markets this year, with leveraged loans and high

yield bonds generating total returns of 7.5% and

7.8% respectively. We believe that this largely

reflects the rapid collapse in lending rates in those

markets, which has boosted the value of older

loans and bonds written in the past (since they are

at old and higher lending rates), even while new

loans in those markets became less attractive.

Forexample, the average BB-rated leveraged loan

interest rate (on new loans) fell from SOFR+2.99%

toSOFR+2.66% over the course of the financial

year; meanwhile the price of the average leveraged

loan decreased from 99.6% to 99.3% over the

sameperiod.

Capital allocation

During the financial year, the Company has

maintained a balanced approach to capital

allocation, by returning £55.9 million to

Shareholdersthrough its share buyback

programme, extending £328 million of new loans

(including some commitments entered into but

not fully drawn by year end) and enhancing

diversification across the portfolio. These new

investments were predominantly senior secured

loans (representing 83% of the total) in Europe

andthe UK (collectively 72% of the total), and

werewell diversified, being spread across six of

theCompany’s eight investment sectors.

These new loans were largely financed by the

natural recycling of maturing loans, but we have

also allowed our revolving credit facility (“RCF”)

to be moderately utilised, with year-end leverage

of £56.9million (representing 4% of NAV).

Weconsidered that this amount of leverage was

acceptable and consistent with our long-standing

strategy of having no structural leverage while

endeavouring to remain fully invested. We have very

good visibility on loans scheduled for repayment in

the near term, and therefore the drawings on the

RCF can be repaid if necessary.

The Board believes that, looking to the future, it is

important for the Company to continue making new

investments in a balanced manner to maintain an

active presence in the infrastructure debt market.

This will continue to enhance access to high-quality

transactions alongside reputable sponsors.

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures

(“APMs”)

Chair’s statement

7 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Share price performance and the

ongoingdiscount

The market environment has remained challenging

for all investment companies, and in particular the

alternatives sector, where most of the companies’

shares are continuing to trade at a significant

discount to NAV. Across the infrastructure,

renewable energy and debt sectors of investment

trusts – which includes 40 different trusts with

a combined market capitalisation of £23 billion

(as at our year end) – theaverage discount has

increased from 20.6% at the start of the financial

year to 22.0% at the end. Over the course of the

year, SEQI’s share price discount to NAV increased

from 13.5% to 15.4%. The Company’s share price

fell over the year, from 81.10p to 78.30p with a

share price total return of 5.3% (2024: 9.6%),

once dividends are taken into account. Share

performance is discussed in more detail in the

Investment Adviser’s report.

While emphasising we are not complacent with

the level of our discount, we are pleased that our

discount is towards the narrow end of the market

range, and has been one of the least volatile in the

sector. Reducing (and eventually eliminating) the

discount remains a key strategic objective of the

Board. To help achieve this, we have:

› an active buyback programme, with 70.4 million

shares; £55.9 million (2024: £88.2 million)

repurchased over the financial year and 213.2

million shares repurchased since the beginning

ofthe programme;

› a continuing active dialogue with investors and a

philosophy of open and transparent dissemination

of information with considerable investment in

online content on the Fund’s website and monthly

investor reporting;

› worked with other investment companies

(especially in the alternatives sector) to address

the ongoing “cost disclosure” problem, which has

led to companies like ours being unfairly treated

when compared with other types of investment

structures;

› appointed a second Broker, J.P. Morgan

Cazenove, to complement the services offered

by Jefferies and help us execute our marketing

and investor engagement strategy, particularly

overseas; and

› an ongoing programme, working with the

Investment Adviser and our joint Brokers, to

market the Ordinary Shares to a wider audience,

with the goal of attracting new investors. We also

extended the mandate of Kepler Trust Intelligence

to help increase our engagement with retail

investors.

The ongoing share purchases by the Directors of

the Company and the directors of the Investment

Adviser reflect our shared conviction in the

investment case and the value provided by the

current share price. In total, 62,059 (2024: 122,656)

Ordinary Shares were bought by these parties

during the financial year. In addition, the Investment

Adviser bought 1,235,468 (2024: 1,272,199)

Ordinary Shares during the financial year. None of

these parties sold any shares in the year, bringing

their aggregate investment in the Company to

8,092,121 Ordinary Shares.

Dividend

Our dividend of 6.875p per Ordinary Share remains

cash covered at 1.00x (2024: 1.06x). The level of

cash cover is lower than the previous year, due in

part to “cash drag”, referring to cash held over the

year reducing the Fund’s level of investment income

and less capitalised interest received.

The repayment of capitalised interest is an essential

component of the Company’s cash cover. However,

given that its timing is tied to the eventual repayment

or sale of the Company’s assets, it is unevenly

distributed over the life of the Company, which

canresult in fluctuations in the dividend cash cover.

Thisalso affected this year’s cash cover.

In addition, the share buybacks, while being

accretive to NAV, free up less cash than cash

generated by extending new loans.

The Board has also considered the ratio of

dividends per share to earnings per share, which

is 137% (2024: 105%). While a ratio of more than

100% is undesirable, it does not imply that the

dividend is unsustainable, as the ratio is driven in

part by unrealised mark-to-market adjustments in

the carrying value of performing loans – this type

of price adjustment does not affect the long-term

income-generating ability of those loans. Moreover,

the ratio does not reflect the NAV benefits of the

share buyback, which creates capital value in an

economic sense, but this is not captured in earnings

per share.

Paying a stable, attractive and covered dividend

is an important part of the Company’s value

proposition to investors The Board believes that

the current level can and will be maintained.

However, the Board is mindful of the increased risk

environment and the fact that interest rates are

forecast to fall, and so will keep the level of dividend

under review to ensure that it remains affordable and

sustainable.

Portfolio performance

Our investment strategy over the financial year

has been to maintain portfolio credit quality and

diversification, while targeting a portfolio yield

of9-10%.

› Credit quality has improved on a number of

metrics: the proportion of the portfolio invested

in senior secured loans rose from 58.6% to

59.9%; the weighted average “equity cushion”

(being the average amount of equity capital in

the businesses that we lend to, expressed as a

percentage of their total capital) rose from 38%

to 39%.

› Diversification has been maintained: the overall

number of investments increased from 55 to 59,

covering eight sectors and 29 sub-sectors.

› Yield has been maintained: our portfolio’s

weighted average yield-to-maturity, which

measures both the income and future capital

gains, fell slightly from 10.0% to 9.8% – a

significantly smaller fall than for UK base rates,

reflecting the high proportion of fixed-rate loans

in the portfolio and the impact of the interest rate

hedging strategy we undertook to protect the

Company from falling interest rates.

During the year, SEQI committed £328 million to

new loans, contributing to a more balanced sector

and geographic mix, as well as a more defensive

positioning through a slightly higher proportion of

senior-ranked loans.

We have made progress on our non-performing

loans (“NPLs”), which now represent only 1.0%

of our NAV compared to 5.4% last year. We no

longer classify our loan to Bulb Energy as an NPL

as we expect to receive back in full the amount

lent (including accrued interest). During the year

we also sold our loan backed by a property in

Glasgow (originally student accommodation but

re-purposed as a hotel). Thisposition has been fully

exited, although we retain the right to an “earn out”

payment based on the future performance of the

asset. Shortly before the year end, we received the

final, residual payment on the Salt Lake investment

in Australia.

Chair’s statement continued

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures

(“APMs”)

8 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Portfolio performance continued

Our remaining two NPLs comprise a loan backed

by a property in Washington DC that was previously

leased to a school (representing 0.4% of NAV) and

a municipal infrastructure loan (representing 0.6%

of NAV). The valuations for both loans have been

written down during the year and reflect a prudent

view on the possible outcomes. The Investment

Adviser continues to work diligently to realise value

from these investments. We will update our investors

as and when we are able to. NPLs are discussed in

more detail in the Investment Adviser’s report.

The Investment Adviser closely monitors each and

every loan within the portfolio. The Board reviews

the portfolio at each quarterly Board meeting and,

in addition, undertakes a more detailed review

semi-annually. When necessary, loans are also

subject to further and enhanced scrutiny by our

Investment Adviser. As at year end, approximately

15.0% of our portfolio (including the NPLs

mentioned above) was receiving enhanced scrutiny.

This compares to 15.5% at the time of the Interim

Financial Statements and 12.0% at the prior year

end. The Board has closely reviewed these positions

and is comfortable that their current marks fairly

reflect the current value.

SEQI adopts a robust, independent approach to

calculating the NAV of its portfolio: our approach

is to calculate and publish a monthly NAV report

that investors can have great confidence in.

Monthly reviews are more frequent than many of

our peers in the listed fund sector (in particular

for alternative investments) and additionally, the

marks are independently reviewed every month by

our valuation agent PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

(“PwC”) and audited annually by our independent

Auditor, Grant Thornton.

Valuations of performing loans are fundamentally

simpler than valuations of equity investments.

Fora performing loan, the cash flows are typically

known, as they are supported by contractual

commitments. The assessment that is required is

limited to applying the appropriate discount rate,

forwhich there are many publicly available reference

points, such as sector-specific leveraged loan

indices. By contrast, for equity investments, both

the future cash flows and the discount rate need

to be assessed. In summary, our NAV is calculated

more frequently, more objectively and in a more

straightforward manner than many other funds in

our sector.

The first 10 years of the Company’s life

The Company celebrated its 10th anniversary

of listing on 3 March 2025, and this is a good

opportunity to look back and reflect on what has

been achieved.

The IPO itself was for a moderate size of

£150million. What made the Company stand out

was our clearly defined and differentiated investment

strategy – providing a diversified portfolio of private

debt, backed by economic infrastructure, in

developed markets. There remains no other fund like

us, and therefore we consider that we provide our

Shareholders with a risk-return proposition that they

cannot easily get elsewhere. This has enabled us to

grow the Company through 10 subsequent capital

raises to being a FTSE 250 company today.

Of course, having a strategy is one thing; being able

to execute it is another. The Investment Adviser

has carefully built our portfolio based on deep due

diligence of the underlying businesses that we

lend to, reflecting the risks and opportunities in the

markets at the time. We have been careful to avoid

“mission creep”.

This methodical approach has led to a strong credit

performance and low credit losses through turbulent

times: the COVID-19 lockdowns and their economic

consequences; geopolitical events; Brexit; an energy

crisis in Europe; very low interest rates followed by a

rapid escalation in rates; and a period of the highest

inflation for 40 years. It is through this turmoil that

one of the main attractions of infrastructure debt

becomes clear: its ability to weather the storm.

Another important part of our strategy has been

engagement with our Shareholders. We have

adopted a policy of high levels of disclosure through

our website and factsheets and other forms of

investor reporting. We have listened to Shareholders

and adopted our approach to reflect what is

important to them: we were an early integrator of

sustainability factors into our investment process

and reporting; we have been able to increase our

dividend over time; and we were one of the first

listed alternatives funds to start buying back shares

as discounts in the sector started to emerge.

Sustainability

In a year marked by global uncertainty and

intensifying scrutiny of sustainability, SEQI remains

committed to integrating material sustainability

considerations into its investment approach.

Webelieve it is the right thing to do and it is an

integral part of full and proper risk assessment of

long-term credit performance. We recognise the

essential role infrastructure will play in enabling a

more sustainable future, and whilst SEQI is not an

impact fund, many of the assets it finances – across

renewables, transport, digital and essential services

for example – are supportive of the climate transition

and building resilient, future-proofed economies.

With this in mind, the Fund has continued to make

progress on the sustainability of its own operations.

This year we introduced a stand-alone Governance

Policy, which details the Company’s governance

structures, policies and oversight as well as the

Fund’s approach to assessing good governance at

borrowers. Sustainability factors at portfolio level are

thoroughly assessed using SIMCo’s sustainability

framework and methodology. KPMG have again

provided independent assurance over all three

components of SEQI’s sustainability integration

processes: negative screening, thematic investing

and the portfolio’s average ESG score

∆

This year also saw the weighted average ESG

score increasing to 64.70

∆

, largely driven by

judicious acquisitions and active engagement

work throughout the year. Our efforts in borrower

engagement are illustrated by a market-leading

response rate to our annual sustainability

questionnaire – 93% of portfolio companies

completed this on an almost entirely voluntary basis.

In addition, sustainability-linked covenants are now

in place across eight projects in the portfolio, the

highest it has ever been. Thisreflects our growing

influence and the strong relationships SIMCo has

built with our borrowers’ management teams. It

is this kind of impactful work that contributed to

SIMCo’s Sustainability Manager being recognised

with two industry accolades this year. Similarly, our

Shareholder engagement also intensified this year

with SEQI hosting an inaugural ESG event, at which

investors gathered for a breakfast roundtable to

discuss common ESG challenges andkey emerging

themes and opportunities.

Chair’s statement continued

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

9 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

This year also marks a milestone in our climate

reporting journey. For the first time, SEQI is able to

disclose emissions data for the Company and the

portfolio is in alignment with all recommendations

of the TCFD framework, as it onboarded Altitude

by AXA Climate to assist with sourcing emissions

estimates and analysis of assets under different

climate scenarios. This enhanced capability will

support deeper climate risk analysis and strengthen

our engagement with borrowers ontheseissues

going forward.

As we look ahead, SEQI will continue to monitor

the fast-evolving regulatory landscape, including

the FCA’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements

(“SDR”) and the International Sustainability

Standards Board’s (“ISSB”) IFRS Sustainability

Disclosure Standards, while exploring how to

incorporate nature and biodiversity into our

sustainability assessments. Looking back over the

10 years since SEQI’s IPO, we are proud of how far

we’ve come on our sustainability journey and remain

committed to making sustainability an enduring part

of our future strategy.

Board changes

For the last three years the Board has consisted of

five members. Last autumn the Remuneration and

Nomination Committee reviewed the make-up of

the Board and noted a substantial increase in the

workload and responsibilities following changes

to reporting standards and the need to maintain

more active portfolio oversight and Shareholder

engagement in an elevated market risk environment.

The Board subsequently decided to recruit an

additional Boardmember.

Following an extensive independent search, I was

very pleased to welcome Selina Sagayam to the

Board on 1 April 2025.

Until 2024, Selina was Senior Counsel at Gibson,

Dunn & Crutcher where she also led the firm’s

environment, social and governance practice.

She has extensive experience as a mergers and

acquisitions, corporate governance, financial

services and regulatory law adviser. Selina will

assume the position of Chair of the ESG and

Stakeholder Engagement Committee.

I was very sorry that, following a close family

bereavement, Fiona Le Poidevin decided to step

down as a Director with effect from 31 March 2025.

I am very grateful for all that Fiona contributed

to SEQI. Margaret Stephens has taken over

as the Chair of the Audit Committee. Margaret

is a qualified Chartered Accountant and is an

experienced audit committee chair with investment

company experience. An external independent

search process was undertaken to find a suitable

Guernsey-resident non-executive Director to replace

Fiona. I look forward to welcoming Nicola Paul

to the board on 1 July 2025. Nicola has recently

retired as an associate partner of Deloitte and has a

strong background in audit and control evaluation,

which will assist the Board in complying with future

reporting requirements.

I would also like to say thank you to Kate Thurman,

one of our Independent Consultants, who has

stepped down having supported SEQI over

manyyears.

Profiles of the Board and our Investment Adviser are

on pages 44 and 45.

Outlook

Our investment strategy is to maintain the level of

credit quality across the portfolio, whilst targeting

a portfolio yield of 9-10%. We are very mindful of

the current high level of global uncertainty and the

generally challenging economic outlook for many of

the countries that we operate in. This is discussed in

more detail in the Investment Adviser’s report.

Webelieve that the diversification and the credit

quality of the portfolio will stand us in good stead

and we will maintain a prudent approach to

credit risk in our approach to new investments.

Oneconsequence of the heightened market volatility

is that lending terms have improved (from the

perspective of lenders) since the end of the financial

year. This means we remain confident that we will be

able to meet our target returns, even if interest rates

continue to fall.

Given the high level of global demand for

infrastructure capital, our Investment Adviser’s

pipeline of opportunities remains strong and they

are able to adopt a highly selective approach to

investment.

We will also continue to monitor our share price

closely and, where appropriate, engage in share

buybacks. The rate at which we buy back shares

will flex depending on various factors, including the

level of our share price discount to NAV. The Board

is not satisfied with the current share price and our

strategic goal remains to eliminate the discount.

Finally, I would like to thank our Shareholders for

their continued support. We operate in challenging

times, but we believe that lending to infrastructure

projects remains a robust, differentiated strategy that

can deliver strong risk-adjusted returns for investors.

James Stewart

Chair

24 June 2025

Chair’s statement continued

Generation Bridge

Between 2022 and 2024,

SEQI provided a total of

USD131 million across

three senior secured loans

to Generation Bridge LLC,

a portfolio of US-based

peaking power plants.

These assets provide

critical, flexible capacity to

the electricity grid, helping

to balance intermittent

renewable generation

and ensure system

reliability during periods

of high demand. All three

investments have repaid

in full.

USD131m

Invested

10 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

2019

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Market opportunity

Principal activity

The Company’s investment objective is to provide investors with regular, sustained, long-term distributions and capital appreciation from a diversified portfolio of senior and subordinated economic infrastructure debt

investments. The Fund principally invests in private operational businesses with a proven record and stable cash flows, spread across eight sectors and 29 sub-sectors, reducing exposure to any one sector or business

cycle. It aims to capture the illiquidity premium offered by private debt investments, with select exposure to liquid, publicly traded debt being used to help to manage working capital. The majority of the Fund’s portfolio

consists of bilateral loans and club deals, for which the Investment Adviser negotiated favourable terms for the Fund to enable its risk-adjusted returns.

Sectors in which we invest

Utilities Power Renewables Accommodation Digitalisation Transportation

The utility industry includes companies

that supply essential services such

as the distribution and transmission

of electricity, natural gas and water,

and their key suppliers. Utilities

serve as a public good and often

have monopolistic characteristics,

and as a result, are typically highly

regulated. Utility companies are

normally defensive, as the businesses

are capital intensive, enjoy very high

barriers to entry, and their revenues

are resilient through the economic

cycle. Utility company revenues are

also not normally directly linked to

commodity prices.

In the power sector, the Fund mainly

invests in baseload and energy

transition assets. Baseload generators

such as nuclear power plants sell

electricity all of the time. Energy

transition assets include “peaker

plants” and batteries, which are only

expected to supply electricity when

electricity demand and/or prices are

high and purchase electricity when

demand and/or prices are low in

the case of batteries. These plants

may also receive capacity-related

standby payments from grid operators.

Energy transition businesses have

an intrinsic sustainability strength of

facilitating higher levels of renewable

energy. Attractive energy assets are

characterised by strong asset backing

and a high percentage of contracted

revenues – the Fund generally targets

companies with low exposure to

unhedged power prices. All projects are

assessed based on their competitive

positioning in the merit order curve

and must be able to demonstrate solid

operational performance.

Over the course of the last decade,

renewable energy has grown

materially as many governments

and investors have accepted the

need for sustainable energy sources.

Decarbonisation plans continue,

despite a global pandemic and

an economic recession. The Fund

finances a wide range of renewable

energy assets including both

ground-mounted and rooftop solar

and energy from waste projects.

Typically, renewable energy businesses

benefit from long-term electricity

purchase agreements and government

support schemes such as Renewable

Obligation Certificates (“ROCs”) in

the UK and Investment Tax Credits

(“ITCs”) in the US.

The Fund invests in infrastructure

providing social services and

accommodation, including student

accommodation, healthcare and

elderly care. Our main activity in this

sector has been specialist healthcare,

such as learning disability care homes.

Healthcare assets are fundamental to

societies and have a non-discretionary

demand profile as governments have

a statutory duty to provide these

services to their citizens. The industry

is highly regulated, non-cyclical and

has high barriers to entry. The Fund

also invests in selective student

housing opportunities in countries

where there are student housing

shortages, such as the Netherlands.

The opportunities we are seeing

across the digital sector stem from

the exponential growth in demand

for digital connectivity and data

storage and processing. Technological

advances, such as AI, the internet

of things, and self-driving cars, will

continue to provide tailwinds to the

sector. The Fund’s experience in

the sector includes hyperscale data

centres with blue-chip tenants, global

portfolios of mobile phone towers

and an undersea data cable and

broadband. Given the essentiality

of digitalisation assets, these

investments typically exhibit defensive

characteristics.

In the transportation sector, the

Fund lends to owners of long-term

assets such as roads, ports, airports

and railways. These benefit from

high barriers to entry and may have

quasi-monopolistic characteristics.

They are well positioned to generate

highly predictable revenue streams.

In some cases, these revenues are

regulated, meaning that they are

subject to government oversight and

pricing controls to ensure fair and

equitable access to transportation

services, which provides further

comfort around debt serviceability.

In the transport assets sector, the

Fund finances rolling stock, aircraft

and shipping. These types of assets

typically have a high replacement

cost and a long economic life.

Inmany cases, these assets will be

on long-term leases, which provides

ahigh degree of certainty of income.

11 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Market opportunity continued

Swap curves (%)

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

GBP swaps 2025 EUR swaps 2025USD swaps 2025 EUR swaps 2024USD swaps 2024GBP swaps 2024

While the year started with some optimism, over

the course of the year, and subsequent to the year

end, investors became increasingly focused on

geopolitical risks and the volatility and uncertainty

arising from the actions of the new Trump

Administration in the US, especially tariffs. In its

report, the Investment Adviser discusses how the

Fund has fared and how the investment portfolio

is well positioned for some of the challenges and

opportunities that investors will face in the future.

Other

The Fund also makes loans to projects and

businesses that fall outside the main economic

infrastructure sectors. These investments have

characteristics such as providing an essential

service, high barriers to entry, physical asset

backing and low market correlations. Examples

would include infrastructure used in the agricultural

sector(such as energy from biomass).

The market environment during the year

The financial year saw interest rates begin to fall in

most markets, especially the Eurozone, as inflation

started to return to normal levels. The credit markets

had a strong year, with spreads on corporate

bonds and leveraged loans tightening over the

course of the year. Economic growth remained

anaemic in Europe, but the US economy performed

muchbetter.

Bannister

Between 2019 and 2020,

SEQI invested £67 million

of senior secured debt

to Bannister, a leading

provider of long-term

supported and residential

living facilities for adults with

learning disabilities, such as

intellectual disability, autism,

mental health diagnoses

and acquired brain injuries

with complex behavioural

needs.

The loan was repaid in full

in 2022.

£67m

Invested

2019

12 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Business model

Driven by our purpose

Our purpose is to generate attractive and sustainable returns for a

widerange of investors through responsible and disciplined investment

into a growing portfolio of diverse economic infrastructure debt.

These assets would otherwise be difficult for investors to access, given the specialist nature of the

necessarycredit analysis and advisory skills needed. Our investments support the provision of infrastructure

on a sustainable basis and create social and economic benefits across the range of geographies in which

weinvest.

Investment process Financial outcomes

Origination

Initial

screening

Detailed credit

analysis

Investment

approvalprocess

Acquisition

andmonitoring

Exit and

redeployment

Financial

The Company's NAV performance

anddividend cover

Governance

Details of the Company’s governance

framework and the activities of the Board

during the year

Environmental and social

Details of the Company’s sustainability

strategy and the approach taken in applying

its principles to its business activities are

described in the sustainability section

Pages 18 to 20

Pages 46 to 63

Pages 26 to 34

See website for more details

6.875p

The Company has paid dividends totalling

6.875p per Ordinary Share (2024: 6.875p)

in respect of the financial year, in line with its

dividend target at the time.

£1.42bn

The Fund’s investment portfolio was valued

at c.£1.42 billion at the year end (2024:

£1.38billion).

1.00x

The Company’s cash dividend cover

for the

financial year was 1.00x (2024: 1.06x).

6.1%

Total NAV return

for the year was 6.1%

(2024:8.1%).

5.3%

Total share price return

for the year was 5.3%

(2024: 9.6%)

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance

Measures (“APMs”)

13 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Business model continued

Origination Initial screening Detailed credit

analysis

Investment

approval process

Acquisition and

monitoring

Exit and

redeployment

› Identify market opportunities in

sectors and jurisdictions with strong

credit characteristics and attractive

relative pricing

› Leverage relationships with lending

banks and infrastructure owners

› Eliminate assets unlikely to pass

investment approval, including

review of sustainability credentials

› Identify strong credits for inclusion

in a shortlist for full analysis

› Due diligence and credit

assessment

› Site visits and meetings with

management, as appropriate

› Run proprietary analytical models

ifapplicable

› Determine risk characteristics

andmitigants

› Ensure no diversification,

concentration or other limits

arebroken

› Comprehensive sustainability

analysis, including preliminary

ESGscoring

› Full credit memorandum and

valuation/yield analysis is provided

to the Investment Committee for

review

› A unanimous investment decision

is required in order to make the

recommendation to the Alternative

Investment Fund Manager (“AIFM”)

› Investment Committee minutes

and material credit documentation

are submitted to the AIFM and, if

appropriate, to the Board, prior to

AIFM approval and sign-off

› Investment Adviser executes the

trade once the recommendation

isapproved

› Execution of appropriate currency

hedge as necessary

› All ongoing credit monitoring and

updates, including the Investment

Committee reviews, are sent to

theAIFM

› Every asset is monitored

semi-annually at a minimum, and

more frequently when required

› Semi-annually the Board

undertakes a full portfolio review,

with a separate session dedicated

to focus loans (determined by risk

profile), in addition to quarterly

Board reviews

› The asset is exited via repayment

or sale

› Relationship with borrower is

maintained for future potential

investment opportunities

› Proceeds are redeployed into

new assets or held as liquidity

asappropriate

1 2 3 4 5 6

Investment process

Risk management

Credit review framework

Escalation criteria are in place

requiring Risk Committee review

of investments possessing certain

characteristics. AIFM has full

discretion to approve or decline

investments.

Risk Committee

The Risk Committee is comprised of

independent non-executive Directors.

Read more on page 57.

Independent AIFM Risk

Manager

Detailed review of all investment

recommendations and material

developments with borrowers.

Robust governance

Effective Board oversight

Details of Board composition,

Committee structures and the

Company’s internal controls and risk

management systems are set out in

the corporate governance report.

Financial management

Details of the arrangements

for ensuring the integrity of the

Company’s system of internal financial

controls and financial reporting

processes is set out in the report

ofthe Audit Committee.

Read more on pages 38 to 42 Read more on pages 46 to 49 Read more on pages 51 to 53

14 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report

The Investment Adviser’s objectives for the year

During the financial year, Sequoia Investment Management Company Limited (“SIMCo” or the “Investment Adviser”) has had the following objectives for the Fund:

The Fund maintained a disciplined focus

on building and managing a diversified

portfolio of private debt investments,

underpinned by the strategy of delivering

targetreturns while maintaining the credit

quality of theportfolio.”

Steve Cook

Partner and Head of Portfolio Management

Gross portfolio

return of 8-9%

The Fund is invested in a portfolio which currently

yields

approximately 10% and produced a NAV total

return of 6.1% in the year, below the Company’s

target net annual return of 7-8% after approximate

annual costs of 1%.

Target an interest rate profile of 40%

floating rate and 60% fixed-rate, to reflect

the likelihood of falling interest rates

The floating rate portion of the portfolio fell to 40.6%

on 31 March 2025 from 42.1% a year previously.

This was achieved through our loan origination

activities and by the tactical use of interest

rateswaps.

Follow a sustainable investment

strategy and continue to enhance the

sustainability profile of the Company

and the portfolio

SEQI has increased the overall ESG score of its

portfolio from 62.77 to 64.70

∆

. SEQI refreshed its

sustainability framework to align with evolving market

standards and forward-looking best practices.

Furtherdetails on the updated approach can be

foundin the sustainability section of our website:

https://www.seqi.fund/sustainability/.

Manage portfolio credit quality in the

face of economic uncertainty

The proportion of the portfolio invested in senior

secured loans rose from 58.6% to 59.9%; the

weighted average “equity cushion”

rose from 38%

to 39%; and NPLs have fallen from 5.4% to 1.0%

of NAV.

Dividend target of 6.875p per Ordinary

Share per annum

The Company paid four quarterly dividends of

1.71875p per Ordinary Share in line with its dividend

target, amounting to a total of 6.875p.

Timely and transparent

investor reporting

The Company’s Factsheet, RNS NAV

announcements and full portfolios have been

provided monthly for full transparency.

Investor engagement has continued over the

financial year including a capital markets seminar,

smaller bespoke investor events and a results

roadshow as well.

Risk profile

Sector

Digitalisation

Utilities

Power

Transport – vehicles

Renewables

Transport – systems

Accommodation

This chart illustrates the portfolio’s sector exposure, with

bubble size reflecting allocation size and vertical positioning

indicating relative risk – from highest (top) to lowest (bottom).

RiskLower Higher

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures (“APMs”)

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference

in the 2025 Annual Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the

Sustainability Publications section of our website: www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

15 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Overview of infrastructure debt

The sectors applicable to this type of debt

includetransportation, utilities, power, renewables,

telecommunications and social infrastructure,

often benefiting from long-term concessions,

regulatory frameworks or usage-based revenues.

These dynamics create structural stability and

consistent demand, even amid market uncertainty.

These sectors are typically governed by long-term

concessions or licenses, with revenues tied to

demand, usage or volume. To mitigate demand

risk, economic infrastructure projects generally

employ lower leverage than availability-based social

infrastructure, maintaining larger equity cushions,

conservative credit ratios, strong covenants

and more substantial asset backing for lenders.

Thisdisciplined approach has remained central to

SEQI’s strategy throughout the year.

Since the 2008 global financial crisis, traditional

bank lending has become more constrained,

focusing primarily on well-established sectors at

conservative leverage levels. In parallel, a structural

shift began to unfold, as governments in developed

markets turned increasingly to the private sector to

help finance expanding social programmes, driven

by demographic pressures and post-crisis fiscal

challenges.

In response, governments increasingly turned

to the private sector, not only to support

traditional infrastructure, but to fund the emerging

mega-sectors of energy transition and digitalisation.

While renewables initially benefited from subsidies,

both sectors evolved as commercially driven,

globally distributed opportunities.

This marked a shift away from centralised,

government-funded infrastructure models

towardsamore fragmented, mid-market

landscape. Assetsbecame more diverse in scale

and geography, often financed outside the realm

of traditional institutions. At the same time, the era

of large-scale Public-Private Partnerships (“PPPs”)

in the UK and Europe began to wane, as public

sentiment shifted and bank appetite retreated,

even as those projects continued to attract higher

loan-to-value financing.

Economic infrastructure

debt continues to stand

out as a resilient and

reliable asset class, offering

investors access to stable,

long‑term income streams

underpinned by essential

services. Itsappeal lies in a

distinct set of characteristics:

highbarriers to entry for

borrowers, predictable

cash flows and strong

asset‑backed security,

all of which support its

performance through

economic cycles.

16 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Consumer price index

year-on-year (%)

Market backdrop

What is happening?

Inflation across all the Fund’s investment jurisdictions is abating to levels

approaching the respective central banks’ targets. However, renewed tariff

activity may introduce upward inflationary pressures in the short to medium

term through higher import costs. While the immediate effect of tariffs may

be an uptick in consumer prices due to higher costs for imported goods,

these pressures may be temporary. Supply chains are likely to adjust over

time, with businesses seeking alternative sources or passing on only partial

costincreases.

Why this matters to the Fund

As inflation gradually abates over time, the likelihood of future interest rate

cuts increases, making alternative investments such as infrastructure more

attractive when compared to liquid debt. While the pace and size of interest

rate cuts will vary across the Fund’s different investment jurisdictions, the

general consensus remains one of declining interest rates throughout the

year. A lower inflation environment also helps ease cost pressures during the

construction phase of projects, thereby reducing construction risk, all else

being equal.

What is happening?

Central banks in the US, UK and Europe are continuing to implement interest

rate cuts to overnight interest rates, following a period of stabilisation.

Why this matters to the Fund

The portfolio’s floating rate investments are beginning to de-risk, with

borrowing costs now past their peak and expected to decline further amid

early interest rate cuts and continued disinflation. As the market transitions

toward a lower-rate environment, fixed-rate loans and bonds stand to benefit

from an accelerated pull-to-par. At the same time, a normalising yield curve,

with a reduced or positive slope, may support risk appetite in the broader

market, though it could temper borrower interest in locking in long-term debt.

Overnight finance rates (%)

Mar

Nov

Jul

Mar

Jul

Nov

Mar

-1

US Overnight Lending Rate (SOFR) EU Overnight Lending Rate (SOFR)

UK Overnight Lending Rate (SOFR)

Mar

Aug

Jan

Nov

Apr

Sep

Jun

Feb

US YoY (%) EU YoY (%) UK YoY (%)

What is happening?

While BB credit spreads remain tight, potential risks such as geopolitical

tensions, trade policies and shifts in monetary policy could influence future

spread movements.

Why this matters to the Fund

Wider credit spreads matter for the Fund by creating both risks and

opportunities. On the one hand, they could lead to mark-to-market declines

on existing holdings and signal rising credit risk or market stress, potentially

impacting NAV and borrower fundamentals. On the other hand, wider

spreads could allow the Fund to earn higher yields on new investments and

potentially take advantage of dislocations or undervalued infrastructure debt.

While short-term valuation pressures may emerge, a disciplined approach

could turn spread widening into a long-term income and return opportunity.

ICE BofA BB US high yield

index option-adjusted spread (%)

Apr

17 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Themes in the infrastructure debt market

Over the course of the financial year, the Investment

Adviser has identified several key themes shaping

the infrastructure debt market. These themes have

influenced both the types of opportunities being

pursued and the way capital is being allocated

within the portfolio. What follows is a summary of

the most prominent developments observed.

The three “D”s – decarbonisation,

digitalisation and deglobalisation

While the funding needs for building traditional

infrastructure (such as transport assets and

utilities) is immense – just the capital needed for

the maintenance of existing stock runs to trillions

of Dollars – there is currently an ever-larger funding

requirement arising from the global “mega-trends” of:

› Decarbonisation – including renewable energy, grid

enhancement, energy storage, energy security and

a host of ancillary services;

› Digitalisation – including data centres, mobile

phone towers, fixed line networks, data cables,

satellites and broadband; and

› Deglobalisation – including power, transport and

logistics infrastructure being driven by onshoring of

supply chains.

Demand for private debt continues to grow

Infrastructure has emerged as one of the

fastest-growing asset classes globally, with assets

under management (“AUM”) increasing at an average

annual rate of 19.7% since 2015 (Macquarie).

Looking ahead, this momentum is expected to

continue, as Preqin forecasts that total private

infrastructure AUM will grow from USD1.17trillion

in2023 to USD1.88 trillion by the end of 2027

(Preqin). Within this expanding asset class,

infrastructure credit is gaining traction among

institutional investors drawn to its defensive

characteristics, consistent cash flows and attractive

risk-adjustedreturns. While growing investor interest

may lead to increased competition for high-quality

private infrastructure debt opportunities, we believe

SEQI is well positioned to navigate this dynamic,

as the Company benefits from its established track

record, deep origination networks and the specialist

expertise of its Investment Adviser.

Moreover, although the supply of debt capital is

growing, it is very likely that the demand for debt

capital is growing at least at the same rate, cancelling

out largely or entirely the effect of competition.

This overall trend is also driven by a persistent

funding gap in global infrastructure, particularly in

sectors like energy transition and digitalisation, where

private debt plays a vital complementary role to

equity. Asbank retrenchment continues and capital

demands increase, the favourable structural tailwinds

for infrastructure credit are expected to endure,

supporting long-term investor appetite.

Tariffs

Recent tariff measures and trade policy shifts

between the US and the rest of the world have

renewed volatility in international financial markets.

With these geopolitical frictions and protectionist

strategies back in focus, the Investment Adviser

believes prolonged tariffs could pose a drag on

global economic momentum and fuel inflationary

pressures across the US, UK and Eurozone in the

short to medium term.

Economic uncertainty

The recent sell-off in US equity markets reflects

growing investor unease over elevated valuations,

persistent inflationary pressures and the rising

likelihood of a recession. Should economic

conditions deteriorate further, sectors with high

operating leverage or consumer dependency, such

as transport and social infrastructure, may face

increased credit risk. While the Fund remains well

diversified, the Investment Adviser continues to

closely monitor these exposures and has actively

tilted the portfolio towards defensive sectors such

as digitalisation, accommodation, utilities and

renewables, which are typically more resilient in

downturn scenarios.

As at 31 March 2025, 54.7% of the portfolio is

invested in defensive sectors, increasing from 50.8%

the previous year. The Fund’s investments in defensive

sectors make it well positioned to withstand economic

downturns and inflationary pressures.

NAV performance

Over the last 12 months, the Company’s NAV per

share decreased from 93.77p per share to 92.55p

per share ex-dividend driven by the effects as per

the analysis in the table below. The total return on

the NAV

was equal to 6.1% over the period. This is

below the Company’s long-term return expectations

of 7-8% p.a.; however, we outperformed the total

return of the FTSE 250 Index by 5.0%. In comparison

to credit markets, SEQI delivered returns 1.4% lower

than high yield bonds, but beat 10-year gilts by 1.6%

(in each case measuring the total return)

NAV effect

Interest income on the Company’s

investments 8.17p

Portfolio valuation movements, net

of foreign exchange and hedge

movements (1.45)p

IFRS adjustment from mid-price at

acquisition to bid price (0.17)p

Operating costs (1.59)p

Gains from buying back shares at

adiscount to NAV 0.70p

Gross increase in NAV 5.66p

Less: Dividends paid (6.88)p

Net decrease in NAV after

payment of dividends (1.22)p

The NAV decline during the year was primarily

due to reductions in carrying value of the Fund’s

non-performing loans (as discussed below under

‘Credit performance’) and the impact of higher

discount rates, offset in part by pull-to-par gains

over the year.

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures ("APMs")

2. Source: Bloomberg

18 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Pull-to-par

The portfolio pull-to-par, which is a measure of future NAV gains that will arise solely through the passage of

time, is 4.0p per share as at 31 March 2025, decreasing marginally from 4.1p per share as at 31March 2024.

The “pull-to-par” effect refers to the principle that a debt instrument’s market value progressively approaches

its notional value as it nears maturity, assuming stable credit quality and no risk of default. This occurs because

the issuer is contractually obligated to repay the notional amount at redemption. As a result, the investment’s

market price increasingly aligns with its redemption value over time, regardless of prevailing market conditions.

For example, a loan to Infinis, a UK renewables company investing in landfill gas projects, was priced at 93.0

at year end, even though the credit is performing in line with expectations. The loan matures in 2032 and

is expected to pull to par over time. As a fixed-rate and long-dated investment, its current price reflects the

interest rate environment rather than any credit concerns. Over the coming years, assuming no deterioration in

credit quality, its price will naturally converge toward par, contributing positively to the portfolio’s NAV through

the pull-to-par effect.

The resulting uplift to NAV per share is illustrated in the chart below.

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures ("APMs")

Share performance

As at 31 March 2025, the Company had

1,555,061,936 Ordinary Shares in issue

(31March2024: 1,625,484,274). The closing

share price on that day was 78.3p per Ordinary

Share (31 March2024: 81.1p per Ordinary

Share), implying a market capitalisation for the

Company of approximately £1.2 billion, a decrease

of approximately £100.7 million compared to

12months ago; approximately 45% of this decline is

due to the Company’s share buyback programme,

with the balance due to the decline in the share

price. After taking account of quarterly dividends

amounting to 6.875p per Ordinary Share, the

share price total return

over the period was 5.3%,

outperforming the FTSE 250 Index by 4.2% during

the same period.

A key driver of SEQI’s share price discount to NAV is

broader listed market sentiment towards alternative

assets, such as renewable energy, private equity

and private debt. Discounts across the sector

have increased over the year – for example, the

average discount for UK-listed renewable energy

funds has increased from 29.7% to 35.1%, and for

infrastructure listed funds from 17.7% to 25.0%.

This sentiment reflects the lingering effects of

inflation, subdued economic growth and ongoing

scepticism around valuation methodologies across

parts of the alternatives sector, compounded

by structural market dynamics such as index

rebalancing and multi-asset allocation shifts.

TheInvestment Adviser remains focused on levers

within SEQI’s control and reassures investors that

its valuations are subject to independent monthly

review and robust processes. Unlike many private

equity, infrastructure equity or real estate investment

vehicles, SEQI publishes its NAV monthly, offering

greater transparency and frequency of reporting.

The sector-wide discount to NAV has been

further pressured by capital outflows, as investors

reallocated from listed alternatives into other

investment types such as government bonds.

Thisshift created pockets of forced selling,

contributing to downward pressure on share prices.

However, market conditions have stabilised during

the financial year, as policy rates in key markets

are past their peak and are anticipated to further

decrease in light of the recent interest rate cuts.

Also, due to the ongoing sell-off in the financial

markets, analysts expect central banks to ease

monetary policy by reducing interest rates more

than previously expected, with bond futures pricing

in the likelihood of at least two or three more rate

cuts by the Federal Reserve before the end of the

calendaryear.

The Company is well positioned to capitalise on

this environment, supported by the portfolio’s short

weighted average maturity (3.6 years as at 31March

2025) which has enabled the reinvestment of capital

at higher prevailing rates. To enhance this strategy,

the Investment Adviser amended the investment

policy to allow up to 60% of assets to be held

in fixed-rate instruments. One additional interest

rate swap has been executed, enabling SEQI to

receive fixed-rate payments while paying a floating

rate – further locking in favourable yields. Both

the Investment Adviser and the Board believe the

current share price discount to NAV is unwarranted

given the strength and resilience of the portfolio.

We collectively believe that it does not accurately

reflect the potential of the investment portfolio to

deliver attractive risk-adjusted returns during periods

of economic uncertainty; its shorter investment

duration; and its robust NAV approach.

Pull-to-par over time

Mar 25

92.55

2.31

0.88

0.59

0.24

Mar 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar 29

19 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

2021

Share performance continued

With this backdrop, SEQI continues to buy back

its Ordinary Shares, which it considers to be

undervalued, thereby providing NAV accretion for

existing Shareholders. In the past 12 months alone,

the Company has repurchased 70,422,338 Ordinary

Shares. The share buyback programme was first

announced in July 2022, and since then, the

Company has bought back a total of 213,177,062

Ordinary Shares, approximately 13% of its total

outstanding Ordinary Shares as at 31March 2025.

This has resulted in an increase in NAV per Ordinary

Share of 1.8p since the implementation of the

buyback programme

Dividend cash cover

SEQI has paid 6.875p in dividends during the

last 12 months in accordance with its target.

TheCompany’s dividend cash cover was 1.00x for

the financial year. This is lower than in the previous

year, for the following reasons:

› a timing effect where the receipt in cash of

capitalised PIK interest did not fall during the

financial year;

› some cash drag during the year; over the

period, the Fund had an average cash balance

of £59.8million, due to a combination of

de-leveraging the Company and receiving

prepayments (where borrowers repay their

loansearlier than scheduled). While this had

been fully invested by the end of the year, the

cash held over the year reduced the Fund’s level

of investment income. For example, had it been

invested in infrastructure loans yielding 9%, the

dividend cover would have been 1.02x; and

› the share buyback, whilst accretive to NAV, is

dilutive for dividend cash cover since, although

the Company avoids paying dividends on the

shares bought back, it misses out on the upfront

fees normally earned by lenders. In other words,

while buying back shares is accretive to the NAV,

it generates less cash income than making new

loans. Conversely, if the NAV gain on buying

back shares at a discount were to be treated

like a realised NAV gain arising from investment

activities, the dividend cover would have been

approximately 1.10x.

Looking forward, the Investment Adviser is of the

view that the dividend is sustainable and dividend

cover should improve over time, reflecting the strong

pipeline of investment opportunities and the yields

available on private infrastructure debt.

Portfolio overview

Throughout the fiscal year, the Fund maintained

a disciplined focus on building and managing a

diversified portfolio of private debt investments

across core infrastructure sectors in jurisdictions

with low political and regulatory risk. The strategy

remained centred on delivering target returns

while maintaining the credit quality of the portfolio.

This was achieved through a cautious approach,

favouring senior secured debt, maintaining exposure

to resilient sectors and steadily enhancing overall

portfolio credit quality.

The current highlights of the Fund’s portfolio,

whichreflect the results of these efforts, include:

Diversification

The Fund’s portfolio is well diversified across loan

types, geographies, sectors and sub-sectors,

supported by defined investment limits that preserve

this balance.

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Infinis Energy

In 2021, SEQI invested

£65 million of senior

secured debt to Infinis,

the UK’s leading generator

of electricity from landfill

gas, other residual

waste sources and other

renewable sources. The

company plays a key role

in methane capture and

low-carbon generation.

£65m

Invested

20 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report continued

The chart below illustrates the sector and

sub‑sector allocation as at 31March 2025:

Digitalisation

Data centres 12.6%

Telecom towers 7.1%

Broadband & fibre 5.0%

24.7%

Power

Baseload 5.7%

Other electricity generation 4.4%

Standby generators 2.3%

Energy transition 1.1%

Nuclear power 0.8%

14.3%

Transport – vehicles

Specialist shipping 6.2%

Health & safety 2.4%

Rolling stock 2.2%

Aircraft 1.5%

12.3%

Accommodation

Healthcare 5.0%

Student housing 1.4%

6.4%

Transport – systems

Port 3.0%

Ferries 2.9%

Rail 2.4%

Road 0.1%

8.4%

Utilities

Utility services 8.0%

Midstream 5.3%

Renewable electricity supply 1.2%

14.5%

Renewables

Solar & wind 4.8%

Landfill gas 4.3%

9.1%

Other

Waste-to-energy 3.5%

Residential infra 3.4%

Hospitals 1.8%

Social infra 0.6%

Smart metering 0.6%

Schools 0.4%

10.3%

8.0%

5.3%

1.2%

5.7%

4.4%

2.3%

1.1%

0.8%

4.8%

4.3%

5.0%

1.4%

3.5%

3.4%

1.8%

0.6%

0.4%

3.0%

2.9%

2.4%

0.1%

6.2%

2.4%

2.2%

1.5%

12.6%

7.1%

5.0%

21 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Portfolio overview continued

Credit quality

› 59.9% of the portfolio is in senior secured loans

and 40.1% in subordinated debt, a marginal

increase from the previous fiscal year when

58.6% of the portfolio was in senior secured loans

and 41.4% in subordinated debt.

› Continued preference for “defensive” types of

infrastructure, i.e. loans to projects that provide

essential services, often operating within a

regulated or contractual framework or have high

barriers to entry.

› Our policy not to invest in distressed, stressed or

“CCC profile” loans remains in place.

› Our proportion of NPLs has fallen from 5.4% to

1.0%, the lowest level since 2020.

Construction risk

The Fund maintains a cautious approach to

greenfield construction projects. While it has the

flexibility to allocate up to 20% of NAV to assets

under construction, actual exposure stood at 12.5%

of the portfolio as at 31 March 2025 (2024: 7.4%).

This remains below the Fund’s historical average,

reflecting a deliberately conservative stance in

response to a subdued growth outlook and ongoing

supply chain challenges.

The Fund applies a selective and disciplined

approach to project origination, investing only where

it believes the return appropriately compensates

for the construction-related risk involved. It avoids

projects carrying both construction and demand or

ramp-up risk, maintaining a strong focus on credit

quality and underlying borrower fundamentals.

A focus on private debt

The percentage of private debt has declined by

6.1% during the year to 90.8% of the portfolio

as at 31 March 2025. This was partly due to the

refinancing of an OCU Group private loan to a

public Term Loan B, with the Fund’s participation

for £45million settling during November 2024.

OCUGroup is a leading UK infrastructure

engineering services provider. The Fund also

invested an additional c.£41 million in the secondary

market on bonds with Navigator Holdings Ltd (US

specialist shipping), Techem GmbH (German smart

metering) and TSM II LuxCo 21 SARL (Dutch utility

services) to improve sector diversification and to

add a further source of liquidity, whilst facilitating the

efficient deployment of capital into seasoned assets

with established performance histories.

The strategy still remains anchored in private debt.

This focus is underpinned by the ability to capture

an illiquidity premium (the additional yield private

debt typically offers over comparable liquid bonds).

Given the Fund’s long-term, buy-and-hold approach,

accessing this premium is a deliberate and effective

strategy. Research conducted by the Investment

Adviser suggests that infrastructure private debt can

yield 1–2% more than publicly rated equivalents.

Consistent NAV returns during volatility

Over the past decade, SEQI has delivered an

annualised total NAV return

of 7.3%, significantly

outperforming both the FTSE 250 Index and

GBP-hedged high yield bonds over the same

period, which returned 4.1% and 3.3% respectively.

This strong long-term track record underscores

the consistency of SEQI’s investment approach,

even as the year unfolded against a backdrop of

macro-economic uncertainty and elevated volatility

in listed alternatives – and reflects the strength of

SEQI’s strategy in capturing risk-adjusted returns

amid a transitioning interest rate environment.

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures

("APMs")

With a weighted average yield-to-maturity

of 9.9% and a portfolio pull-to-par of 4.0p per share, SEQI is

structurally positioned to benefit from both sustained income and capital appreciation as assets mature.

Portfolio quality remained resilient, with NPLs declining to their lowest level since 2020. Adeliberate tilt toward

senior secured and fixed-rate debt further enhanced downside protection.

The Investment Adviser’s active deployment of capital, including targeted secondary market investments

and strategic utilisation of the RCF, supported both diversification and liquidity. Together, these measures

underscore a disciplined and forward-looking investment approach that continues to deliver robust income

and preserve long-term Shareholder value. We acknowledge that SEQI’s share price performance has been

less strong, which we attribute to various sector headwinds which we have faced over the last three years,

alongside many of our peers. This is deeply frustrating to us and we are committed to working with the Board

to remedy this.

Portfolio characteristics

As shown in the table on page 23, the Fund increased its number of investments from 55 to 59 over the

12-month period. The Investment Adviser has actively redeployed capital from maturing assets into an attractive

pipeline of opportunities, while also drawing £56.9 million from the £300 million RCF with J.P. Morgan Chase

Bank, N.A., London Branch as at 31 March 2025, to sustain capital deployment momentum. This growth in

investment activity has been carefully managed to preserve the Fund’s diversification, with continued exposure

across eight sectors and a broad range of sub-sectors, from 30 in March 2024 to 29 in March2025.

In addition, SEQI continues to redeploy capital towards share buybacks, taking advantage of the persistent

discount to NAV.

The Fund’s investment portfolio grew by approximately £42 million over the financial year, driven by renewed

utilisation of the revolving credit facility. This follows the full repayment of the revolving credit facility in the previous

financial year, during which SEQI had been de-leveraged.

Over the past 12 months, the proportion of the Fund’s investment in senior secured debt has increased

marginally, from 58.6% in March 2024 to 59.9% in March 2025, ensuring defensive positioning.

Additionally, following a strategy to lock in currently high long-term rates, the Fund has continued its shift towards

a higher percentage of fixed-rate assets, with 59.4% of the portfolio invested in fixed-rate assets as at year end,

an increase from 57.9% as at the prior year end.

Fund performance

31 March 2025 31 March 2024 31 March 2023

Net asset value

per Ordinary Share 92.55p 93.77p 93.26p

£ million 1,493.2 1,524.3 1,617.9

Cash held (including

intheSubsidiaries) £ million 35.1 99.4 68.7

Balance of RCF £ million 56.9 0.0 181.8

Invested portfolio percentage of NAV 100.8% 90.6% 106.5%

Total portfolio

including investments

in settlement 109.8% 94.2% 109.6%

22 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Portfolio characteristics

31 March 2025 31 March 2024 31 March 2023

Number of investments 59 55 68

Valuation of investments £ million 1,422.7 1,380.7 1,723.5

ESG score 64.70

∆

62.77 62.29

Largest exposure £ million 70.3 60.6 61.0

percentage of NAV 4.9% 4.0% 3.8%

Single largest investment £ million 61.7 60.6 61.0

percentage of NAV 4.3% 4.0% 3.8%

Average investment size £ million 23.7 22.6 25.3

Sectors

by number of

invested assets 8 8 8

Sub-sectors 29 30 26

Jurisdictions 10 10 12

Private debt

percentage of

invested assets 90.8% 96.9% 98.1%

Senior debt 59.9% 58.6% 57.2%

Floating rate 40.6% 42.1% 58.4%

Construction risk

12.5% 7.4% 14.2%

Weighted average maturity years 3.6 4.4 4.1

Weighted average life years 3.4 3.9 3.5

Yield-to-maturity

9.9% 10.0% 11.9%

Modified duration

1.9 2.2 1.5

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures (“APMs”)

2. Relates to the portfolio of investments held in the Subsidiaries

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

Credit performance

Over the past financial year, the credit performance of

the entire portfolio has remained resilient. Given that

the portfolio is made up of high-yield debt instruments,

it is to be expected that a small fraction of investments

might face some credit issues over their lifetime. The

Fund’s annual loss rate is 0.58%, a marginal increase

from the previous year’s 0.53%, due to additional

write-downs of non-performing loans. This compares

well to broader credit (non-financial corporate debt)

with a similar credit rating, where the historical annual

loss rates are typically a multiple of this level.

Lenders are, in general, obligated to maintain

confidentiality towards the companies they lend to.

Therefore, the Company’s policy is not to publicly

discuss underperforming loans, except when the

borrower has entered a public insolvency process

(such as administration in the UK or Chapter 11

intheUS).

Publicly discussing an underperforming business

could potentially worsen its problems, for instance, by

making it more difficult to retain employees or secure

new contracts.

The Fund continues to work towards maximising

recovery from the NPLs in the portfolio (equal to

1.0% of NAV, down from 5.4% at the end of the prior

financial year). Updates are as follows:

US educational facility

A loan that is collateralised by a landmark US

educational building was adversely impacted by

government cuts which reduced the likelihood of

finding new tenants. In March 2025, the Department of

Government Efficiency (“DOGE”), under the leadership

of Elon Musk within the Trump administration,

announced plans to reduce the U.S. Department of

Education’s workforce by approximately 50%, affecting

around 2,200 employees and significantly reducing

funding to theprovision of education in Washington

DC (which is federally funded since it is not in

anystate).

Thisdevelopment has had a material adverse

impact on leasing negotiations with prospective

tenants, which are predominantly educational

entities, resulting in a delay to the anticipated

lease-up timeline, and as a result, the mark of the

loan has been reduced. The carrying value of the

loan currently equals 0.4% ofNAV.

Non‑disclosed loan

SEQI has also commenced legal proceedings on

an asset equal to 0.6% of NAV which is now being

classed as non-performing. The loan is backed by

arecently revalued asset and is marked in line with

aconservative estimate of a recovery backed by

that asset. The Company is unable to disclose the

loan’s identity for commercial reasons.

Resolution of previous NPLs

During the year, the Fund received £17 million on its

loan to Bulb Energy; we no longer include it in our

NPLs since we expect to make a full recovery on it,

including capitalised interest.

The Fund sold in full its loan backed by a property

in Glasgow. The Fund retains some “earn out”

potential on the loan based upon its future value and

various performance metrics.

The Fund also received the final residual payment

on the Salt Lake loan that was sold in the previous

financial year. This is now fully exited.

23 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Project Spinnaker

In 2021, SEQI lent

Spinnaker £58 million of

senior secured debt, which

is one of our investments

in the digitalisation sector.

Spinnaker is an “alt-net”

provider, delivering

high-speed, affordable

internet connectivity across

the South of England.

Theloan was fully repaid

in 2023.

£58m

Invested

2021

Secondary market origination

While the primary market remains the Fund’s core

focus, selected investments are also sourced

from banks and other lenders through the

secondary market. This approach enables the

rapid deployment of capital, providing an efficient

complement to the often more expensive and

longer execution timelines associated with primary

infrastructure transactions.

Secondary market acquisitions also contribute to

portfolio liquidity, enhancing flexibility when greater

liquidity is required. In many cases, these assets

benefit from improved credit profiles over time,

asinfrastructure loans tend to exhibit credit quality

enhancement post-origination — making them an

attractive addition to the Fund’s portfolio.

Sequoia Investment Management

Company Limited

Investment Adviser

24 June 2025

Investment Adviser’s report continued

Balance sheet management

In line with its objectives, the Fund has reduced

its cash balance from £99.4 million (including

£91.9million held in the Subsidiaries) as at

31March2024 to £34.9 million (including

£27.3million held in the Subsidiaries) as at

31March2025, while also drawing £56.9 million

on its previously undrawn £300 million RCF.

While maintaining liquidity provides flexibility, it

also carries a high opportunity cost. As such, the

Investment Adviser continues to actively originate

new transactions, supported by a dynamic pipeline

exceeding £200 million in potential opportunities.

Given the current portfolio composition, the Fund is

focused on generating new investments in sectors

where increased exposure is desirable, notably

renewables, power and digitalisation, as part of its

ongoing strategy to enhance diversification.

Alongside this selective deployment into new

infrastructure loans, the Company remains

committed to its active share buyback programme.

The strong cash-generative nature of infrastructure

debt supports this dual-track approach, enabling

SEQI to pursue buybacks while continuing to deliver

on its long-term investment objectives.

Origination activities

SEQI’s investment strategy targets opportunities

across both the primary and secondary debt

markets, each offering distinct advantages.

Primary market investments allow the Fund to earn

upfront lending fees and structure transactions to

meet specific risk and return criteria. In contrast,

secondary market acquisitions facilitate the efficient

deployment of capital into seasoned assets with

established performance histories.

Primary market origination

The Fund maintains a strong focus on the primary

loan market, which continues to offer compelling

investment opportunities. The Investment Adviser

actively originates bilateral transactions and

participates in “club” deals involving a small group

of aligned lenders. The Fund has also taken part

in selectively syndicated infrastructure loans where

appropriate.

Primary market investments remain attractive due

to their favourable economics, providing access

to upfront lending fees and greater flexibility in

structuring terms. As the Fund has grown, its

primary market activity has expanded accordingly

and now accounts for the majority of the portfolio,

representing 82.4% as at 31 March 2025.

24 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Energy security

and resilience

Investment Adviser’s report continued

SEQI recognises that while the shift to a lower-

carbon future is essential, recent geopolitical events

have reinforced the need for secure and reliable

power. As renewable sources like wind and solar

are intermittent, there is a vital need for dispatchable

generation and infrastructure to ensure grid stability

and resilience.

The Fund has long supported energy security assets

that complement renewables – such as nuclear,

gas-fired power, floating liquefied natural gas

(“FLNG”) facilities, and interconnectors. These play

akey role in meeting demand when renewables fall

short. This year’s case study highlights investments

across SEQI’s current portfolio and the past decade,

showcasing a commitment to infrastructure that

balances environmental and societal needs.

Nuclear power is a key part of this energy mix,

offering a stable, low-carbon source of baseload

electricity. SEQI’s investment in Westinghouse

Electric Company supports innovation in nuclear

technology, while its long-standing involvement in

Exeltium, a French power purchase agreement,

helps scale nuclear generation. In line with the

EU’s reclassification of certain nuclear activities

as sustainable, SEQI has upgraded its E score,

acomponent of ESG analysis, for the sub-sector.

Natural gas is also critical during the energy

transition, especially as older coal and nuclear

plants are phased out. SEQI provided a €45 million

HoldCo loan to Project Camden – a portfolio of

efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (“CCGT”)

plants in the Netherlands, which successfully repaid

a couple of years ago. Similarly, a USD40million

commitment to Project Mesquite in Texas supported

the recapitalisation of two CCGT plants totalling

849MW capacity. These plants operate in the

ERCOT market, which lacks a formal capacity

mechanism, and play a vital role in balancing supply

amid growing industrial demand and renewable

penetration. Strong lender protections and hedging

programmes help mitigate risk while maintaining

environmental compliance.

Peaker plants, which provide rapid power during

demand spikes, also form part of the Company’s

energy security strategy. A USD40 million loan to

Generation Bridge supported a mix of baseload

and peaking assets in New York and New England,

helping ensure regional grid stability.

Beyond land-based assets, SEQI has invested

in FLNG infrastructure. A recent example is a

USD20million participation in a USD250 million

HoldCo facility backing a specialist FLNG provider.

These vessels, secured as collateral, offer

advantages such as faster deployment, lower costs,

and mobility. Operating under long-term tolling

contracts, they generate stable revenue and can be

redeployed to different gas fields over their 20-30

year lifespan.

While not entirely emissions-free, many of these

types of assets are cleaner and more efficient

than legacy alternatives. Crucially, they support

a just transition by ensuring consistent, equitable

access to power – an essential foundation for both

environmental progress and societal resilience.

17 projects

in the portfolio support

energysecurity

>12,500MW

total capacity of power that can

be generated by portfolio assets

10%

of new capital deployed

this year went into power

generation

SEQI’s goals and activities relate to the following SDGs:

25 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability

Key highlights from the year

X First time reporting emissions metrics covering the whole portfolio

and climate scenario analysis

X Increase in the portfolio’s weighted average ESG score from 59.61

in 2020 to 64.70

∆

in 2025

X Fifth year of independent limited assurance, which now covers

SEQI’s three sustainability goals

X Joint‑record 93% responses from portfolio companies to our

annual borrower sustainability questionnaire

X Eight projects in the portfolio now have sustainability‑related

covenants in the loan documents

X SEQI hosted an inaugural ESG Investor Breakfast event for

investors to engage and learn from each other about key

ESGareas

X Published a comprehensive, stand‑alone Governance Policy

covering the Company and our assessment of good governance

at borrowers

X The Company and its Investment Adviser offset their operational

greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions

X The Investment Adviser’s Sustainability Manager won the

2024 award for ESG Rising Star by IJ Global and was ‘Highly

Commended’ in the Sustainable & ESG Investment Woman of the

Year, small and medium firms category by Investment Week

X The Investment Adviser became a member of the UK Sustainable

Investment and Finance Association (“UKSIF”) and joined the PRI’s

Initiative Climat International (“iCl”)

The Company’s Sustainability Policy and other publications, including the Company’s full 2025 Sustainability Report,

areavailable here: www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/.

These documents offer further detail on the Company’s sustainability principles, screening and scoring, integration into the

investment process, regulatory reporting and the various engagement strategies we deploy.

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

26 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

In a year of macro and geopolitical changes altering

the global backdrop, major regulatory developments

and uncertainties and some backlash against the

ESG agenda, it’s important for SEQI to restate

its position on ESG considerations. SEQI is a

company that considers sustainability factors and

integrates these considerations into its investment

process because this analysis is a key part of fully

and properly assessing risk and long-term credit

performance. Climate risk, resource efficiency, labour

practices, governance and other sustainability issues

directly impact an asset’s performance. Our approach

is pragmatic and grounded in principles of being

responsible investors and stewards of assets. While

not an impact fund, we recognise that infrastructure

can be a critical enabler in the global transition to a

more sustainable future. SEQI seeks to deliver its

investment mandate in a way which is consistent with

the goal of building future-proofed economies. Many

of the projects we finance – whether in renewable

energy, transport, digital infrastructure or essential

services – feature on the roadmap to achieving

net zero and broader sustainability goals. Under

our investment mandate, although our assets are

generally held for less than five years, we do take a

longer-term view on the role each infrastructure asset

plays in this changing world, and we consider the

contribution we can make through engagement with

borrowers.

We are pleased to report below on updates from

the year. We have benefited from the advice of

SIMCo, the Company’s Investment Adviser (“IA”),

and our Independent Consultant, Andrea Finegan,

with oversight by the Board’s ESG and Stakeholder

Engagement Committee.

The Company considers the sustainability of its

own operations and at investment level. This year,

in response to market feedback and in pursuit of

continued improvement and enhanced reporting,

the Company developed a stand-alone Governance

Policy providing a detailed and transparent account

of our governance structures, policies and practices.

This policy also describes how we assess good

governance at the Company’s borrowers. Rigorous

assessment of sustainability factors at portfolio

companies represents the most meaningful way that

the Company can apply its sustainability principles.

Central to this process is the IA’s proprietary ESG

scoring methodology, which undergoes continual

review. During the period, the definitions of the

sub-sectors were refined to ensure precision and

clarity in their application. This year marks the fifth

consecutive year that the ESG scores for the portfolio

have been externally verified through independent

assurance, underscoring the Company’s commitment

to credibility and reliable reporting.

We now have eight projects in the portfolio that have

sustainability-related covenants in their loan terms,

marking another year-on-year increase. This year,

again, 93% of portfolio companies responded to the

questionnaire on an almost entirely voluntary basis.

The responses help us to better monitor, assess

and progress our engagement with our borrowers.

This market-leading response rate is a testament

to the strong relationship our IA has built up with

the management teams at the companies we help

finance.

On a related note, we are incredibly proud of our

Investment Adviser’s dedicated Sustainability

Manager, Leah Dean, who this year won the award

for ESG Rising Star by IJGlobal. She was also

recognised with the Highly Commended accolade

in the Sustainable & ESG Investment Woman of

the Year category for small and medium firms by

Investment Week.

Notably, Leah has had a real impact through

innovative engagement strategies and outreach

work with our portfolio companies. This contributed

significantly to the increase in the average ESG score

for the portfolio this year.

SEQI reports as an Article 8 fund under SFDR.

During the forthcoming year, we will continue to

closely follow the implementation of the ISSB’s

IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, which

our progress in emissions data and scenario

analysis serves as helpful preparation for, as more

jurisdictions formally adopt and implement the

standards. Similarly, we will continue monitoring the

FCA’s Sustainable Disclosure Regime (“SDR") as

consultations continue regarding its application to

overseas funds like SEQI. And lastly, cognisant of

investor sentiment and industry attention increasingly

turning focus to nature and biodiversity, we are keen

to explore how SEQI can best start to assess and

report how it and its investments impact and depend

on natural assets and a biodiverse environment.

More detail on the Company’s sustainability policy

and reporting can be found here: www.seqi.fund/

sustainability/.

2023

Project Sienna

In 2023, SEQI provided

£56million of senior

secured debt to Project

Sienna, the UK’s largest

biomass fuel supplier,

delivering over 1.6 million

tonnes annually. The

financing supported

logistics and processing

infrastructure essential

to renewable baseload

power generation. The loan

continues to perform as

expected, with long-term

contracts underpinning

stable cash flows.

1.6m

Tonnes of biomass

annually

£56m

Invested

Climate mission

This year is a milestone in our climate reporting,

having successfully progressed our data

collection and borrower engagement over the

last few years. Having now onboarded the

Altitude by AXA Climate platform to help reduce

data challenges and gaps, we are very pleased

to be able to, for the first time, report emissions

metrics covering the whole portfolio made up

of reported and estimated emissions, as well

as climate scenario analysis for the portfolio.

Thedetails, including the explanation of the

apparent year-on-year increase, can be found

inthe Company’s TCFD Report.

27 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

Emissions

Company emissions

tCO

Year ended

31 March 2025

Scope 1 nil

Scope 2 nil

Scope 3 (operational) 44

Year ended 31 March 2024 Year ended 31 March 2025

Portfolio emissions

Total absolute

tCO

Reported

coverage

Total absolute

tCO

(reported)

Reported

coverage

Total absolute

tCO

(estimated)

Estimated

data

Total absolute

tCO

e (estimated

& reported)

Scope 1 5,930,417 66% 7,441,400 67% 858,141 33% 8,299,541

Scope 2 364,102 58% 309,177 61% 52,316 39% 361,493

Scope 3 437,562 39% 727,409 43% 2,349,946 57% 3,077,355

SEQI Year ended 31 March 2025

Financed

emissions

(tCO

Carbon to

investment

(tCO

e/£m)

Weighted Average

Carbon Intensity

(“WACI”)

(tCO

e/£m revenue)

Total 1,377,745 882

2,505

(94% coverage)

1. The emissions figures have been collated from the data provided by the portfolio companies with limited independent verification. The reported coverage rate is the percentage of the portfolio that has provided emissions information and is

measuredby outstanding amount as at 31 March 2025. Where the information has not been provided, the estimated data rates have been calculated with the assistance of the Altitude by AXA Climate tool.

28 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

Our sustainability goals

The Fund has three sustainability goals:

1. comply with negative screening criteria;

2. progress thematic investing (positive screening); and

3. over time, increase portfolio weighted average ESG score.

As at 31 March 2025, the three KPIs relating to the Fund’s sustainability goals have been independently

assured by KPMG. The reporting criteria and KPMG’s limited assurance opinion are available in the

sustainability publications section of our website: www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/.

TheInvestment Adviser’s full approach to negative screening, thematic investing and their proprietary

scoringmethodology is also published online in detail there.

1. Comply with negative screeningcriteria 2. Progress thematic investing (positive screening)

Progress report

The negative screening criteria exclude the following

sub-sectors or asset types:

› upstream infrastructure related to the exploration

and production of oil and gas, such as oil rigs and

platforms, fracking facilities

and facilities involved

in tar sands;

› thermal coal mining and directly related

infrastructure, for example a dedicated thermal

coal transportation asset such as a railroad or

wagons;

› power generation from coal and any asset using

thermal coal, but not coking coal; and

› permanent military infrastructure for active

operational forces or for military production.

During the year, 100%

∆

of projects were

compliant with the Fund’s negative

screeningcriteria.

KPMG have issued an independent limited

assurance report over this metric.

During the year, the Fund did not finance any

“transition projects” that, whilst initially may not

meet the negative screening criteria, have a plan in

place to move to a more sustainable and compliant

business model. There are also no projects of this

nature currently held in the portfolio.

In addition to these negative screens, the Fund’s

investment criteria restrict investment to certain

types of infrastructure. This means many harmful

or controversial asset types are already excluded

de facto as they are not forms of infrastructure

and therefore were also not invested in during the

year, for example: alcohol production; tobacco

production; gambling operations; pornography

production and adult entertainment activities;

and controversial and conventional weapons

manufacturing.

The Fund has identified three investment themes

that it believes play an important role for the

environment and society:

› renewable energy, such as solar, wind and

geothermal generation, and directly related

businesses including companies that supply

renewable energy;

› enabling the transition to a lower-carbon world,

such as grid stabilisation, electric vehicles, traffic

congestion reduction and the substitution of coal

by gas; and

› infrastructure with social benefits, which provides

for basic human needs (such as clean water

and food security) or brings a positive change

by addressing social challenges and inequalities

(such as healthcare, education and affordable

housing) or advancing society as a whole (such

asprogressing telecommunications).

Positive screening is employed to view these

types of assets more favourably in the investment

process and, where possible, increase the Fund’s

exposure to these themes, subject to existing

concentrationlimits.

As at 31 March 2025, thematic investing covers

71%

∆

of the Fund’s investment portfolio.

KPMG have issued an independent limited

assurance report over this metric.

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

29 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

Progress report continued

Below is the breakdown across each theme as well

as some current investment examples:

Renewable energy

10%

› US residential roof solar panel businesses

› Spanish solar PV power portfolios

› Power generation from methane captured from

existing UK landfill sites with a growing solar

business

Infrastructure with social benefits

31%

› Specialist UK healthcare provider

› Emergency medical vehicles and healthcare

transportation in Spain

› Provider of diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy

services in Germany

› Student housing in jurisdictions across the

Netherlands

› Essential and emergency water handling solutions

› Telecom towers and broadband services

connecting up residents and businesses from

rural areas

Enabling the transition to a

lower-carbonworld

30%

› Supply of biomass fuel from waste wood and

by-products

› US flexible generation peaker plants and baseload

gas plants that enable grids to transition to

renewables

› Utility and energy efficiency solution providers,

such as sub-metering in Germany and building

upgrades in the Netherlands

› Long-term power contracts in France to enable

nuclear capacity

› Grid enhancement assets that reduce waste

energy

› Specialist shipping of floating liquid natural gas

› Efficient transportation projects in road and rail

that reduce congestion

2. Progress thematic investing (positive screening) continued

Thematic investments (% of SEQI’s investment portfolio)

Total thematic

investments

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

59%

61%

72%

70%

71%

17%

13% 13%

12%

10%

23%

24%

30%

34%

30%

19%

24%

28%

24%

31%

Renewable energy Enabling the transition

to a lower-carbon world

Infrastructure with

social benefits

This year, the Fund invested in four different infrastructure projects that have social benefits, which

constituted 66% of capital deployed during the year. Also during the year, new loans were made to four

companies that enable the transition to a lower-carbon world, which made up 19% of the capital deployed

to new acquisitions.

30 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

Progress report continued

Each investment in the portfolio is assessed and

assigned an ESG score, which is largely determined

by the environmental impacts associated with the

sub-sector in which the asset sits. The score can

then be positively or negatively modified based on the

project’s current environmental, social and governance

performance, taking into consideration the direction

of travel where relevant. The ESG score ranges from

0 to 100 where, say, a renewable energy project with

best-in-class social and governance practices would

receive a score of 100, and a power plant that burns

thermal coal with insufficient social or governance

policies would receive a score of 0 (although it should

be noted that a coal-fired power plant would be

excluded under the Fund’s negative screening criteria).

The ESG score integrates a single methodology

which is applied across all sectors and sub-sectors,

project stages (notably with no differentiation

between construction and operational projects) and

investment stages. This is to allow for comparison

between assets of the portfolio over different time

periods. Thisapproach however does mean that

certain relevant factors will not be reflected in the

scoring results, such as the variation in materiality

and applicability of modifiers across different sectors

or material differences in environmental impact and

trajectory that a project may have when it is being

constructed compared to a full operational project.

It is also therefore important to recognise that while the

high-level goal is and has been to increase the average

portfolio ESG score, this will necessarily be balanced

against the Company’s investment mandate to ensure

sufficient diversification across a range of sectors

and sub-sectors as well as project and investment

stage. Diversification is key to the Company’s strategy

in achieving surplus returns for its investors, which

remains a priority objective for the Company.

The framework is kept under continual review. Given

that the methodology does not serve as an exhaustive

list for every possible sub-sector within infrastructure,

this year new sub-sectors were added as the Fund

looked at opportunities and extended loans to

new areas that it had not considered previously.

Theexisting sub-sector definitions were also more

clearly delineated, with a view to ensuring high levels of

consistency and standardisation across credit analysts

and functions across all of the different teams that

are involved in working on the Fund’s investments.

It should be noted that as part of this exercise, the

reclassification of the sub-sector of one project had a

consequential impact on its ESG score.

Portfolio ESG score

2020

2021 2022 20242023 2025

64.70

59.61

60.59

61.88

62.29

62.77

The portfolio’s weighted average ESG score increased to 64.70

∆

as at 31 March 2025.

KPMG have issued an independent limited assurance report over this metric.

Note, as part of a review of the methodology during the course of the prior year, the sub-sector score for

nuclear increased and the modifier for water and waste management plans was split out into two. To ensure

complete comparability, the overall portfolio ESG score for 2025 would have been 64.35 if reversing out

these methodological changes.

3. Over time, increase portfolio weightedaverage ESG score

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

31 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

Progress report continued

The chart below represents a comparison of the portfolio’s sustainability profile between 31 March 2024

and31March 2025:

ESG score histogram (%)

ESG score change

0 to 36

0 0

2 2

4 4

44 to 52 60 to 68 76 to 84 92 to 10036 to 44 52 to 60 68 to 76 84 to 92

2024 2025

2024 Acquisitions Disposals Portfolio weightESG score 2025

(0.78)

(0.07)

62.77

1.74

64.70

1.03

The different factors driving the change in the weighted average score from 62.77 the previous year to this

year’s score of 64.70 are summarised in the waterfall chart below:

Acquisitions: The effect of new investments

› During the year, the Fund acquired over

£300million worth of new investments in a

number of different projects. The weighted

average ESG score of these new acquisitions was

69.90, signalling positive progress in this respect

and meaning it was the biggest contributor to the

increase in the average ESG score over the year.

The Fund also refinanced loans to two of its high

ESG-scoring borrowers with strong environmental

credentials: Project Octopus, a leading UK

multi-utility services company, and Brightline,

asustainable high-speed passenger train in the

US that is expanding its rail route.

Disposals: The effect of removing the

maturing and sold positions from the portfolio

› Since March 2024, assets totalling £210 million

repaid or were removed from the portfolio. These

had a weighted average ESG score of 66.91.

Most disposals had an ESG score that sat at

around the portfolio average, so their overall

contribution did not have a noticeable effect on

the portfolio average. The successful repayments

of an energy efficiency project scoring 73.125 and

the refinancing of Project Octopus and Brightline

resulted in a 0.78 decrease in the weighted

average ESG score of the portfolio for the year.

ESG score: The effect of changes in ESG score

› Changes in the ESG scores of borrowers

contributed 1.03 points to the average score

for the year. The net positive effect on ESG

scores came from improvements in borrower

behaviour and the provision of additional evidence

that allowed the application of credit through

the modifiers, which ties into our ongoing

engagement work with borrowers. Uplifts to the

ESG score were realised across 14 borrowers.

Portfolio weight: The effect of changes in

the weights of the loans on the portfolio

› There was a resultant 0.07 negative impact

that came from the increased weighting of

low-ESG-scoring loans and reduced weight of

high-ESG-scoring loans. These decisions are not

made solely by reference to specific ESG factors

but are assessed in the context of our ongoing

overall portfolio management which balances

many factors, such as geographic exposure,

sectoral diversification and liquidity requirements.

Further, fluctuations in portfolio weights come

from repayment schedules and timing, which

cannot always be controlled and isan inherent

part of the business.

3. Over time, increase portfolio weightedaverage ESG score continued

32 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

Engagement with borrowers

Sustainability-related covenants

The Fund now has eight projects in the portfolio that have sustainability-related covenants in their loan

terms, marking another year-on-year increase. The new addition this year was Project Crystal, a medical

diagnostics business based in Germany. The borrower has also committed to completing the IA’s annual

sustainability questionnaire. In collaboration with other lenders on the deal pre-signing, there was agreement

to adopt the SEQI questionnaire as the standard sustainability due diligence questionnaire (“DDQ”) that

would be completed by the borrower and distributed to all lenders. This speaks to the comprehensive and

considered nature of the questionnaire that our Investment Adviser has designed and continues to enhance.

Year (as at year ended 31 March): 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Number of projects with sustainability-related

covenants in loan agreement: 2 3 3 6 7 8

The number of projects in the portfolio with sustainability-related covenants included within their loan

agreements has been increasing over the years, and to the extent possible, this is a trend we seek to

continue to pursue going forward.

Annual borrower sustainability questionnaire

The Investment Adviser distributes a comprehensive sustainability questionnaire to all borrowers annually

to facilitate with an assessment of their sustainability progress and to measure quantitative metrics.

Theborrowers’ responses to the sustainability questionnaire better enable us to assess each asset

according to our ESG scoring methodology. The framework requires a high bar of evidence before

adjustments can be made to the ESG score in either direction. Details of how points are awarded or

deducted are provided in the reporting criteria at www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/. This year

ahandful of targeted, carefully designed questions were added (such as the impact of the EU’s Carbon

Border Adjustment Mechanism (“CBAM”)) to ensure the questionnaire remains relevant but also as

streamlined as possible to appropriately balance the reporting burden on borrowers. Here we highlight a

fewof the sustainability KPIs we use to monitor the portfolio’s performance:

1. Coverage = the percentage of the portfolio that has provided information on the relevant metric and is measured by NAV

as at the year end

2. Results = out of the companies for which we have information, the percentage that has the relevant metric in place

(e.g.awhistleblowing policy). Again, this is measured by NAV as at year end. For example, we have information on 99%

of the SEQI portfolio on whether the companies do or do not produce sustainability reporting. Out of these companies,

67% do currently produce sustainability reports This data was collected and reported by the IA, SIMCo

General

Social

Sample metrics from the borrower questionnaire

Environmental

Governance

Produce sustainability reporting

Average proportion of female employees

Have undergone full environmental due diligence

Have a whistleblowing policy

33 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Coverage

Result

99%

62%

100%

97%

67%

29%

48%

84%

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Sustainability continued

Engagement with borrowers continued

Sustainability-related covenants continued

Annual borrower sustainability questionnaire continued

This year, we again achieved a 93% response rate, indicative of the strong relationship the Investment

Adviser has built up with our borrowers, especially given the form is completed on an almost entirely

voluntary basis. The responses vary in completeness due to the inapplicability of some questions to certain

sectors and the unavailability of select datapoints, such as SFDR PAI metrics, for some smaller companies.

We continue to work in partnership with our borrowers to expand the comprehensiveness of responses.

Further, the questionnaire is not distributed to certain non-performing loans due to their distressed nature,

which was relevant for two borrowers this year.

Year (as at year ended 31 March): 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Borrower response rate to sustainability questionnaire: 51% 43% 92% 93% 93%

Direct engagement with management

We initiate and maintain a dialogue with the management teams of our portfolio companies to discuss

relevant sustainability issues and areas featured in the portfolio companies’ action plan, led by the

Investment Adviser’s Sustainability Manager, Leah Dean. An example is the case of a European port

infrastructure company that enables the transportation of essential goods around the world. As well as

completing the IA’s sustainability questionnaire, the borrower shared with us a third-party sustainability

due diligence report, which provided thorough insight into the quality, health and safety and environmental

practices at the company. The borrower also provided numerous examples of waste management plans

they have in place for their projects, terminals and company-level procedures. The business produces

best-in-class reporting in their extensive annual sustainability reports, including disclosing Scope 1, 2 and 3

emissions, with peers publishing little to no public sustainability information. The freight-forwarding company

has successfully been implementing initiatives that have helped to reduce their emissions and make their

operations more sustainable. For instance, this year they switched to using renewable energy and alternative

fuels, which was a great contributor to the progress made towards their commitment to a 40% reduction in

carbon emissions by 2030, which they are on track to achieve.

Atlas Air

Between 2023 and

2024, SEQI invested

USD27 million in senior

secured debt to Atlas Air,

a leading global provider

of outsourced air cargo

services. The company

operates a large fleet of

wide-body aircraft and is a

key enabler of global supply

chains. Notably, Atlas Air is

the world’s largest operator

of Boeing 747 freighters.

USD27m

Invested

2023

34 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Stakeholders

Stakeholders, business relationships and

socially responsible investment

Whilst directly applicable to companies incorporated

in the UK, the Board recognises the intention of the

Association of Investment Companies (“AIC”) Code

that matters set out in section 172 of the Companies

Act 2006 are reported. The Board strives to

understand the views of the Company’s key

stakeholders and to take these into consideration as

part of its discussions and decision-making process.

As an investment company, the Company does not

have any employees and conducts its core activities

through third-party service providers. Each provider

has an established track record and is required

to have in place suitable policies and procedures

to ensure it maintains high standards of business

conduct, treats customers fairly and employs

corporate governance best practice.

Whilst the primary duty of the Directors is owed to

the Company as a whole, all Board discussions

involve careful consideration of the longer-term

consequences of any decisions and their

implications for all key stakeholders. Particular

consideration is given to the continued alignment

of interests between the activities of the Company

and those that contribute to delivering the Board’s

strategy, which include the Investment Manager, the

Investment Adviser, the Administrator, recipients of

the Company’s capital and providers of long-term

debt finance. In addition, the Board has an ESG and

Stakeholder Engagement Committee, which reviews

the effectiveness of the Company’s mechanisms for

stakeholder engagement.

The Board’s commitment to maintaining high

standards of corporate governance; its policy for

active Shareholder engagement, combined with the

Directors’ duties enshrined in Company law; the

constitutional documents; the Disclosure Guidance

and Transparency Rules; and the Market Abuse

Regulation, ensure that Shareholders are provided

with frequent and comprehensive information

concerning the Company and its activities.

Sustainability factors are considered when assessing

recipients of the Fund's capital. For instance,

theFund has previously requested information

on suppliers' sustainability policies and offsetting

initiatives. The interests of borrowers, sponsors

and relevant intermediaries involved in the credit

process are also discussed during scheduled Board

meetings and in detail during the Board’s portfolio

review sessions.

The relationship with the providers of the

Company’s RCF is managed by the Company’s

service providers. Regular updates are provided

on developments concerning the Fund, including

any public announcements, in addition to monthly

reporting of compliance with portfolio covenants.

The Board respects and welcomes the views of

all stakeholders. Any queries or areas of concern

regarding the Fund’s operations can be raised with

the Administrator.

Section 172 statement

Although the Company is not domiciled in the UK,

through adopting and reporting against the best

practice principles set out in the AIC Code, the

Company is voluntarily meeting obligations under

the UK Corporate Governance Code, including

section 172 of the Companies Act 2006.

The Directors recognise their individual and

collective duty to act in good faith and in a way

that is most likely to promote the success of the

Company for the benefit of its members as a whole,

whilst also having regard, amongst other matters,

to the Company's key stakeholders and the likely

consequences of any decisions taken during the

year, as set out below:

Long‑term decisions

The Board takes into consideration the likely

long-term consequences to all stakeholders as part

of its routine decision-making process. TheBoard,

supported by the Company’s key service providers

routinely engaging with the Company’s key

stakeholders, monitors the outcome of decisions,

and feedback is considered as part of the Board’s

standing meeting schedule, as part of the annual

strategy day, or as otherwise necessary.

The interests of the Company's employees

The Company has no direct employees and

maintains close working relationships with the

employees of the Investment Adviser, Investment

Manager and the Administrator who undertake

the Company's main functions. Refer to the report

of the Management Engagement Committee on

page50 for further information.

The impact of the Company’s operations on

the community and the environment

The Company recognises that the biggest impact

it has on the community and the environment is

through its investing activities. As such, sustainability

considerations are integrated into its investing,

monitoring and management processes, including

assessments of a credit’s contribution to climate

change and engagement with local communities.

Refer to the sustainability report on pages 26 to 34

for further information.

The need to foster the Company’s business

relationships with suppliers and others

The Board maintains close working relationships

with all key suppliers and those responsible for

delivering the Company’s strategy. Thecontractual

relationship with each supplier and their

performance is formally reviewed each year. Refer

to the report of the Management Engagement

Committee on page 50 for further information.

In addition, even though the Company has no

premises or employees, it has estimated the

quantum of carbon emissions caused by its

Directors, consultants and personnel employed

byits Investment Adviser and smaller service

providers in the fulfilment of their respective roles

relating to management, direction and governance

of the Company. It strives to offset its emissions

from operations through its purchase of appropriate

offsetting measures. For further details please

refer to the Sustainability Report published on

ourwebsite.

The desirability of the Company maintaining

a reputation for high standards of business

conduct

The Chair is responsible for setting expectations

concerning the Company’s culture and the Board

ensures that its core values of integrity and

accountability are demonstrated in all areas of the

Company’s operation.

For further information on Board values and culture,

please refer to page 47 of the corporate governance

statement.

The need to act fairly between Shareholders

of the Company

The Board, in conjunction with the Investment

Adviser and Brokers, engages actively with

Shareholders to understand their views and to

ensure their interests are taken into consideration

when determining the Company’s strategic direction.

35 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Stakeholders continued

Shareholders

Why engage?

As the principal source of capital, Shareholder

capital is deployed by the Company in pursuit of

its investment objective which, in turn, generates

income for the Company which is used primarily

to benefit Shareholders through the payment of

dividends.

The Board recognises the importance of active

Shareholder engagement to ensure there exists a

continued alignment of interests with the objectives

of the Company and those of Shareholders, and to

inform the Board’s future decision making.

How the Company engages

The Board, alongside the Investment Adviser and

the Brokers, maintains an ongoing programme of

investor engagement which includes investor and

analyst presentations, regular announcements on

material developments affecting the Company, and

offers to meet with key institutional Shareholders.

Feedback from these and other relevant channels

of communication forms part of the Board’s

decision-making process when determining the

future strategy of the Company and taking decisions

which may impact Shareholders.

Shareholders are invited to attend and vote at

all general meetings where significant decisions

affecting the Company are taken; in particular the

AGM, where Shareholders may discuss the activities

of the Company, its governance and strategy, and

raise any issues or concerns directly with the Board.

Routine updates are also provided to Shareholders

through the provision of monthly investment update

factsheets and net asset value reports, annual and

half-yearly financial statements and regulatory news

announcements.

All of which, in addition to other relevant information

concerning the Company, are made available on the

Company’s website.

The Chair, the Senior Independent Director

(“SID”) and individual Directors are willing to meet

Shareholders to discuss any particular items of

concern or to understand their views on governance

and the performance of the Company. General

queries can also be submitted to the Board via the

Administrator at the Company’s registered office.

Capital markets day

During the year, the Company held an online capital

markets seminar, featuring two guest speakers and

the Investment Adviser’s wider team, with Q&A

sessions following each discussion. The aim of the

event was to provide investors with an insight into

international infrastructure and credit investment

themes and an update on the positioning of the

Fund against the market backdrop.

ESG roundtable

Along with its ongoing communication with

investorsand other stakeholders, the Company

hosted an inaugural ESG Investor Breakfast

event in September 2024. At this roundtable,

ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee

members, members of the IA and Shareholders in

the Fund gathered to discuss keycomponents of

sustainability grouped into threeareas.

Steve Cook, Head of Portfolio Management at the

IA, gave an overview of the history and direction

of SEQI’s approach to integrating sustainability

within the investment process, before opening up

the floor to discussion of ESG trade-offs as well as

views on an exclusions-based approach and the

nuances around certain sectors. Leah Dean, the

IA’s Sustainability Manager, then led a discussion

on responding to the fast-moving regulatory

and reporting landscape. Andrea Finegan, the

Board’s Independent Consultant on sustainability,

posed questions on the future direction of ESG.

Margaret Stephens, as then Chair of the ESG and

Stakeholder Engagement Committee, was also in

attendance and found it of great value to engage

directly with many of our sustainability-minded

investors and other stakeholders.

Share buyback programme

Since July 2022, and in response to the

macro-economic headwinds faced by alternative

income investment funds from rising interest

rates, acting under appropriate advice the Board

has exercised the authority granted annually by

Shareholders for the Company to acquire its

own shares in the market. Whilst the programme

operates as a mechanism for addressing any

imbalance in the demand and supply of Ordinary

Shares in the market, it also underlines the Board’s

confidence in the net asset value of the Company

and provides an element of value accretion to

existing Shareholders.

During the year, the Board has resolved to continue

the buyback programme in light of the continuing

share price discount, as it believes this has been a

key contributor to the Company’s discount being

consistently one of the narrowest in the sector over

the preceding 18 months. For further details of the

buyback programme please refer to the ‘Share

performance’ section of the Investment Adviser’s

report and the share buybacks section of the

Directors’ report.

Dividend reinvestment scheme

With effect from the Company’s Q3 2023 dividend

paid in November 2023, the Board introduced the

option for Shareholders to invest their dividend in

adividend reinvestment plan (“DRIP”). Participation

in the DRIP is optional and does not affect

Shareholders’ cash dividends unless they elect

to participate; however, as purchases under the

DRIP are not subject to stamp duty reserve tax,

the DRIP provides Shareholders with a cost-

effective means of increasing their shareholding in

the Company over time whilst also benefiting from

compoundingreturns.

36 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Stakeholders continued

Suppliers Lenders Society

Why engage?

The Company’s suppliers include third-party service

providers engaged to provide the core investment

advisory, management and administrative tasks.

Each of these providers is essential in ensuring

the ongoing operational performance of the

Company. The Company relies on the performance

of thirdparty service providers to undertake all of

itsmain activities.

How the Company engages

The Board maintains close working relationships

with all of its key suppliers and regularly engages

onmatters relevant to the Company’s activities.

Acting through the Management Engagement

Committee, the Board oversees and monitors the

performance and contractual relationships with

each supplier. A detailed annual assessment is

undertaken of each supplier to ensure they continue

to perform their duties to a high standard and that

their terms of engagement remain appropriate.

This process informs the Board’s decision making

with regard to the continuing appointment of key

suppliers.

The Management Engagement Committee met

twice during the year, in December 2024 and March

2025, and reviewed the performance and continued

engagement of all key suppliers. A further qualitative

assessment was undertaken in respect of the

Investment Adviser and with reference to various

assessment criteria recommended by the AIC.

Referto the report of the Management Engagement

Committee on page 50 for further information.

Why engage?

The Company’s lender, J.P. Morgan (“JPM”),

provides a revolving credit facility (“RCF”) which

is used for efficient deployment into credit

opportunities and to mitigate the impact on

performance of cash drag.

How the Company engages

The Company’s relationship with JPM is managed

by the Investment Adviser and is overseen by the

Investment Manager. The Investment Adviser is

responsible for notifying JPM of relevant business

developments and for preparing compliance

certificates on a monthly basis which confirm the

Company’s adherence to debt covenants.

The Company’s funding requirements are reviewed

at least quarterly, which includes consideration of

amounts drawn on the RCF and the Investment

Adviser’s business development pipeline. These

factors form part of the Board’s decision-making

process concerning the operation of the RCF and

the Company’s capital management strategy.

Why engage?

The Fund’s investing activities contribute to the

societies in which its borrowers operate through

providing funding for crucial services and facilities,

for example healthcare providers. The Fund applies

its sustainability approach during the due diligence

stage prior to any new investment as well as

part of its monitoring process. This encapsulates

considerations around the borrower’s impact on the

local society, which can play a role in ensuring the

Fund’s own long-term success.

How the Company engages

Economic infrastructure is infrastructure that

promotes economic activity, including transport,

transportation equipment, utilities, power, renewable

energy, accommodation and telecommunications

infrastructure.

The Fund has a long history of investing in

infrastructure with social benefits and views

these type of assets favourably in the investment

process; these include assets that provide for

basic human needs (such as clean water and food

security) or bring a positive change by addressing

social challenges and inequalities (such as

healthcare, education and affordable housing) or

advancing society as a whole (such as progressing

telecommunications). The Investment Adviser may

also engage more broadly with borrowers and

those responsible for managing the project on their

relationship with local populations.

Borrowers

Why engage?

Engagement with borrowers and gaining an

understanding of their needs is fundamental to

ensuring an appropriate lending structure is put in

place that accurately reflects the risks associated

with the borrower’s operations. Through ongoing

monitoring, the Investment Adviser provides updates

to the Board on any changes in their circumstances

and this also informs decision making on matters of

portfolio risk.

How the Company engages

The Investment Adviser monitors the performance

of borrowers on an ongoing basis and routine

reporting to the Risk Committee measures borrower

performance against a combination of generic

and borrower-specific key performance indicators.

Thisregular interaction with borrowers is supported

by all ongoing credit monitoring and updates and

Investment Committee reviews being provided to

the AIFM.

All borrowers are screened and their eligibility

is assessed against the Fund’s sustainability

framework which is designed to encourage

sustainability and mitigate or limit negative impacts

from corporate activity on the environment and the

communities in which they operate. Borrowers are

sent annual sustainability questionnaires to facilitate

with an assessment of their sustainability progress

and measure quantitativemetrics.

A detailed monitoring review report is prepared

for every asset at least every six months and

more frequently if required depending on risk

characteristics or material developments. TheBoard

and all key advisers annually undertake a detailed

review of all positions in the portfolio, with a

separate session dedicated to certain focus or

underperforming loans based on their risk profile.

37 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Principal and emerging risks and uncertainties

The Risk Committee is responsible for reviewing

the Company’s overall risks and monitoring the

risk control activity designed to mitigate these

risks. The Risk Committee has carried out a robust

assessment of the principal and emerging risks

facing the Company, including those that would

threaten the Company’s business model, future

performance, reputation, solvency or liquidity.

Further details of the Risk Committee, its duties and

activities undertaken during the year can be found in

the report of the Risk Committee on page 57.

As the Company is an externally managed non-EU

AIF for the purposes of the Alternative Investment

Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”), the Directors

have appointed FundRock Management Company

(Guernsey) Limited (“FRMCG” or the “Investment

Manager”) as AIFM to the Company to provide risk

management services compliant with AIFMD and

to prepare the relevant disclosures to be made to

investors and regulators. On 30 January 2015, the

Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) confirmed that

the Company was eligible to be marketed via the

FCA’s National Private Placement Regime and the

Company has complied with Articles 22 and 23 of

the AIFMD for the year ended 31 March 2025.

Under the instruction of the Risk Committee,

FRMCG is responsible for the implementation of

a risk management policy and for ensuring that

appropriate risk mitigation processes are in place:

for monitoring risk exposure; preparing quarterly

risk reports to the Risk Committee; and otherwise

reporting on an ad hoc basis to the Board as

necessary.

Kate Thurman (until her retirement on 4March2025)

and Andrea Finegan, Independent Consultants to

the Company, provide guidance to the Board on

the overall approach to risk management across

the Fund’s portfolio. Part of their focus has been to

assist the Investment Manager in scrutinising certain

of the Investment Adviser’s credit evaluations.

Risk classification and review process

The Company maintains a risk register that maps

all the identified risks that can potentially impact

the Company’s performance. This risk register also

maintains a list of risks that have the potential to

threaten the business in the future but are not yet

entirely clear in terms of their nature or impact.

These risks are referred to as emerging risks.

All key risks are rated by four factors: likelihood

of occurrence, potential impact, pre-mitigation

risk and post-mitigation risk. Key risks scoring

high combinations of likelihood of occurrence and

probability of impact are identified as potential

principal risks. An additional screen removes from

the list risks that have been rated as having a very

low level of risk post-mitigation. The resulting list

of principal risks is highlighted below along with

major mitigants. Also included are ‘direction of

travel’ arrows and text indicating why risk levels are

believed to have changed over the past 12 months.

The Company’s risk register is a live document

and is updated annually or as required by the Risk

Committee with new key and emerging risks added

and existing key risks re-rated based on current

circumstances.

Geopolitical

risk

Macro strategy

risk

Jurisdictional risk

Unexpected and significant political, economic or

social events that can impact the performance of the

Fund’s portfolio.

Mitigation

› Investment is restricted to countries in Western Europe,

USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, limiting the

possibility of surprising and unfavourable changes arising

that could adversely affect asset quality.

› Portfolio diversification requirements limit potential

exposure to individual jurisdictions.

Evolution

› Mitigation actions did not contemplate the US being a

significant potential source of geopolitical risk.

› The surprising nature of the current US administration’s

new economic policies and its approach to

implementation has damaged confidence in the

predictability of US decision making and significantly

increased perceived levels of risk across all markets.

› The simultaneous imposition by the US of tariffs on all

countries worldwide has limited the benefits derived

fromgeographic diversification.

Infrastructure debt availability

Not having access to a wide enough range of suitable

investment opportunities to support the investment

strategy’s required level of portfolio diversification and

targeted return.

Mitigation

› The Investment Adviser has extensive experience and

a strong track record in sourcing infrastructure loans

andbonds.

› The Fund’s ongoing need for assets is only a small

percentage of the overall infrastructure debt market.

› The wide range of eligible jurisdictions sectors and risk

profiles maximises the universe of potential targets.

Evolution

› The sharp rise in political and macro-economic uncertainty

may limit the supply of infrastructure-backed debt by

reducing investors’ willingness to commit equity to new

projects or suppressing M&A activity.

› The Trump administration’s focus on traditional

carbon-based energy could reduce the number of new

US-based opportunities in the alternative energy sector.

› On the positive side, if sustained, credit spread

wideninglinked to recent US economic policy changes

should make it easier to source investments that meet

risk/return targets.

Principal risks

38 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Principal and emerging risks and uncertainties continued

Macro strategy

risk

Investment strategy

execution risk

Investment strategy

execution risk

Capital markets

risk

Competing investments

A significant increase in returns available from other

investment options (typically due to an increase in

interest rates) or a decrease in the attractiveness of

investment companies backed by alternative asset

classes may make the Company’s shares lookrelatively

unattractive.

Mitigation

› The Company’s attractiveness is monitored relative

to its peers and other investment opportunities on an

ongoingbasis.

› In higher interest rate environments, the Company’s

interest income is likely to increase, which may allow the

Company to either increase its dividend or enjoy NAV

growth. In falling rate environments, a proactive duration

management programme can use duration management

tools to help preserve income levels.

› A history of strong performance, active investor

engagement and support for Shareholders, in the form

for example of buyback programmes, can help position

the Company positively relative to other investment

companies.

Evolution

› Heightened uncertainty brought on by unexpected

US economic policies may trigger a rotation out of

investment companies into investment classes viewed

as safer and more liquid. Infrastructure debt’s historical

outperformance would help to mitigate this trend.

› Another year of discounts to NAV for investment

companies backed by alternative assets has not helped

to improve the market’s perception of the sector.

› SEQI, however, continued to outperform

alternatives-backed investment company peers on

adiscount to NAV basis.

Investment allocation

Poor allocation decisions between different jurisdictions

and sectors can negatively impact the Company’s

performance.

Failure to consider the relative attractiveness of

share buybacks versus new investments may lead

tosub‑optimal returns.

Mitigation

› Portfolio diversification requirements provide a first layer

of protection against sub-optimal allocation decisions

between different jurisdictions and sectors.

› Within the diversification framework, the Company’s

Investment Adviser uses its experience to help avoid

investing in sectors susceptible to underperformance.

› Portfolio and sector performance is reviewed regularly

at Board meetings. Future direction is debated and

modified if required.

› Weighing returns available from share buybacks vs

new investments is included as part of the investment

process. Potential costs associated with any shrinkage

of the portfolio are taken into consideration (e.g. reduced

diversification).

Evolution

› New trade policies and increased macro-economic

volatility will widen the range of operating performances

across different sectors, heightening the importance of

asset allocation decisions.

› The widening of the share discount to NAV over the past

12 months has increased the significance of the buyback

vs investment decision.

Loan underwriting process

Use of inaccurate or fraudulent data, over‑optimistic

projections or poor decision making during the

underwriting process can lead to higher‑than‑expected

default rates and credit losses.

Mitigation

› Due diligence and underwriting are performed by an

experienced team of credit analysts with a strong

trackrecord.

› Reputable third-party experts are hired if needed to vet

borrowers’ assumptions and projections, or to provide

specialist input (e.g. engineering reports).

› All loans require approval from the Investment Adviser’s

Head of Risk and Investment Committee, and the AIFM.

On high-risk loans, the AIFM solicits and considers the

views of the Risk Committee prior to providing a final

decision.

Evolution

› The risk remains unchanged as the Investment Adviser

will incorporate current economic realities including

greater uncertainty and volatility into the existing robust

underwriting and structuring processes.

Targeted dividend

Setting the dividend target too low can make the

Company’s shares look unattractive. Setting it too high

can increase the risk of the Company’s dividend cash

coverage falling below 1x.

Mitigation

› The dividend target set by the Company is only a

target; however, extensive modelling is undertaken

to understand the quantum and volatility of cash flow

available in future periods so that it can be set at a

level the Board believes can be met under normal

circumstances.

› The dividend is set as favourably as possible versus

competing investment products while ensuring the

availability of a reasonable cushion to protect against

dips in performance.

Evolution

› Cash coverage decreased over the course of the

year due to cash drag from uninvested funds and

slower-than-expected receipt of PIK interest (1.00x

in2025 vs 1.06x in 2024).

› The decision taken later in the year to use part of the

RCF to ensure full investment is expected to increase

cash income available going forward.

› If interest rates fall, cash income from floating rate assets

will drop, however interest rate swaps used to manage

the portfolio’s duration will help to mitigate the impact.

› Increased macro-economic and trade-related uncertainty

may hurt some borrowers’ operating performance

and make meeting scheduled interest payments more

challenging.

Principal risks continued

39 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Principal and emerging risks and uncertainties continued

Capital markets

risk

Macro-economic

risk

Share price discount to NAV

Trading at a discount to NAV for a sustained period

canlimit the ability of the Company to raise new

capital, lead to investor dissatisfaction and trigger

corporate actions that may not be in the best interests

of all Shareholders.

Mitigation

› The Company is highly focused on its share price

discount to NAV and actively seeks out views on the

issue from Shareholders and other market participants.

› The Company has taken steps to broaden distribution

by hiring Kepler to increase demand from retail and

smaller wealth management accounts, and J.P. Morgan

Cazenove as joint Broker to complement the services

offered by Jefferies and help execute marketing and

investor engagement strategy.

› While the Company is under no obligation to buy back

shares, in the past it has done so to signal support for

the investment strategy, help absorb excess supply in

the market and, depending on the size of the discount,

provide investors with attractive returns.

Evolution

› Share discounts on investment companies backed by

alternative asset classes have continued to grow over

the past year and recent general market turmoil has not

helped the situation.

› Activist Shareholders are starting to focus on investment

companies and have acted in specific cases.

› On a relative basis, SEQI continues to outperform its

peers on a share discount to NAV basis.

Macro-economic factors

Movements in macro‑economic factors including

interest rates, FX, commodity prices and inflation

can impact the pricing and credit quality of individual

infrastructure investments as well as the Company’s

other assets and liabilities including hedges, swaps

andborrowings.

Mitigation

› The Company considers the potential impact of significant

movements in macro-economic factors on the credit of

its borrowers during the underwriting process and builds

protections into loan structures.

› Counterparty credit exposure to macro-economic

factors is mitigated at the portfolio level by diversification

constraints and concentration limits.

› The cap on leverage and relatively short duration of

the portfolio limits NAV movements due to interest

ratechanges.

› FX hedges protect the Company from pricing movements

linked to assets denominated in non-Sterling currencies.

› Derivative contracts are structured to minimise the

potential impact of margin calls linked to interest rate and

FX movements as witnessed in the recent sell-off in the

US Dollar.

Evolution

› The volatility of all macro-economic factors increased

significantly at year end due to the unexpected and

disruptive nature of the current US administration’s

new economic policies and a tentative challenge to the

independence of the Federal Reserve.

Principal risks continued

Capital markets

risk

Capital markets

risk

Inability to raise new capital

Not being able to access capital to grow the Company

diminishes its market relevance and reduces its ability to

generate incremental returns linked to making new loans.

Performance can be further impacted if share buybacks

lead to lower portfolio diversification and higher

costratios.

Mitigation

› The Company looks to carefully balance the use of its

available cash, including proceeds from loan repayments,

between new originations and share buybacks,

recognising that portfolio shrinkage comes at a cost.

› New investments are selected and structured to mitigate

the impact of any potential reduction in portfolio size.

› Most costs are variable which largely protects the

Company from portfolio shrinkage. However, service

provider performance is monitored closely as reduced

absolute fees may lead to operational challenges.

Evolution

› Investment companies, including SEQI, continue to be

locked out of the capital markets as discounts remained

in place throughout the year.

Non-credit related NAV volatility

Assets in the portfolio are valued monthly, as debt

products, movements in interest rates, foreign

exchange (“FX”) and credit spreads can lead to a

significant change in NAV unrelated to the actual

creditperformance of the underlying assets.

Mitigation

› Portfolio duration is kept low to avoid significant swings

in NAV due to interest rate movements. The Fund targets

a minimum 40% holding of floating rate assets (including

interest rate swaps), and the maturities of fixed-rate loans

and bonds are kept relatively short.

› NAV volatility due to movements in benchmark

credit spreads is mitigated by limiting the portfolio’s

spreadduration.

› Volatility due to FX rates is minimal due to the Company’s

extensive hedging programme.

› Note: Changes in value due to interest rate and generic

credit spread movements are reversed as the assets

approach maturity (pull-to-par).

Evolution

› Volatility in rates, FX and benchmark credit spreads

increased significantly at year end in response to

the surprising nature of the new US administration’s

economic policies.

› Any loss of confidence in the stability of the US Dollar

or the Treasury market may further increase the risk of

significant movements in rates and FX going forward.

40 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Principal and emerging risks and uncertainties continued

Counterparty

credit risk

Service provider

risk

Liquidity

risk

Borrower counterparty credit

Credit‑based borrower underperformance on individual

assets can lead to a loss of capital and income, a

drop in NAV and reputational damage due to negative

headlines.

Mitigation

› The Investment Adviser has extensive experience

underwriting and managing infrastructure debt.

› A detailed credit review and underwriting process

requiring multiple levels of approval is in place with

additional input provided from the Board on higher-risk

loans.

› All assets are monitored semi-annually by the Investment

Adviser, AIFM and Board. Loans having credit issues or

of particular interest are placed under an enhanced level

of surveillance.

› While tariffs are still a moving target, the portfolio has

been reviewed to identify credits that are the most likely

to be negatively impacted by recent events.

Evolution

› Depending on final details, several borrowers in the

portfolio could be negatively affected by the US

administration’s new tariff policy.

› Supply chain issues linked directly to tariffs and big

moves in macro-economic factors may create operating

challenges for some borrowers.

› Second order tariff-related consequences such as drops

in demand driven by consumer boycotts and falls in

cross border travel may negatively impact others.

› At a minimum, higher costs will need to be paid by all

borrowers and other market participants to manage

increased market uncertainty.

Investment Adviser key-man/team

The departure from the Investment Adviser of a

single key person or small group of individuals could

negatively impact the Company’s prospects.

Mitigation

› Key-man and succession risk at the Investment

Adviser is discussed regularly in annual meetings and

reviews with the Chairman, Management Engagement

Committee and Audit Committee.

› The Investment Adviser continues to develop its human

resources and has a talent pool capable of assuming,

ifnecessary, the roles currently held by the Partners and

Chief Risk Officer.

› Key team members are managed proactively and are

provided with a Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) and an

equity retention plan.

Evolution

› Another year of experience for key team members

below the partner level has helped to reduce the risk of

disruption caused by senior level departures.

› An up-tick in origination activity and a new senior

employee equity retention plan have helped to keep the

team focused and motivated.

Liquidity

Insufficient liquidity available to pay contractual

obligations when due, or to fund non‑binding but

expected corporate actions (e.g., dividend payments,

share buybacks) is a risk.

Mitigation

› Liquidity is monitored by the Company on an ongoing

basis with cash flow and dividend cover projections

presented and discussed at quarterly Board meetings.

› Cash flow modelling looks at stressed scenarios to

estimate the amount of liquidity needed at any point to

satisfy demand.

› Headroom under the RCF and a minimum percentage

of liquid assets are maintained to supplement balance

sheet cash.

› The relatively short-dated debt portfolio is highly cash

generative as most of the assets pay cash interest and

typically a certain number are repaid within any given

three-month period.

Evolution

› The ability to predict sources of cash income has

decreased somewhat due to the more volatile and

potentially challenging period that we have entered into

forsome borrowers.

› The increased use of the RCF has reduced one of the

Company’s sources of liquidity. By design, headroom

will be maintained under the facility and other sources of

funds, such as cash deposits and liquid assets, remain

in place.

Principal risks continued Key risks

Along with the principal risks discussed above,

the Company is highly focused on several other

groups of key risks in the risk register. In general,

these risks have very low probabilities of occurrence

and therefore do not make the principal risk list.

However, many of them do score very highly

on potential impact and consequently receive

significantattention.

41 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Principal and emerging risks and uncertainties continued

The Company is constantly alert to the possibility of

emerging risks. Once the Company identifies a new

risk, it will assess the likelihood and impact of that

risk and will discuss and agree appropriate strategies

to mitigate and/or manage it. Emerging risks are

listed in the Company’s risk register and managed

through discussion of their likelihood and impact at

Risk Committee meetings, Board meetings and Board

strategy days as appropriate. Should an emerging

risk be determined to have any potential impact on

the Company, appropriate mitigating measures and

controls are agreed. Earlier in the year, the rumoured

new US tariff policy was added to the risk register

as an emerging risk. Now that some of the specifics

of the policy are known, the risk has been moved to

the register under the geopolitical risk section and

portfolio screening and monitoring actions have been

undertaken by the Investment Adviser.

Recently, the independence of the Federal Reserve

and the Big Beautiful Bill are items that have been

added to our emerging risks list, along with multiple

geopolitical situations including the conflicts in Russia/

Ukraine, India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine, US/Iran

nuclear talks and US territorial interest in Greenland

and Panama.

In general, the current isolationist America First policy

is being monitored closely to identify any new risks

emerging from a potential reordering of global political

and economic alliances and the loss of US soft power.

Whilst the Company recognises climate risk as an

investment theme, it is also identified as a broad risk

covering transitional and physical risks, the impact

and timing of which is uncertain. On the regulation

front, proposals on ongoing costs disclosure rules,

sustainability-related disclosures and UK ISA eligibility

criteria are areas of focus.

A detailed review of the main financial risks faced by

the Company, and how they are managed or mitigated,

is set out in note 5 to the Financial Statements.

Key risk: Legal structure

Changes to laws, regulations and tax rules governing

the structure employed by the Company to carry on its

business could impact the viability of the investment

strategy by reducing the returns available and/or limiting

the ability of investors to hold shares. The Company’s

AIFM, Investment Adviser, Administrator, Brokers, legal

advisers and accountants in place in the UK, Guernsey

and Luxembourg screen the market continually to identify

potential changes to local tax and regulatory rules that

may have an impact on the Company. The Board reviews

the structure on an ongoing basis and regularly engages

a third-party adviser to formally confirm the continued

suitability of the organisational structure put in place by the

Company to carry out its business. This year, following a

Board-led review of our tax structure, the governance of our

Luxembourg Subsidiary was improved by the engagement

of a new Luxembourg-based independent director with a

strong background in accounting and risk management.

Key risk: Service providers

The Company has no employees and must therefore rely

on the performance of third-party service providers. Failure

to carry out their obligations to the Company in accordance

with the terms of their appointments or the failure of their

systems and processes could impact the Company’s

performance. Due diligence is undertaken before contracts

are entered into. Thereafter, service provider oversight is

conducted through ongoing interaction with the Management

Engagement and Audit Committees, who review control

reports provided by service providers throughout the year.

At year end, the Management Engagement Committee

reviews each service provider’s overall performance, including

a review of the contractual terms upon which the service

providers perform their services.

Key risk: Cyber, IT failure, money

laundering, fraud

The Board remains vigilant to the prevalence and trajectory

of risks associated with cyber attacks, IT failures, money

laundering and fraud that could lead to reputational damage,

legal liability or financial losses due to disruption of the

Company’s continued operations, including the loss or release

of commercial or personal data into the public domain.

Aspecialist provider supports the IT environment for the Board

and ensures that the environment is managed and monitored,

and threats are mitigated. Priorto the engagement of all

key service providers, the Board seeks assurance regarding

the adequacy of the processes and the controls in place to

mitigate the risks associated with their service delivery to the

Company. The Board monitors the effectiveness of the internal

control environment of key service providers through the

provision of periodic reporting and formally through an annual

review process.

Key risk: Board governance

Failure to promote the sustainable success of the Company,

ensure that necessary resources and controls are in place,

and maintain an effective engagement with Shareholders

and service providers, while ensuring that the Company’s

own policies, practices and behaviours are aligned with its

purpose, values and strategy can impact the performance of

the Company. In response to market feedback and in pursuit of

continued improvement and enhanced reporting, the Company

has developed a stand-alone governance policy providing

a detailed and transparent outline of governance structures

andpolicies.

Over the course of the year, one Board member departed

for personal reasons. For each Board vacancy a formal and

rigorous search is undertaken, with careful consideration

given to the appropriate balance of skills, knowledge,

experience, independence, time availability and diversity. This

enables the Directors to discharge their respective duties and

responsibilities to a high standard and to contribute positively

to overall Board effectiveness. Board performance continues to

be evaluated by an independent third party on a regular basis.

The last review occurred in 2023. Going forward, to meet

the increasing demands on time, due to mounting risk and

regulatory control responsibilities, a decision has been taken

toincrease the Board from five to six Directors.

Key risk: Sustainability risk

Shareholders, regulators and the market in general are

increasingly focused on sustainability-related issues. Failing

to meet and maintain the standards and objectives set

by the Board on sustainability-related matters, report and

disclose as required under increasing applicable regulations

and directives, and screen and monitor investments to avoid

adding undesirable assets can lead to reputational damage,

legal liability and loss of income. The Company established the

ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee to promote the

Company’s stated sustainability objectives, monitor progress

and verify that reporting and disclosure requirements are being

met. At the portfolio level, sustainability considerations have

been fully integrated into the Investment Adviser’s screening,

underwriting and portfolio management processes. Actions

include the implementation of an independently audited ESG

scoring methodology designed to help evaluate individual

assets and track portfolio sustainability performance over

time. As there is increased scrutiny on climate risk, this year

additional work has been undertaken on climate scenarios,

which is being reported on in the Sustainability Report for the

first time this year.

Key risks continued Emerging risks

42 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Governance

Board of Directors 44

The Sequoia Investment

Management Company team 45

Independent Consultant 45

Corporate governance 46

Report of the Management

Engagement Committee 50

Report of the Audit Committee 51

Report of the Remuneration

and Nomination Committee 54

Report of the ESG and Stakeholder

Engagement Committee 55

Report of the Risk Committee 57

Directors’ remuneration report 58

Directors’ report 60

Statement of Directors’ responsibilities 63

43 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Board of Directors

The Directors of the Company, all of whom are

non‑executive and independent, are as follows:

Key

A Audit Committee R Risk Committee

E ESG and Shareholder Engagement Committee N Remuneration and Nomination Committee

M Management Engagement Committee

Chair

James Stewart

Chair

Tim Drayson

Non-executive Director

Margaret Stephens

Non-executive Director

Paul Le Page

Non-executive Director

Selina Sagayam

Non-executive Director

E R A M ER A E NM M M N A R AN N

Over 30 years of leadership experience

in infrastructure across public and private

sectors.

Chair of KPMG Global Infrastructure; non-

executive member of KPMG LLP Board.

Chief Executive of Infrastructure UK and

Partnerships UK.

16 years in investment banking focused on

infrastructure lending, equity and advisory.

Currently Chair of Agilia Infrastructure Partners;

trustee of the Shaw Trust; chair and trustee of

Power for the People.

Over 30 years of experience in US and

European debt capital markets.

Global Head of Corporate Sales and Deputy

Head of European Corporate Loan and DCM

Platform at BNP Paribas.

Global Head of Securitization at BNP Paribas,

managing all origination and infrastructure

structuring teams.

Senior roles at Morgan Stanley as Head of

Securitized Products Syndication and at

PaineWebber trading mortgage products.

Member of BNP Paribas Fixed Income

Transaction Approval Committee.

Over 30 years of experience in M&A, tax

advisory and infrastructure investment.

Tax partner in financial services asset

management at KPMG; leadership roles in

Global Infrastructure and Investments Practice.

Founder and chair of KPMG’s Global

SovereignWealth, Pensions and Infrastructure

Funds Group.

Audit chair of the UK Government Nuclear

Liability Fund; trustee and director until

January2024.

Board roles at VH Global Sustainable Energy

Opportunities and AVI Japan Opportunity Trust.

Member of the Institute of Chartered

Accountants of Scotland.

Over 20 years of board-level experience in

investment funds.

Executive director and senior portfolio manager

at FRM Investment Management (Man Group).

Non-executive director of TwentyFour Income

Fund; interim chair of NextEnergy Solar Fund.

Audit chair of RTW Biotech Opportunities.

Former audit chair of Bluefield Solar, UK

Mortgages and other listed funds.

Chartered engineer with MBA from Heriot

WattUniversity.

Over 30 years of corporate finance legal

experience in M&A, capital markets and

governance.

Senior Counsel and Chair of ESG Practice

atGibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Secretary to the UK Panel on Takeovers

andMergers.

Expert in public M&A, corporate governance

and ESG.

Non-executive director of The Renewables

Infrastructure Group; chair of ESG Committee.

Former non-executive director of Hastings

Group and risk committee chair of Hastings

Insurance; vice chair of Refuge.

44 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Independent

Consultant

The Sequoia Investment

Management Company team

Sequoia Investment Management Company Limited (“Sequoia”) is an experienced investment adviser which has acted as

Investment Adviser to the Company from its inception. Sequoia’s management team and Investment Committee are as follows:

Randall Sandstrom

Director and CEO/CIO

Steve Cook

Director and Head

of Portfolio Management

Dolf Kohnhorst

Director and Co-Head

of Infrastructure Debt

Anurag Gupta

Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”)

Andrea Finegan

30 years of experience in the international and

domestic credit markets and infrastructure

debt markets.

Has managed global high yield and investment

grade bonds, leveraged loans, ABS and money

market securities.

Board of Directors, LCF Rothschild and MD of

Structured Finance. Former CEO/CIO, Eiger

Capital.

Head of Euro Credit Market Strategy, Morgan

Stanley. Institutional Investors “All-American”

senior Industrial Credit Analyst, CS First Boston

(energy and transportation). Has worked in

London, New York and Tokyo.

Over 20 years of infrastructure experience.

European Head of Whole Business

Securitisation and CMBS and Co-Head of

Infrastructure Finance at UBS.

Head of European Corporate Securitisation at

Morgan Stanley with lending and balance sheet

responsibility.

Wide variety of infrastructure projects in the UK

and across Europe as a lender, arranger and

adviser.

38 years of experience in investment banking,

debt capital markets and project finance

commercial lending.

Head of Société Générale’s Financial

Institutions Group covering UK, Irish,

Benelux and Scandinavian banks, insurance

companies, pension funds and investment

management companies.

16 years at Morgan Stanley heading Benelux

and Scandinavian sales teams and DCM

Structured Solutions Group.

Commercial lending to shipping, construction

and project finance sectors.

Over 20 years of experience in project finance,

infrastructure investment and appraisal, risk

management, M&A and financial advisory.

Extensive transactional experience across

infrastructure sectors such as transportation,

power and utilities, renewables, digitalisation

and social infrastructure.

Former KPMG in Canada Infrastructure

Advisory Partner and Global Sector Head of

Power within the KPMG Global Infrastructure

Practice; previous infrastructure industry roles

in both public and private sectors in multiple

geographies.

MBA (Tulane University, USA), Bachelors in

Mechanical Engineering (Engineering Council,

UK) and BSc (Calcutta University, India).

Over 20 years in infrastructure fund

management.

Non-executive director and chair of

Sustainability Committee at Pantheon

Infrastructure.

Independent chair of Schroders Greencoat

Valuation Committee.

Former COO at Greencoat; led establishment

of listed and unlisted infrastructure funds.

Previous senior roles at Climate Change

Capital and ING Infrastructure Funds.

Holds MBA in Strategic Carbon Management.

45 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Corporate governance

Compliance

The Board places a high degree of importance on

ensuring that high standards of corporate governance

are maintained and has considered andadopted

the principles and provisions of the 2019 AIC Code

of Corporate Governance (the “AIC Code”), which

can be found at https:// www.theaic.co.uk. The

Company has not early adopted the 2024 edition

of the AIC Code, which is effective for accounting

periods commencing on or after 1 January 2025.

The AIC Code addresses all the principles set out

in the UK Code of Corporate Governance (the “UK

Code”) in addition to setting out additional principles

and provisions on issues relevant to listed investment

funds. The Board considers that reporting against the

principles and provisions of the AIC Code will provide

the most appropriate information to Shareholders,

and during the year the Board has reviewed its

policies and procedures against the AICCode.

The Board has also taken note of the Finance

Sector Code of Corporate Governance issued by

the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the

“Guernsey Code”). The Guernsey Code provides

a governance framework for Guernsey Financial

Services Commission (“GFSC”) licensed entities,

authorised and registered collective investment

schemes. Companies reporting against the UK Code

or the AIC Code are deemed to satisfy the provisions

of the Guernsey Code.

For the year ended 31 March 2025, the Company

has complied with the provisions of the AIC Code

and the relevant provisions of the UK Code. Issues

that are not reported on in detail here are excluded

because they have been assessed as not being

applicable or relevant to the Company, being an

externally managed investment company.

In particular, all of the Company’s day-to-day

management and administrative functions are

outsourced to third parties, and as a result, the

Company has no executive directors, employees or

internal operations and therefore has not reported in

respect of provisions concerning the role of the chief

executive, the remuneration of executive directors,

or the internal audit function due to the controls

frameworks and assurance processes in place at

each of the Company’s key service

providers.

Composition of the Board and

independence of Directors

As at 31 March 2025, the Board of Directors

comprised five (2024: five) non-executive and

independent Directors as set out below. The

Company has no executive Directors or any

employees. The Chair and all Directors are

considered independent of the Investment Adviser,

the Investment Manager and the Administrator.

The Directors consider that there are no factors,

as set out in the AIC Code, which compromise the

Directors’ independence and that they all contribute

positively to Board effectiveness. The Board

reviews the independence of all Directors annually.

TheDirectors’ biographies are disclosed on page 44.

James Stewart is the Chair of the Board and served

as Chair of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee until 7 June 2024.

Tim Drayson is the Chair of the Risk Committee.

Margaret Stephens served as Chair of the ESG

and Stakeholder Engagement Committee with

effect from 7 June 2024 until 1 April 2025. She was

appointed Chair of the Audit Committee with effect

from 1 April 2025.

Paul Le Page was appointed to the Board

on 7June2024, and on that date was also

appointed as Chair of the Management

Engagement Committee and of the Remuneration

and Nomination Committee. With effect from

9 December 2024, he was appointed Senior

Independent Director (“SID”).

Selina Sagayam was appointed to the Board on

1April 2025, and on that date was also appointed

as Chair of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee.

An external executive search consultancy firm,

Sapphire Partners, was engaged in relation to the

appointment of Selina Sagayam. Sapphire Partners

has no other connection to the Company.

Sandra Platts served as the SID and Chair of the

Management Engagement Committee and the

Remuneration and Nomination Committee until her

retirement from the Board on 7 June 2024.

Fiona Le Poidevin served as Chair of the Audit

Committee until her retirement on 31 March 2025.

No Director has a service contract with the

Company. The terms of appointment for each

non-executive Director are set out in writing

between each individual and the Company. Copies

of the appointment letters are available for review by

Shareholders at the Company’s registered office.

As Chair, James Stewart is responsible for

leading the Board of Directors and for ensuring its

effectiveness in all aspects of its role. The specific

duties of the Chair include setting the Board’s

agenda, expectations concerning the Company’s

culture, ensuring the Board has in place effective

decision-making processes which are supported

by accurate and high-quality information, and

demonstrating ethical leadership and promoting the

highest standards of integrity, probity and corporate

governance throughout the Company. The Board’s

annual performance evaluation is led by the Chair,

with the support from the SID, and it will take

action as appropriate based on the results of that

evaluation.

The responsibilities of the SID include being available

to Shareholders as an additional point of contact

or to communicate any concerns to the Board,

and working closely with the Remuneration and

Nomination Committee to develop the Board’s

succession planning.

In accordance with the AIC Code, all Directors are

subject to re-election annually by Shareholders.

The Board has adopted a policy on tenure that it

considers appropriate for an investment company.

The Board does not consider length of service by

itself to be a factor impairing Director independence.

However, the Board’s tenure and succession

policy, applied to all non-executive Directors, seeks

to ensure that the Board remains well balanced

and that the skills, knowledge and experience of

the Board are refreshed at appropriate intervals.

Fouryears ago, the Board recognised that the

original four Directors were coming towards the end

of their terms and so implemented a transition plan.

Theretirement of Sandra Platts on 7 June 2024

marked the end of this transition plan.

The Board believes that all of the Directors have

adequate time and resources to fulfil their duties

to the Company and are not over-committed in

accordance with the published Glass-Lewis policy

on overboarding.

Board diversity

The Board supports the recommendations of the

Davies Report and notes the recommendations

of the Parker review into ethnic diversity and the

Hampton-Alexander review on gender balance in

FTSE leadership. The Board supports the widening

of its diversity, whilst ensuring the capabilities,

experience and background of each member

remain appropriate to the Company and continue

tocontribute to overall Board effectiveness.

As at 31 March 2025, the Board was 60% male

and 40% female. Following the retirement of Fiona

Le Poidevin, and the subsequent appointment on

1 April 2025 of Selina Sagayam, the Board remains

60% male and 40% female.

46 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Corporate governance continued

Board diversity continued

In compliance with Listing Rule 9.8.6 (“LR 9.8.6”), the Company provides information, set out in the tables

below, on its progress against the following targets on Board diversity:

› at least 40% of the Board is female;

› at least one senior position on the Board is held by a woman; and

› at least one individual on the Board is from a minority ethnic background.

Gender identity

Number of

Board members

% of

the Board

Number of senior

positions on the Board

Male 3 60 3

Female 2 40 2

Ethnic background

Number of

Board members

% of

the Board

Number of senior

positions on the Board

White British or other White

(including minority white groups) 5 100 5

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British — — —

Other ethnic group — — —

The Directors undertake, on an annual basis, an

assessment of the effectiveness of the Board,

particularly in relation to its oversight and monitoring

of the performance of the Investment Manager,

Investment Adviser and other key service providers.

The evaluations consider the balance of skills,

experience, independence and knowledge of the

Company. The Board also evaluates the effectiveness

of each of the Directors.

An externally facilitated Board effectiveness

review is undertaken every three years, in line

with the recommendations of the AIC Code and

in substitution to the Board’s internal evaluation

process. The last externally facilitated review was

undertaken during the 2023 financial year and the

findings were formally considered by the Board

in June 2023. The findings from the independent

performance evaluation concluded that the

Company maintained high standards of corporate

governance practice and, in the context of the

Company, the main principles of the AIC Code

continued to be applied effectively.

The Board remains cognisant of the need to

anticipate and respond to evolving challenges, and

therefore the governance framework in place by the

Company is subject to regular review to ensure it

remains appropriate in the context of the Company.

The next externally facilitated Board effectiveness

review will be carried out in relation to the financial

year ending 31 March 2026.

Following the changes during the year to the

composition of the Board and the various roles of

the Directors, a review will be undertaken within

thenext year.

Board values and culture

The Chair is responsible for setting the standards

and values expected of the Board, and the Board

operates with the Company’s core values of

integrity, transparency and accountability with an

aim of maintaining a reputation for high standards in

all areas of the Company’s activities.

TheBoard recognises the value and importance

to all stakeholders of organisations incorporating

effective environmental, social and governance

policies as part of its day-to-day operations; refer

to pages 35 to 37 for additional information. In

the furtherance of the Company’s sustainability

aspirations and the increased importance to

stakeholders of these matters, the Board operates

a dedicated committee with the delegated

responsibility for addressing relevant matters

of stakeholder engagement and guiding the

Company’s sustainability strategy. The report of the

ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee can

be found on pages 55 and 56.

Through designing an effective sustainability

policy which reflects the Board’s core values and

the alignment of this with the Fund’s business

operations, the Board seeks to promote a culture

of openness and constructive challenge amongst

those responsible for taking key decisions. The

findings from the most recent internal and external

performance evaluation endorsed the quality of

boardroom debate and high levels of collaboration

between all parties as key contributors to a

highly effective decision-making process. This is

underpinned by a robust corporate governance

framework which seeks to align the Company’s

purpose, values and strategy with the culture set

by the Board through active engagement with the

Company’s key service providers.

Directors’ remuneration

It is the responsibility of the Remuneration and

Nomination Committee to debate and make

recommendations to the Board in relation to the

Directors’ remuneration, having regard to the level

of fees payable to non-executive Directors in the

industry generally, the role that individual Directors fulfil

in respect of Board and Committee responsibilities

and the time committed to the Company’s affairs.

NoDirector who is a member of the Committee takes

part in decisions relating to their own remuneration.

As at 31 March 2025, none of the Board was from a

minority ethnic background; however, with effect from

the appointment of Selina Sagayam on 1April2025,

this target was met.

The data shown in the above tables reflect the

gender and ethnic background of the Board, and

were collected on the basis of self-reporting by

the individuals concerned. The questions asked

were “Which ethnicity category best describes your

background?” and “What is the gender in which you

wish to be categorised?”.

The Listing Rules specify the positions of CEO, CFO,

Chair and SID as being senior positions. The Board

notes that, as an externally-managed investment

company, with a Board comprised entirely of non-

executive Directors, it does not have the roles of

a chief executive officer or chief finance officer as

envisaged in LR 9.8.6, and therefore for the purpose

of the above targets, it considers the senior positions

on the Board to include the roles of Chair, SID and

Chair of any permanent Committee of the Board.

The Board has satisfied the requirements of LR

9.8.6 in respect of gender; however, following the

retirement of Sarika Patel from the Board on 2

August2023, and until the recruitment of Selina

Sagayam with effect from 1 April 2025, the Board did

not have at least one individual from a minority ethnic

background. In all its recruitments, the Board ensures

that it is presented with a diverse set of candidates,

from which it appoints the candidate best suited to

the role.

Directors’ performance evaluation

The Board has established a system for the

evaluation of its own performance and that of the

Company’s individual Directors, which is led by

the Chair and, as regards the Chair’s performance

evaluation, by the SID. It considers this to be

appropriate having regard to the non-executive role

of the Directors and the significant outsourcing of

services by the Fund to external providers.

47 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Corporate governance continued

Directors’ remuneration continued

The Directors periodically benchmark the remuneration

policy of the Company against comparable information

on listed investment companies, particularly those

operating in similar or adjacent market sectors,

in addition to giving due regard to the individual

circumstances of the Company which may warrant

a departure from industry norms. The last externally

facilitated remuneration review was commissioned by

the Renumeration and Nomination Committee in 2020,

subsequent to which internal remuneration reviews

have been conducted annually.

No Director has a service contract with the Company

and details of the Directors’ remuneration, and changes

thereto reflecting the increased time commitment

required of the Board, can be found in theDirectors’

remuneration report on pages 58 and 59.

Directors’ and officers’ liability insurance

The Company maintains insurance in respect of

directors’ and officers’ liability in relation to the

Directors’ actions on behalf of the Company.

Relations with Shareholders

The Board believes that the maintenance of good

relations and understanding the views of Shareholders

is important to the long-term sustainable success of

the Company, and since launch the Board has adopted

a policy of actively engaging with major Shareholders

through a variety of means. Further information on how

the Company engages with Shareholders can be found

in the stakeholders section on pages 35 to 37.

Directors’ meetings and attendance

The table below shows the Directors’ attendance at

Board and Committee meetings during the 2024/25

annual Board cycle.

Board responsibilities

The Board meets formally on a quarterly basis

to review the overall business activities of the

Company and any matters specifically reserved

for its consideration. Standing agenda items

considered at all quarterly Board meetings cover

portfolio performance, capital allocation and

deployment, sustainability matters, NAV and share

price performance, Shareholder return metrics,

reviewing changes to the risk environment including

the assessment of emerging risks, marketing and

investor relations, peer group information and industry

issues. Consideration is also given to administration

and corporate governance matters, legislative

developments and, where applicable, reports are

received from the Board’s formally constituted

committees.

The Directors also review the Fund’s activities

every quarter to ensure that the Fund adheres to

its investment policy. Additional ad hoc reports are

received as required and Directors have access at all

times to the advice and services of the Administrator,

who is responsible for ensuring that the Board

procedures are followed, and that applicable rules

and regulations are complied with. The Board has

adopted a schedule of matters specifically reserved

for its decision making and distinguishing these

from matters it has delegated tothe Company’s key

service providers.

The Board actively monitors the level of the share

price premium or discount to determine what action,

if any, is required. The Board continues to closely

monitor the rating of the Company’s shares.

The Board also meets at least once a year outside

formal Board meetings to discuss and review the

Company’s strategy. These meetings are also

normally attended by some of the Company’s

advisers.

Although no formal training is given to Directors

by the Company unless specifically requested, the

Directors are kept up to date on various matters such

as corporate governance issues through bulletins and

training materials provided from time to time bythe

Administrator, the AIC and professional firms. The

Directors are asked to comment on training as part of

the Board’s self-evaluation process and are responsible

for their own training, in respect of which they are

asked to provide logs of their continuing professional

development (“CPD”) to the Company annually.

Board Committees

Each of the Board’s formally constituted committees

operates within clearly defined terms of reference

which are considered and are then referred to

the Board for approval. A copy of each terms of

reference is available on the Company’s website

orupon request from the Administrator.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is responsible for ensuring

the accuracy of the Company’s financial reporting,

maintaining a relationship with the Auditor and

facilitating an assessment of their independence and

the effectiveness of the audit, and, in conjunction

with the Risk Committee, keeping under review the

adequacy of the effectiveness of the Company’s

internal financial controls and internal control and

risk management systems. Further details are set

out in the report of the Audit Committee on pages

51 to 53.

Risk Committee

The responsibility of the Risk Committee is to identify,

assess, monitor and, where possible, oversee the

management of risks to which the Fund’s investments

are exposed, principally to enable the Company to

achieve its target investment objective of regular,

sustained, long-term distributions over the planned life

of the Company, with regular reporting to the Board.

Further details are set out in the principal and emerging

risks and uncertainties section on pages 38 to 42.

Committee

Number of

meetings held

James

Stewart

Tim

Drayson

Margaret

Stephens

Paul

Le Page

Fiona

Le Poidevin

Sandra

Platts

Board – scheduled 4 4 (4) 4 (4) 4 (4) 4 (4) 3 (4) – (–)

Board – ad hoc 7 7 (7) 7 (7) 7 (7) 7 (7) 5 (7) 1 (1)

Audit 4 N/A 4 (4) 4 (4) 4 (4) 3 (4) – (–)

Risk 4 4 (4) 4 (4) N/A 4 (4) N/A N/A

Remuneration and Nomination 2 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (2) – (–)

Management Engagement 2 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (2) – (–)

ESG and Stakeholder

Engagement 3 3 (3) N/A 3 (3) N/A 2 (3) – (–)

The numbers in brackets indicate the number of meetings held during the tenure of the Director or their

membership of the specified committee. Paul Le Page joined the Board with effect from 7 June2024,

Sandra Platts retired with effect from 7 June 2024 and Fiona Le Poidevin retired with effect from

31March2025.

During the year Kate Thurman (until her retirement on 4 March 2025) and Andrea Finegan, the Company’s

Independent Consultants, attended a number of Risk Committee, Board and other meetings with the

Directors during the year.

48 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Corporate governance continued

Board Committees continued

Management Engagement Committee

The Management Engagement Committee is

responsible for the regular review of the terms of the

Investment Advisory and Investment Management

Agreements, along with the performance of the

Administrator, Investment Adviser and the Investment

Manager and the Fund’s other key service providers

to ensure a continued alignment of interest, and that

their engagement remains in the best interest of the

Company. Further details are set out in in the report of

the Management Engagement Committee on page 50.

Remuneration and Nomination Committee

The Remuneration and Nomination Committee is

responsible for reviewing the structure, size and

composition of the Board; maintaining the Board’s

succession plan; reviewing the leadership needs of the

organisation and identifying candidates for appointment

to the Board, including the need to continually review

the diversity of the Board; considering the remuneration

of the Directors; and determining the Company’s

remuneration policy. Further details are set out in the

report of the Remuneration and Nomination Committee

on page 54, and in the Directors’ remuneration report

on pages 58 and 59.

ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee

The ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee

is responsible for supporting the Board in monitoring

the effectiveness of the Company’s engagement

with key stakeholders and to set the Company’s

environmental, social and governance objectives and

to review the performance of the Company against

those objectives. Further details are set out in the

report of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee on pages 55 and 56.

Management arrangements

Investment Manager and Investment Adviser

The Directors are responsible for the determination

of the Fund’s investment policy and have overall

responsibility for the Company’s activities.

The Company has entered into an Investment

Management Agreement with the Investment

Manager with effect from 28 January 2015. Onthe

same date, the Investment Manager, withthe consent

of the Company, entered into an Investment Advisory

Agreement with the Investment Adviser to manage

the assets of the Fund in accordance with the

Fund’s investment policy. TheInvestment Adviser is

responsible for the day-to-day management of the

Fund’s portfolio and the provision of various other

management services tothe Fund.

The Directors consider that the interests of

Shareholders, as a whole, are best served by the

continued appointment of the Investment Manager

and the Investment Adviser to achieve the Fund’s

investment objectives.

Custody arrangements

The Fund’s assets are held in custody by The Bank

of New York Mellon (the “Custodian”) pursuant to a

Custody Agreement dated 27 February 2015.

The Fund’s assets are registered in the name of the

Custodian within a separate account designation

and may not be appropriated by the Custodian for

its own account.

The Board conducts an annual review of the

custody arrangements as part of its general internal

control review and is pleased to confirm that the

Fund’s custody arrangements continue to operate

satisfactorily. The Board also monitors the credit

rating of the Custodian, to ensure the financial

stability of the Custodian is being maintained

to acceptable levels. As at 31 March 2025, the

long-term credit rating of the Custodian as reported

by Standard and Poor’s is AA- (2024: AA-), which is

deemed to be an acceptable level.

Ongoing monthly calls are maintained between the

Custodian and the Administrator to discuss any

performance issues that may arise.

Administrator

Administration and Company Secretarial services

are provided to the Company by Apex Fund

and Corporate Services (Guernsey) Limited

(the

“Administrator”). The Administrator also assists the

Company with AIFMD, CRS and FATCA reporting.

A summary of the terms of appointment of the

Investment Manager, Investment Adviser, Custodian

and Administrator, including details of applicable

fees and notice of termination periods, is set out in

note 10 to the Financial Statements.

Internal control review and risk

managementsystem

The Board of Directors is responsible for putting in

place a system of internal controls relevant to the

Company and for reviewing the effectiveness of those

systems. The review of internal controls is an ongoing

process for identifying and evaluating the risks faced

by the Company, and which are designed to manage

risks rather than eliminate the risk of failure to achieve

the Company’s objectives.

It is the responsibility of the Board to undertake risk

assessment and review of the internal controls in

the context of the Company’s objectives that cover

business strategy, operational, compliance and

financial risks facing the Company. These internal

controls are implemented by the Company’s four

main service providers: the Investment Adviser, the

Investment Manager, the Administrator and the

Custodian. The Board receives periodic updates from

these main service providers at the quarterly Board

meetings of the Company. The Board is satisfied that

each service provider has effective systems in place

to control the risks associated with the services that

they are contracted to provide to the Company and

are therefore satisfied with the internal controls of

theCompany.

The Board of Directors considers the arrangements

for the provision of Investment Advisory, Investment

Management, Administration and Custody services

to the Company on an ongoing basis, and a formal

review is conducted annually. As part of this review,

the Board considered the quality of the personnel

assigned to handle the Company’s affairs, the

investment process and the results achieved to date.

The Board has noted the changes introduced by the

FRC to Provision 29 of their 2024 edition of the UK

Code, applicable to accounting periods beginning on

or after 1January2026, relating to the effectiveness

of material internal controls. It has taken steps during

the period towards enhancing its existing processes

for assessing internal controls in order to comply with

the revised Provision 29 no later than the effective

date and to provide the required declaration of

effectiveness of internal controls in the relevant annual

report. The Directors will keep this under review

in conjunction with the corresponding changes to

provision 34 of the AIC Code introduced by the AIC

in August2024, which are effective for accounting

periods commencing on or after 1 January 2026.

1. Effective 31 January 2025, Sanne Fund Services (Guernsey) Limited completed an amalgamation of corporate bodies pursuant to Part VI of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 with Apex Fund and Corporate Services (Guernsey) Limited (the

“Amalgamation”). As a result of the Amalgamation, the name of the Administrator changed to Apex Fund and Corporate Services (Guernsey) Limited. There are no further material changes arising from the Amalgamation and all pre-existing contractual

arrangements in place between the Company and the Administrator remain in force

49 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Chair and membership

The Management Engagement Committee was

chaired by Sandra Platts until her retirement from

the Board on 7 June 2024, and thereafter by Paul

Le Page, with James Stewart, Fiona Le Poidevin

(until her retirement with effect from 31 March 2025),

Margaret Stephens (with effect from 7 June 2024)

and Tim Drayson (with effect from 7 June 2024) as

Committee members. The Committee meets at least

once annually.

The Committee is responsible for the regular

review of the terms of the Investment Advisory and

Investment Management Agreements, along with

the performance of the Administrator, Investment

Adviser and the Investment Manager and the Fund’s

other key service providers. The membership of

the Committee and its terms of reference are kept

underreview.

Duties

Through the Committee, the Directors continually

monitor the performance and the continued

appointment of all key service providers and a

formal, detailed assessment of the performance

and the terms of engagement of the Company’s key

service providers is undertaken on at least an annual

basis to ensure each remains fair and reasonable

and that their continued engagement remains in the

best interests of the Company. This annual review

process includes two-way feedback, which provides

the Board with an opportunity to understand the

views, experiences and any significant issues

encountered by service providers during the year. In

addition, the Management Engagement Committee

is actively involved in reviewing the contractual

relationship with the Investment Adviser, scrutinising

their performance and ensuring the contractual

terms remain aligned with the objectives of the

Company and the interests of Shareholders.

This includes reviewing the overall basis of

remuneration for the Investment Adviser, particularly

to ensure it does not encourage excessive risk

taking, but rewards demonstrable superior

performance and continues to motivate and

incentivise the level of performance expected of

theInvestment Adviser.

The Directors recognise the importance of

maintaining strong and effective business

relationships with the Company’s operational

counterparties and that high-quality interaction

with these stakeholders is an important success

factor for delivering the Board’s strategy. Theannual

performance assessment conducted by the

Management Engagement Committee seeks to

ensure that:

› the terms of engagement remain fair and

reasonable and reflective of the services

performed in the context of the nature, scale and

complexity of the Company;

› strong congruence exists between the objectives

of the counterparty and those of the Company;

› they have not been the subject of any adverse

event which may present additional risk to the

Company;

› they remain appropriately incentivised to perform

their duties to a high standard; and

› their continued engagement remains in the best

interests of the Company as a whole.

Main activities during the year

During the year, the Committee undertook a thorough

and robust review of all service providers, which

included receiving formal presentations from the

Investment Adviser, the Investment Manager and

the Administrator at the Committee’s meeting in

March2025. The Committee has also considered the

level of the Investment Adviser’s fee, benchmarked

against the peer group and arranged a performance

review visit to the Subsidiary Administrator in

Luxembourg, which was undertaken in May 2025.

The Committee also worked with the Investment

Adviser to oversee a tender process for the

appointment of a second broker, with the intention

of expanding the international distribution of

the Company’s shares. The process led to the

appointment of J.P. Morgan Cazenove as a joint

corporate broker on 26 February 2025.

Investment Adviser

Overall, the Committee remains pleased with the

overall level of performance of the Investment

Adviser and the steps taken to remain resilient

to the market volatility and the macro-economic

headwinds faced by alternative income fund

managers in recent years. The Committee remains

confident in the strength of the investment pipeline,

and that the interests of the Investment Adviser

remain aligned with the Directors’ objective of

creating sustainable value for existing investors,

evidenced by the Investment Adviser’s commitment

to the share buyback programme. Currently, the

Board does not consider it necessary to obtain an

independent appraisal of the Investment Adviser’s

services, and the continued retention of the

Investment Adviser’s services is considered to be in

Shareholders’ best interests.

Service provider performance assessment

The results of the performance evaluations were

discussed and evaluated by the Committee.

Itwas determined that the overall performance

of the Company’s service providers had been of

an acceptable standard during the year, with no

material concerns or issues arising. The standard of

services provided by each of the suppliers had either

met or exceeded expectations, and the Committee

did not believe it necessary to recommend any

changes to the contractual terms of engagement

ofany provider.

Paul Le Page

Management Engagement Committee Chair

24 June 2025

Paul Le Page

Management Engagement

Committee Chair

Report of the Management Engagement Committee

Terms of reference of the Management

Engagement Committee can be

foundhere

50 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Chair and membership

The Audit Committee comprises Tim Drayson,

Margaret Stephens, Paul Le Page (from his

appointment as a Director on 7 June 2024) and

Selina Sagayam (from her appointment as a Director

on 1 April 2025). The Committee was chaired by

Fiona Le Poidevin until her retirement as a Director

on 31 March 2025, whereupon Margaret Stephens

was appointed as Chair. The Committee met four

times during the year. The Board considers that the

Audit Committee members have sufficient relevant

sector experience to enable the Committee to

discharge its duties effectively, and, in accordance

with the provisions of the AIC Code, at least one

member of the Committee has recent and relevant

financial experience.

All members of the Committee are independent

Directors; have no present links with Grant Thornton

Limited, the Company’s Independent Auditor (the

“Auditor” or “Grant Thornton”); and are independent

of the Investment Manager and Investment

Adviser. The membership of the Audit Committee

and its terms of reference are kept under review.

Therelevant qualifications and experience of each

member of the Audit Committee are detailed on

page 44 of these Financial Statements. TheAudit

Committee’s intention is to meet at least three times

a year and to meet with the Auditor as appropriate.

Duties

The Audit Committee’s main role and responsibility is

to provide advice to the Board on whether the Annual

Report and Audited Financial Statements, taken as

a whole, are fair, balanced and understandable and

provide the information necessary for Shareholders to

assess the Company’s performance, business model

and strategy.

The Audit Committee gives full consideration and

recommendation to the Board for the approval of

the contents of the Interim and Annual Financial

Statements of the Company, which includes

reviewing the Auditor’s report.

The other principal duties of the Committee are to

consider the appointment of the Auditor; to discuss

and agree with the Auditor the nature and scope of

the audit; to keep under review the scope, results

and effectiveness of the audit and the independence

and objectivity of the Auditor; and to review the

Auditor’s letter of engagement, planning report

for the financial period and management letter, as

applicable.

The Audit Committee is responsible for monitoring

the financial reporting process and the effectiveness

of the Company’s internal control and risk

management systems. The Audit Committee

also focuses particularly on compliance with legal

requirements, accounting standards and the relevant

Listing Rules and ensuring that an effective system

of internal financial control is maintained.

The Audit Committee also considers reports from

the independent valuation agent, PwC.

Financial reporting and audit

The Audit Committee has an active involvement

and oversight in the preparation of both the Interim

and Annual Financial Statements and in doing so is

responsible for the identification and monitoring of

the principal risks associated with the preparation

of the Financial Statements and other risks and

uncertainties identified by the Board. The principal

risk identified in the preparation of these Financial

Statements is the valuation of the Company’s

investments in Sequoia IDF Asset Holdings S.A.,

Yotta BidCo Limited and Gadwall Holding Limited,

its subsidiary companies (the “Subsidiaries”), which

hold all of the underlying investments.

The Company’s investment in the Subsidiaries had

a fair value of £1,479,215,419 as at 31 March 2025

(2024: £1,493,171,675), representing a substantial

proportion of the gross assets of the Company,

and as such is the biggest factor in relation to the

accuracy of the Financial Statements. PwC was

engaged to carry out an independent fair market

valuation review of the Subsidiaries’ investments on

a monthly basis. Draft pricing for the Subsidiaries’

investments is provided by the Investment Adviser

to PwC, who in turn produces a final valuation

report for review by the Investment Manager. The

responsibility for establishing the valuation of the

Subsidiaries’ investments rests with the Investment

Manager, subject to final approval by the Board.

This report is then submitted to TMF Luxembourg

S.A. (the “Sub-Administrator”) for inclusion in the

Subsidiaries’ NAV.

The Audit Committee actively engages with the

Investment Adviser and Investment Manager

on the methodologies and processes used

for valuing investments. It also meets with the

independent valuation agent, PwC, to discuss its

work on the valuations and broader considerations

impacting these. The Audit Committee has also

considered the Auditor’s approach to their audit

of the valuation of the Subsidiaries’ investments

and discussed with the Auditor their approach

to testing the appropriateness and robustness of

the valuation methodologies applied. The Auditor

has not reported any material differences between

the valuations used and the results of the work

performed during their testing process.

Based on the review and analysis described

above, the Audit Committee is satisfied that,

as at 31March2025, as stated in the Financial

Statements, the fair values of the Company’s

investments in the Subsidiaries are reasonable.

Margaret Stephens

Audit Committee Chair

Report of the Audit Committee

Terms of reference of the Audit

Committee can be found here

51 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Financial reporting and audit continued

The Committee considered the Company’s

financial requirements for the next 12 months and

concluded that it had sufficient resources to meet

its commitments as they fall due. Consequently,

the Financial Statements have been prepared

on a going concern basis. The Committee also

considered the longer-term viability statement within

the Annual Report, covering a four-year period,

and the underlying factors and assumptions which

contributed to the Committee deciding that four years

was an appropriate length of time to consider the

Company’s long-term viability.

The Committee received the 2024 ESG Assurance

Report from KPMG LLP.

The Audit Committee reviewed the Company’s

accounting policies applied in the preparation of

the Annual Financial Statements, together with

the relevant critical judgements, estimates and

assumptions made by the Board and, having

discussed matters with the Auditor, determined

thatthese were in compliance with IFRS Accounting

Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International

Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) and were

reasonable. The Audit Committee reviewed the

materiality levels applied by the Auditor to the

Financial Statements as a whole and was satisfied

that these materiality levels were appropriate.

TheAuditor reports to the Audit Committee all

material corrected and uncorrected differences.

The Auditor explained the results of their audit and

that on the basis of their audit work, there were no

adjustments proposed that were material in the

context of the Financial Statements as a whole.

The Audit Committee also reviews the Company’s

financial reports as a whole to ensure that such

reports appropriately describe the Company’s

activities and that all statements contained in such

reports are consistent with the Company’s financial

results and projections. Accordingly, the Audit

Committee was able to advise the Board that the

Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements are

fair, balanced and understandable and provide the

information necessary for Shareholders to assess

the Company’s performance, business model,

financial position and strategy.

Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”)

review of the Company’s 2024 Financial

Statements

During the year, the FRC’s Corporate Reporting

Review team undertook a review

of the Company’s

Financial Statements for the year ended

31March2024.

Following the completion of this review, the FRC

wrote to the Company in February 2025 to raise

a query in relation to the determination of the net

gains on non-derivative financial assets at fair value

through profit or loss recognised in the Company’s

statement of comprehensive income. Following

the Company’s response in April 2025, the FRC

was able to close its enquiries. The FRC intends to

publish the Company’s name, together with the fact

that it has undertaken a review, on its website on

27June 2025.

External Auditor

The Audit Committee has responsibility for making a recommendation on the appointment, reappointment

or removal of the Auditor. TheCompany intends to conduct a tender process at least every 10 years as

required under the UK Code and to rotate auditor at least every 20 years, as recommended by the UK

Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016. Grant Thornton was appointed as Auditor

in December 2021 and the current audit partner has served throughout the period from appointment

todate.

During the year, the Audit Committee received and reviewed the audit plan and report from Grant Thornton.

To assess the effectiveness of the Auditor, the Audit Committee reviewed:

› the Auditor’s fulfilment of the agreed audit plan and variations from it, if any;

› the Auditor’s assessment of its objectivity and independence as auditor of the Company;

› the Auditor’s report to the Audit Committee highlighting their significant areas of focus in the conduct

oftheir audit and findings thereon that arose during the course of the audit; and

› feedback from the Investment Manager, Investment Adviser and Administrator evaluating the performance

of the audit team.

For the year ended 31 March 2025, the Audit Committee was satisfied that there had been appropriate

focus and challenge on the primary areas of audit risk and assessed the quality of the audit process

asgood.

Where non-audit services are to be provided to the Company by the Auditor, full consideration of the

financial and other implications on the independence of the Auditor arising from any such engagement will

be considered before proceeding. All non-audit services are pre-approved by the Audit Committee if it is

satisfied that relevant safeguards are in place to protect the Auditor’s objectivity and independence. To fulfil

its responsibility regarding the independence of the Auditor, the Audit Committee considered:

› a report from the Auditor describing its arrangements to identify, report and manage any conflicts of

interest; and

› the extent of non-audit services provided by the Auditor.

During the year ended 31 March 2025, non-audit services were provided by Grant Thornton in the form of

the interim review.

The following table summarises the remuneration paid to Grant Thornton for audit and non-audit services.

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Annual audit of the Company 197,950 182,480

Annual audit of the Luxembourg Subsidiary 80,300 84,575

Interim review of the Company 37,800 37,800

316,050 304,855

Report of the Audit Committee continued

1. The FRC’s review is based on the Company’s Annual Report and Accounts and does not benefit from detailed

knowledge of the Company’s business or an understanding of the underlying transactions entered into. It is, however,

conducted by staff of the FRC who have an understanding of the relevant legal and accounting framework

The correspondence between the FRC and the Company provides no assurance that the Company’s Annual Report and

Accounts are correct in all material respects; the FRC’s role is not to verify the information provided to it but to consider

compliance with reporting requirements. The FRC’s letters are written on the basis that the FRC (which includes its

officers, employees and agents) accepts no liability for reliance on them by the Company or any third party, including

butnot limited to investors and Shareholders

52 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Euroports

In 2024, SEQI provided

€50million of mezzanine

debt to Euroports, a

pan-European port logistics

operator. Euroports is one

of Europe’s leading port

infrastructure operators,

offering comprehensive

maritime supply chain

solutions.

€50m

Mezzanine debt invested

2024

External Auditor continued

The Committee receives an annual assurance

from the Auditor that its independence is not

compromised by the provision of such non-audit

services. The Committee is satisfied that the Auditor’s

objectivity and independence is not impaired by the

performance of the interim review, which it is generally

expected would be carried out by the incumbent

auditor, and that the Auditor has fulfilled its obligations

to theCompany and its Shareholders.

Internal controls

As the Company’s investment objective is to invest

all of its assets into the Subsidiaries, the Audit

Committee, after consultation with the Investment

Manager, Investment Adviser and Auditor, considers

the key risk of misstatement in its Financial

Statements to be the valuation of its non-derivative

financial assets at fair value through profit or loss, i.e.

its investments in the Subsidiaries, but is also mindful

of the risk of the override of controls by its service

providers, the Investment Manager, the Investment

Adviser, theAdministrator and the Sub-Administrator.

The Investment Manager, Investment Adviser and

Administrator together maintain a system of internal

control on which they report to the Board. TheBoard

has reviewed the need for an internal audit function

and has decided that the systems and procedures

employed by the Investment Manager, Investment

Adviser and Administrator provide sufficient

assurance that a sound system of risk management

and internal control, which safeguards Shareholders’

investment and the Company’s assets, is maintained.

An internal audit function specific to the Company is

therefore considered unnecessary.

The Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing and

monitoring the effectiveness of the internal financial

control systems and risk management systems on

which the Company is reliant.

These systems are designed to ensure proper

accounting records are maintained, that the financial

information on which business decisions are made

and which is used in publications is reliable, and that

the assets of the Company are safeguarded. Such a

system of internal financial controls can only provide

reasonable and not absolute assurance against

misstatement or loss.

In accordance with the “Guidance on Risk

Management, Internal Control and Related Financial

and Business Reporting” published by the Financial

Reporting Council (the “FRC”) in September 2014,

which integrated the earlier guidance of the Turnbull

Report, the Audit Committee has reviewed the

Company’s internal control procedures. These

internal controls are implemented by the Company’s

four main service providers: the Investment

Manager, the Investment Adviser, the Administrator

and the Custodian. The Board’s service provider

review, undertaken by the Management

Engagement Committee, includes an assessment

of internal controls. From this, the Audit Committee

has reviewed the internal financial control systems

and risk management systems in place by service

providers during the year and is satisfied with the

internal financial control systems of the Company.

The Committee and the Board have noted the

changes introduced by the FRC to Provision 29

of their 2024 edition of the UK Code, applicable

to accounting periods beginning on or after

1January2026, relating to the effectiveness

of material internal controls. It has taken steps

during the period towards enhancing its existing

processes for assessing internal controls in order

to comply with the revised Provision 29 no later

than the effective date, and to provide the required

declaration of effectiveness of internal controls in

therelevant annual report.

The Committee and the Board will keep this under

review in conjunction with the corresponding

changes to provision 34 of the AIC Code introduced

by the AIC in August 2024, which are effective

for accounting periods commencing on or after

1January 2026.

Reappointment of the Auditor

Following consideration of the performance of

the Auditor, the services provided in the year and

a review of its independence and objectivity, the

Committee has recommended to the Board the

reappointment of Grant Thornton as the Auditor

to the Company. The Auditor has indicated its

willingness to continue in office. Accordingly,

resolutions to reappoint Grant Thornton as

Auditor to the Company and authorising the Audit

Committee to determine its remuneration will be

proposed at the Annual General Meeting.

Fair, balanced and understandable

The Audit Committee has concluded that the Annual

Report for the year ended 31 March 2025, taken

as a whole, is fair, balanced and understandable

and provides the information necessary for the

Shareholders to assess the Company’s position

andperformance, business model and strategy.

It reaches this conclusion through a process of

review of the Annual Report and enquiries to the

various parties involved in the production of the

Annual Report. The Audit Committee reported its

conclusions to the Board.

Margaret Stephens

Audit Committee Chair

24 June 2025

Report of the Audit Committee continued

53 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Terms of reference of the

Remuneration and Nomination

Committee can be found here

Chair and membership

The Remuneration and Nomination Committee

waschaired during the year, and until her retirement

from the Board on 7 June 2024, by Sandra

Platts, with James Stewart, Fiona Le Poidevin

(until her retirement as a Director with effect

from 31March2025) and Margaret Stephens as

Committee members. Paul Le Page was appointed

as Chair of the Committee and Tim Drayson as

a member of the Committee on 7 June 2024.

TheCommittee meets at least once annually.

Duties

The main roles and responsibilities of the

Remuneration and Nomination Committee are to:

› consider the remuneration of the Directors and

determine the Company’s remuneration policy;

› regularly review the structure, size and

composition of the Board and make

recommendations to the Board with regard to any

changes;

› give full consideration to succession planning

for Directors, taking into account the challenges

and opportunities facing the Company and the

skills and expertise needed on the Board in the

future;and

› lead the process for appointments and be

responsible for identifying and nominating, for the

approval of the Board, candidates to fill Board

vacancies as and when they arise.

The Remuneration and Nomination Committee

reports formally to the Board on its proceedings

on all matters within its duties and responsibilities

and on how it has discharged its responsibilities.

All members of the Board have the right to attend

Committee meetings. However, other individuals

and external advisers may be invited to attend for

all or part of any meeting, as and when appropriate

and necessary.

The Remuneration and Nomination Committee met

formally twice during the financial year and held

several ad hoc discussions to finalise recruitment

specifications and to review candidate CVs.

Theprincipal matters considered included, but were

not limited to:

› the remuneration of the Directors and the

Company’s remuneration policy;

› consideration of potential candidates for Board

succession and recommendation to the Board;

› the Company’s policy on diversity, ensuring this

remained aligned with the Company’s strategy

and objectives;

› Director succession planning, with reference

to the Board’s skills matrix and giving full

consideration to the expected future leadership

needs of the Company;

› consideration of the optimal size of the Board;

› the time requirements and independence of

Directors; and

› consideration and agreement of the terms of

reference of the Committee for approval by

theBoard.

The retirement of Sandra Platts on 7 June 2024

marked the end of a transition plan, in which the

terms of the original four Directors ended and

replacement Board members were appointed.

Following the retirement of Sandra, the Committee

noted a substantial increase in the time

commitments and responsibilities of the Chairs of

the Board’s ESG, Risk and Audit Committees due

to increased regulation, economic uncertainty and

market volatility.

To help manage the additional regulatory workload

associated with the adoption of IFRS Sustainability

Standards, the Committee led an extensive

independent search for a high-calibre director with

strong sustainability and governance knowledge.

Thesearch was implemented by Sapphire Partners.

TheCommittee was delighted to announce at the

end of the year the appointment of Selina Sagayam

as a non-executive Director and Chair of the ESG

and Stakeholder Engagement Committee with effect

from 1 April 2025. Selina led the ESG practice at

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, is currently the chair of the

ESG Committee for the Renewables Infrastructure

Group, a FTSE 250 company, and has extensive

corporate finance experience.

The Committee was pleased to be able to support

the Guernsey Training Agency’s non-executive

director (“NED”) Development Programme for

the first time this year. This programme provides

unremunerated board placements for aspiring NEDs

from diverse ethnic, social and career backgrounds.

Programme participants sign non-disclosure

agreements and participate in a non-voting capacity

in board meetings, discussions and events. The

programme is designed to improve governance by

expanding the pool of available NEDs in Guernsey

and giving boards fresh perspectives. The Board

was delighted to welcome Kin Tang, who has a

background in family office management, to join our

Board meetings with effectfrom December 2024.

Following a review of the Board’s commitments and

responsibilities, and third-party evidence for 2024,

the Committee determined during the year that

Directors’ fees should be increased with effect from

1 January 2025, following a freeze on remuneration

in the prior year. For details, please refer to the

Directors’ remuneration report on pages 58 and 59.

Paul Le Page

Remuneration and Nomination

CommitteeChair

24 June 2025

Paul Le Page

Remuneration and Nomination

Committee Chair

Report of the Remuneration and Nomination Committee

54 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Chair and membership

During the year, the ESG and Stakeholder

Engagement Committee comprised James

Stewart, Fiona Le Poidevin (until her retirement

asa Director with effect from 31 March 2025) and

Margaret Stephens. The Committee was chaired by

James Stewart until 7 June 2024, when Margaret

Stephens took over as Chair until 1 April 2025.

On1 April2025, Selina Sagayam was appointed

as Chair of the Committee upon her appointment

as a Director. Sandra Platts served as a member of

the Committee until her retirement from the Board

on 7 June 2024. The Committee meets at least

twiceannually.

The Committee’s key responsibilities are to support

the Board in monitoring the effectiveness of the

Company’s engagement with key stakeholders,

setting the Company’s environmental, social

and governance objectives and reviewing the

performance of the Company against those

objectives. The membership of the Committee and

its terms of reference are kept under review.

Duties

The duties of the Committee, include, but are not

limited to, those summarised below.

In relation to sustainability matters: to guide,

supervise and support the Investment Adviser in the

development of the sustainability policies and the

screening criteria applied to the Fund’s investment

portfolio, and to oversee the overall sustainability

strategy, objectives and KPIs of the Company and

the policies aimed at mitigating the environmental

impact of the Company’s own activities.

TheCommittee also assesses sustainability risks

and opportunities for the Company and, with input

from the Risk Committee and Investment Adviser,

their impact on the investment portfolio and the

deploymentpipeline.

The ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee

also monitors reporting against sustainability

objectives and KPIs and, working with the Audit

Committee, oversees the reporting of these

objectives and the preparation of the Company’s

ESG and sustainability reports and disclosures.

In relation to stakeholder engagement matters:

to identify each of the Company’s key stakeholders

and the Company’s engagement mechanisms and

to report in the Annual Report on engagement

activity and key strategic decisions taken by the

Board impacting the relevant stakeholder group.

The ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee

is also responsible for keeping under review the

effectiveness of the Company’s mechanisms

for stakeholder outreach, monitoring trends in

stakeholder sentiment, and receiving feedback from

the Directors and advisers on investor relations

activity, Shareholder sentiment and their views on

governance and performance against the Fund’s

investment objective and investment policy.

Main activities during the year

The ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee met three times during the financial

year. Theprincipal matters considered included,

butwerenot limited to:

› KPMG’s 2024 ESG Assurance Report and

feedback report for continuous improvement;

› updating and reviewing the 2024 Sustainability

Report for the Company;

› updating and reviewing the overall Sustainability

Policy, including scoring methodologies, to ensure

they remain fit for purpose in the context of the

Company, emerging sustainability themes and the

environment;

› reviewing the Company’s carbon offsetting

programme;

› enhancing the stakeholder engagement plan

to bolster forward planning of the Company’s

engagement activities;

› the impact of upcoming regulatory developments

including SDR, the Taskforce on Nature-related

Financial Disclosures (“TNFD”) and ISSB

standards;

› reviewing SEQI’s position and disclosures as an

“Article 8” fund under the EU Sustainable Finance

Disclosure Regulation (“SFDR”); and

› agreement of the terms of reference of the

Committee for approval by the Board.

Notably, during the year the Committee also

onboarded AXA Climate’s Altitude platform to

assist with sourcing emissions estimates and

analysis of assets under different climate scenarios.

Thishas allowed the Company to further enhance

its climate reporting and marks a key milestone

for the Company. The Committee members also

received sustainability training in October 2024,

covering reporting best practices, theregulatory

landscape and emerging sustainability trends to

keep underreview.

During the year, the Committee played a key

role in the development of the Company’s

comprehensive, stand-alone Governance Policy,

which details both governance at the Company

level and its assessment of good governance at the

businesses it lends to. This new policy is available

on our website: www.seqi.fund/sustainability/

publications/.

Selina Sagayam

ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee Chair

Report of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee

Terms of reference of the ESG and

Stakeholder Engagement Committee

can be found here

55 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Main activities during the year continued

Alongside ongoing communications with investors

and other stakeholders in relation to ESG and

sustainability matters, the Company hosted an

inaugural ESG Investor Breakfast roundtable event

in September 2024. At the roundtable, Committee

members, members of the Investment Adviser

and Shareholders discussed SEQI’s evolving

sustainability framework, the fast-moving regulatory

environment and future sustainability themes, risks

and opportunities that are coming into increasing

focus. This was a prime opportunity to exchange

insights and gain feedback on these issues that the

Committee continues to consider moving forward.

The Committee has been monitoring the rollout of

the FCA’s Sustainable Disclosure Requirements

(“SDR”). As the product is based overseas, SEQI is

not subject to UK sustainable investment labelling

and disclosure requirements. Nonetheless, we

expect the regulation will be extended to overseas

funds in due course. The Committee spent time this

year considering the practical implications of the

SDR if it were to apply to SEQI and SEQI’s strategy

around this. It should also be noted the Company

acknowledges and is complying with the FCA’s

Anti-Greenwashing Rule under this regulation.

Further details of the ESG and sustainability activities

of the Company are set out in the Sustainability

Report, which is published separately on the

Company’s website: www.seqi.fund/sustainability/

publications/, with a summary of this set out on

pages 26 to 34.

As incoming Chair of the Committee, I have been

briefed by members of the Committee on its

activities during the year.

Selina Sagayam

ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee Chair

24 June 2025

Report of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee continued

OCU Term Loan B

In 2024, SEQI invested

£40 million of senior

secured debt in OCU

Group, a UK-based utility

infrastructure services

provider supporting the

rollout of fibre, energy

and water networks. The

company plays a pivotal

role in enabling the UK’s

transition to a low-carbon

and digitally connected

economy

£40m

Invested

2024

56 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Chair and membership

The Risk Committee comprises Tim Drayson,

JamesStewart, Fiona Le Poidevin (until her

retirement with effect from 31 March 2025) and

Paul Le Page (with effect from 7 June 2024) and

is chaired by Tim Drayson. The Committee meets

at least quarterly and has been supported during

the year by Kate Thurman (until her retirement

on 4March 2025) and Andrea Finegan as

IndependentConsultants.

The Risk Committee works closely with the

Investment Manager and, as required, the

Independent Consultants, and provides oversight

of the Company’s risk management function.

The Committee has direct contact with Anurag

Gupta, Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”) to the Investment

Adviser, and engages routinely with Mr Gupta

on the Investment Adviser’s risk management

framework, the due diligence process employed by

the Investment Adviser and on broader portfolio risk

matters.

Duties

The main roles and responsibilities of the Risk

Committee are to:

› advise the Board on the risk strategy of the

Company, including the risk appetite, tolerance

and principal and emerging risks the Company is

willing to take in order to achieve its objectives;

› oversee the current risk exposures of the

Company and future risk strategy;

› keep under review the Company’s overall risk

assessment processes that inform the Board’s

decision making and the parameters and

methodology used in the process;

› review the Company’s capability to identify and

manage new risk types;

› provide oversight of the AIFM on matters of

portfolio risk, monitoring material developments

with high-risk credits and receiving periodic

reports from the AIFM on their activities;

› provide the AIFM with views on potential new

originations considered high risk to help inform

the AIFM in its final approval process;

› consider the remit of the risk management

function, ensuring it has adequate resources

and access to information to enable it to perform

its function effectively, and that it operates with

independence;

› work with the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee on their assessment of sustainability

risks and opportunities, including the assessment

of climate change risks; and

› work with the Audit Committee in keeping under

review the adequacy and effectiveness of the

Company’s risk management systems and the

procedures to mitigate the Company’s principal

risks and to evaluate the principal risks to be

taken into account by the Board when assessing

the Company’s prospects and the associated

stress testing.

The Risk Committee reports formally to the Board

on its proceedings on all matters within its duties

and responsibilities and on how it has discharged its

responsibilities. All members of the Board have the

right to attend Committee meetings. However, other

individuals and external advisers may be invited to

attend for all or part of any meeting, as and when

appropriate and necessary.

The Risk Committee met four times during the

financial year under review and a number of matters

required extensive liaison between key advisers to

assess emerging risks and to agree appropriate

mitigating actions. This was particularly evident in

the case of the Bulb Energy restructuring, where

considerable resources of the Investment Adviser

were committed in order to protect the Company’s

interests during negotiations and to implement the

resulting holding structure.

The Committee further noted that two further NPLs

had been exited during the year.

Other key matters considered by the Committee

during the year included the following:

› consideration of risk management and

counterparty risk assessments carried out by the

Investment Manager;

› undertaking reviews of credit risk, liquidity targets,

cash flow projection methods and swap duration

management;

› undertaking reviews of the Risk Matrix;

› undertaking a review of key-man risk and

succession planning of the Investment Adviser

in conjunction with the Management and

Engagement Committee;

› undertaking a review of the tax position and

valuation policies of the Company;

› design and implementation of policies covering

the management of derivative counterparty and

duration management risk; and

› consideration and agreement of the terms of

reference of the Committee for approval by

theBoard.

Tim Drayson

Risk Committee Chair

24 June 2025

Tim Drayson

Risk Committee Chair

Report of the Risk Committee

Terms of reference of the Risk

Committee can be found here

57 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

The Company’s policy in regard to Directors’

remuneration is to ensure that the Company

maintains a transparent and competitive fee

structure in order to recruit, retain and motivate

non-executive Directors of excellent quality in the

overall interests of Shareholders and the long-term

success of the Company. No element of the

Directors’ remuneration is performance related, nor

does any Director have any entitlement to pensions,

share options or any long-term incentive plans from

the Company.

The Remuneration and Nomination Committee

completed a remuneration review in December

2024, as Directors’ fees had been frozen whilst

the Board refreshment programme was being

completed. The Committee held discussions on

the workload and responsibilities of the Board

members and Committee Chairs. The Committee

noted a substantial increase in the workload and

responsibilities of the Board Chair and the Chairs of

the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement, Risk and

Audit Committees following changes to reporting

standards and the need to maintain more active

portfolio oversight and Shareholder engagement in

an elevated market risk environment. This exercise

led to an increase in the fees recommended for

the Chair and three senior Committee Chair roles,

which was partially funded by a reduction in the

fees payable to the other Committee Chairs and the

retirement of a paid external risk consultant.

An increase in the Director base fee was also

recommended, to reflect the increased time

commitment of all Board members in a challenging

climate for investment, and investment companies

in particular.

An independent benchmarking exercise was carried

out, with the help of the Company’s Broker and

the Trust Associates survey, to ensure the fees that

were proposed were fair compared to companies

of similar scale and complexity. The Committee

noted that a variety of fee structures were adopted

within the infrastructure sector, with some entities

paying additional fees for Committee membership

in addition to Committee Chair fees and some

entities paying no additional Committee Chair fees

whatsoever. It was decided to operate a more

transparent fee structure, with a base fee and Chair

fees that reflected the average annual workload

of the respective Committee Chairs. Theresulting

structure effectively recognises that the Audit, ESG

and Stakeholder Engagement and Risk Chairs

have a substantial recurring workload, whereas the

workloads of the Remuneration and Nomination

Chair and Management Engagement Chair tend to

be more episodic.

The fees that were recommended by the

Remuneration and Nomination Committee were

then implemented on 1 January 2025.

The Remuneration and Nomination Committee

reviewed the Directors’ remuneration during the year

and determined that, with effect from 1 January2025,

fees should be increased as follows:

› Chair of the Board: £90,000 per annum (2024:

£78,000 per annum);

› Base Director’s fee: £55,000 per annum (2024:

£50,000 per annum);

› Senior Independent Director: £5,000 per annum

(2024: £4,000 per annum);

› Chair of the Audit Committee: £13,000 per annum

(2024: £10,000 per annum);

› Chair of the Risk Committee: £7,500 per annum

(2024: £6,300 per annum);

› Chair of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee: £7,500 per annum (2024: £6,300

perannum);

› Chair of the Management Engagement Committee:

£3,750 per annum (2024: £5,000 perannum); and

› Chair of the Remuneration and Nomination

Committee: £3,750 per annum (2024: £5,000

perannum).

Paul Le Page

Remuneration and Nomination

Committee Chair

The Directors received the following remuneration in the form of Directors’ fees during the year:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

James Stewart 81,000 61,725

Fiona Le Poidevin 62,000 56,667

Margaret Stephens 57,850 12,500

Tim Drayson 57,850 56,300

Paul Le Page 50,656 —

Sandra Platts 11,894 64,000

Robert Jennings — 58,500

Sarika Patel — 20,000

321,250 329,692

Directors’ remuneration report

58 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Madrid Metroline

The rolling stock comprises

around 60% of what

currently runs on the metro

network. Metro de Madrid

benefits from the option to

purchase the rolling stock

at the end of the leases.

Flexrail is sponsored by a

French private equity firm

with extensive experience in

leasing transactions.

60%

Rolling stock

James Stewart served as Chair of the Board

throughout the year.

Fiona Le Poidevin served as Chair of the Audit

Committee during the year until her retirement on

31March 2025.

Margaret Stephens served as Chair of the ESG and

Stakeholder Engagement Committee during the

year until 31 March 2025, when she was appointed

Chair of the Audit Committee with effect from

1April2025.

Tim Drayson served as Chair of the Risk Committee

throughout the year.

Paul Le Page was appointed as a Director

on 7June2024 and served as Chair of the

Management Engagement Committee and of

the Remuneration and Nomination Committee

with effect from that date. He was appointed

Senior Independent Director with effect from

1January2025.

Sandra Platts served as Chair of the Management

Engagement Committee and of the Remuneration

and Nomination Committee and as Senior

Independent Director until her retirement on

7June2024.

Selina Sagayam was appointed as a Director and

Chair of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee with effect from 1 April 2025.

During the year, all Directors have contributed 1%

of their fees to support the Company’s carbon

offsetting initiatives.

Directors’ and officers’ liability insurance cover

is maintained by the Company on behalf of the

Directors.

Tim Drayson and James Stewart were appointed

as non-executive Directors with effect from

1January2022. Margaret Stephens was appointed

as a non-executive Director with effect from

1January 2024. Paul Le Page was appointed as a

non-executive Director with effect from 7 June 2024.

Selina Sagayam was appointed as a non-executive

Director with effect from 1 April 2025.

Each Director’s appointment letter provides that,

upon the termination of their appointment, they must

resign in writing and all records remain the property

of the Company. The Directors’ appointments can

be terminated in accordance with the Company’s

Articles of Incorporation (the “Articles”) and without

compensation. The notice period for the removal

of Directors is two months as specified in each

Director’s appointment letter. The Articles provide

that the office of director shall be terminated

by, among other things: (a) written resignation;

(b)unauthorised absences from Board meetings

for twelve months or more; (c) unanimous written

request of the other Directors; and (d) an ordinary

resolution of the Company.

Under the terms of their appointment, each Director

was subject to re-election at the first AGM and

annually thereafter. The Company may terminate the

appointment of a Director immediately on serving

written notice and no compensation is payable upon

termination of office as a Director of the Company

becoming effective.

The amounts payable to Directors as at

31March2025 are shown in note 10 to the

Financial Statements and related to services

provided as non-executive Directors. No Director

has a service contract with the Company, nor are

any such contracts proposed.

Paul Le Page

Remuneration and Nomination

CommitteeChair

24 June 2025

Directors’ remuneration report continued

59 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

The Directors of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure

Income Fund Limited (the “Company”) are pleased

to submit their Annual Report and the Audited

Financial Statements (the “Financial Statements”)

forthe year ended 31 March 2025.

Results and dividends

The results for the year are shown in the statement

of comprehensive income on page 73.

The Directors have declared and paid dividends

of £109,035,152 during the year ended

31March2025 (2024: £115,825,192). Further

details of dividends declared or paid are detailed in

note 4 to the Financial Statements.

The Company’s dividend policy, in the absence of

any significant restricting factors, is to pay dividends

totalling 6.875p per Ordinary Share per annum for

the foreseeable future. The Company pays dividends

on a quarterly basis.

Independent Auditor

A resolution to reappoint Grant Thornton Limited as

Auditor will be put to the forthcoming AGM.

Directors and Directors’ interests

The Directors who served during the year, all of

whom are independent and non-executive, are

listedon page 44.

The Directors’ interests in the shares of the

Company are disclosed in note 10.

Going concern

The Company has been incorporated with an

unlimited life. In accordance with the Company’s

Articles, the Directors are required to propose an

ordinary resolution (the “Continuation Resolution”)

every three years. Should a Continuation Resolution

not be passed, the Directors are required, within

six months, to put forward proposals for the

reconstruction or reorganisation of the Company to

the Shareholders for their approval.

These proposals may or may not involve winding

up the Company and, accordingly, failure to pass a

Continuation Resolution will not necessarily result in

the winding up of the Company. Should the failure

of a Continuation Resolution result in a winding up

of the Company, it is likely that such winding up

would in any case take longer than 12 months.

The last Continuation Resolution was proposed in

August2024 and was passed by an overwhelming

majority.

The Directors have reviewed the Fund’s holdings in

cash and cash equivalents and investments, including

a consideration of the impact on the portfolio of

the market uncertainty related to the conflicts in

Ukraine, the Middle East and India/Pakistan, and of

the foreign and economic policies of the current US

administration. The Directors have also considered

the potential impact on the Company’s liquidity arising

from margin calls relating to the Company’s forward

foreign exchange positions.

In conducting this review, the Board has also

considered the sustainability of the environmental and

social impact of the Fund’s activities. TheCompany

has a strong balance sheet, with a very low level

of gearing. The higher interest rate environment

of recent years has impacted on the fair values of

fixed-rate investments, however such losses as

have been incurred – which have and will reverse

as the investments move closer to maturity and

their valuations accrete to par – are unrealised, and

therefore have no direct effect on the solvency of the

business.

The risk of realised losses arising through loans

defaulting is limited to a few specific investments,

representing a small proportion of the Fund’s

investment portfolio. The Directors also note that the

interest income cash flow of the Fund continues to

be sufficient to cover operating costs and to pay the

Company’s target dividend; and that the Company

was able to refinance its RCF with a new lender on

more favourable terms during theyear.

As a result of this review, the Directors have

concluded that it is appropriate to adopt the going

concern basis in preparing the Financial Statements,

as the Company, despite the current challenging

economic environment, retains a strong balance

sheet and adequate financial resources to continue

in operational existence for at least 12 months from

the date of approval of these Financial Statements

and to meet its liabilities as they fall due.

Viability statement

The Directors have carried out a robust assessment

of the viability of the Company over a four-year

period to March 2029, taking account of the

Company’s current position and the potential impact

of the principal and emerging risks outlined in this

statement.

In making this statement, the Directors have

considered the resilience of the Company, taking

into account its current position, the principal and

emerging risks facing the Company in severe but

reasonable scenarios and the effectiveness of any

mitigating actions. This assessment has considered

the potential impacts of these risks on the business

model, future performance, solvency and liquidity

over the period.

The Directors have determined that the four-year

period to March 2029 is an appropriate period

over which to provide its viability statement as

this extends past the average maturity of the

Fund’s portfolio of investments of 3.6 years

and substantially all of the Company’s hedging

portfolio, and also past the date of the Company’s

next continuation resolution. In making their

assessment, the Directors have taken into account

the Company’s NAV, net income, cash flows,

dividend cover, regulatory compliance, the outlook

for the economy and key financial ratios over the

period. The Directors have also assumed that the

Investment Adviser remains in place throughout the

viability period.

The viability modelling incorporates sensitivity

analysis flexing a number of main assumptions

underlying the forecast. This analysis is carried out

to evaluate the potential impact of the Company’s

principal risks actually occurring, including the

following key stresses:

› a 15% shock to the value of Sterling, which

would increase mark-to-markets to be settled

by the Company with its FX counterparties.

This is broadly similar to the decline in Sterling

immediately following the UK’s exit from the

European Union or the announcement in

September 2022 of controversial fiscal policies

by the UK. This led to high volatility in the foreign

exchange market, and we therefore believe

it is prudent to assume one might happen in

thefuture;

› a 10% haircut to the portfolio’s income.

Thiswould simulate an increase in the level

of defaulted or non-performing assets in the

portfolio; and

› a decrease in short-term interest rates. Since

around 40% of the portfolio consists of floating

rate loans, decreasing interest rates negatively

affect the portfolio’s income generation. It seems

likely that interest rates will fall in the future in the

key currencies of US Dollar, Euro and Sterling,

and a 3% decrease in cash margins has been

applied to these assets.

Directors’ report

60 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Viability statement continued

The viability model also includes projections for

the continuing deployment of capital into new

target investments. These projections amount

to approximately £511 million in the downside

scenarios, whilst still supporting the Company’s

target dividend and meeting its financial targets.

No specific stresses have been run around the

Company’s ability to refinance the RCF, which

matures in July 2027. In the case that the Company

is unable to refinance the RCF at maturity, it

would be able to cover the repayment with cash

and selectively selling some of the more liquid

investments.

The key outputs of the viability testing include the

following:

› the Company has sufficient resources for full debt

repayment at maturity;

› the Company has positive intra-month liquidity

throughout the viability period, indicating it has

adequate resources to cover all of its liabilities,

including hedge mark-to-market settlements,

finance costs and operational expenses; and

› the Company’s existing target dividend is

covered without the sale of illiquid investments

throughout the viability period due to the highly

cash-generative nature and short average life of

the portfolio and the Company’s low cost base.

In extremis, the dividend could be cut in order to

preserve the Company’s solvency, however this

would also affect the ability to raise debt and equity

capital, so would be avoided wherever possible.

The Directors have also considered the possibility

that the Continuation Resolution, to be proposed

at the 2027 AGM, may not be passed by

Shareholders. Following discussions with the

Company’s Brokers, Investment Adviser and a

number of significant Shareholders, and in light

of the overwhelming majority votes in favour of

previous Resolutions proposed in 2016, 2018, 2021

and 2024, the Board believes that the Continuation

Resolution is likely to be passed.

Based on this assessment, the Directors have a

reasonable expectation that the Company will be

able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities

as they fall due over the period to March 2029.

Substantial shareholdings

As at 31 March 2025, the Company had the following shareholdings in excess of 5% of the issued

sharecapital:

Name

Number of

Ordinary Shares Percentage

Investec Wealth & Investment 131,729,616 8.47%

Evelyn Partners 94,647,305 6.09%

Related parties

Details of transactions with related parties are disclosed in note 10 to the Financial Statements.

Listing requirements

Since its listing on the Main Market of the London

Stock Exchange and admission to the premium

segment of the Official List of the UK Listing

Authority, the Company has complied with the

Listing Rules, the Prospectus Rules, the FCA

Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules

(“DTR”), ESMA guidance and the European Union’s

Market Abuse Regulation (as implemented in the

UK through the Financial Services and Markets Act

2000 (Market Abuse) Regulations 2016). There are

no matters that require disclosure under FCA Listing

Rule 9.8.4R relating to arrangements made with a

controlling Shareholder, waivers of Directors’ fees or

long-term incentive schemes in force.

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”)

became effective on 1 January 2013. Thelegislation

is aimed at determining the ownership of US

assets in foreign accounts and improving US

tax compliance with respect to those assets.

On13December 2013, the States of Guernsey

entered into an intergovernmental agreement

(“IGA”) with US Treasury in order to facilitate the

requirements of FATCA. The Company registered

with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on

25February 2015 as a Foreign Financial Institution

(“FFI”) and aSponsoringEntity.

Common Reporting Standard

The Common Reporting Standard (“CRS”),

formerly the Standard for Automatic Exchange of

Financial Account Information, became effective on

1January 2016, and is an information standard for

the automatic exchange of information developed

by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (“OECD”). CRS is a measure

to counter tax evasion, and it builds upon other

information sharing legislation, such as FATCA and

the European Union Savings Directive.

Alternative Investment Fund Managers

Directive

The Company is categorised as a non-EU

Alternative Investment Fund (“AIF”). The AIFMD

seeks to regulate managers of AIFs, such as the

Company. It imposes obligations on AIFMs who

manage AIFs in a member state of the European

Economic Area (“EEA state”), or who market shares

in AIFs to investors who are domiciled, or with a

registered office, in an EEA state. Under the AIFMD,

an AIFM must be appointed and must comply with

various organisational, operational and transparency

requirements.

On 28 January 2015, the Company appointed the

Investment Manager to act as AIFM on behalf of the

Company. The Investment Manager is responsible

for fulfilling the role of the AIFM and ensuring the

Company complies with the AIFMD requirements.

Details of the total amount of remuneration for

the financial year, split into fixed and variable

remuneration, paid by the AIFM to its staff, and

the number of beneficiaries, are made available to

Shareholders on request to the Investment Manager.

Share buybacks

The Company is authorised to make market

acquisitions of its own Ordinary Shares under a

special resolution approved by Shareholders on

1August 2024.

When appropriate, the Directors consider the

acquisitions of Ordinary Shares as part of its

discount control policy, in order to address possible

imbalances in the demand and supply of Ordinary

Shares in the market. This could include when

the Company’s Ordinary Shares have traded at a

significant discount to NAV for a prolonged period

of time. Conversely, shorter periods of market

disruption may also create an imbalance in the

demand and supply of Ordinary Shares in the

market, and the Company may consider the use

ofshare buybacks to signal the confidence it has in

the value of its underlying assets.

Directors’ report continued

61 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Scandlines

The ferry operator serves

a strategic connection

between Scandinavia

and Germany, which in

the absence of better

land route alternatives

represents a “floating

highway”. Scandlines has

a strong track record of

disciplined investment

and traffic management

through competitive pricing

and targeted marketing

programmes.

Share buybacks continued

In advance of any share buybacks, the Board

considers: (i) whether the Company is technically

able to repurchase its own shares at that point

in time (including closed period and regulatory

considerations); (ii) the Company’s available cash

resources after supporting the dividend; (iii) the

Board’s view of the prevailing value of the Fund’s

net assets; and (iv) other relevant circumstances.

Purchases are only made through the market for

cash at prices below the estimated prevailing NAV

per Ordinary Share where the Directors believe such

purchases will result in an increase in the NAV per

Ordinary Share.

During the year, the Company has bought back

70,422,338 of its Ordinary Shares at a cost of

£55,858,674 (2024: 109,335,279 of its Ordinary

Shares at a cost of £88,170,418), representing a

discount to NAV that has been accretive to NAV per

Ordinary Share for remaining Shareholders.

Anti-bribery and corruption

The Board acknowledges that the Company’s

international operations may give rise to possible

claims of bribery and corruption. In consideration

of The Bribery Act 2010, enacted in the UK, at the

date of this report the Board had conducted an

assessment of the perceived risks to the Company

arising from bribery and corruption to identify

aspects of business which may be improved to

mitigate such risks. The Board has adopted a zero-

tolerance policy towards bribery and has reiterated

its commitment to carry out business fairly, honestly

and openly.

Criminal Finances Act

The Board has a zero-tolerance commitment to

preventing persons associated with it from engaging

in criminal facilitation of tax evasion and will not work

with any service provider who does not demonstrate

the same commitment. The Board has satisfied

itself in relation to its key service providers that they

have reasonable provisions in place to prevent the

criminal facilitation of tax evasion by their own staff

or any associated persons.

UK Modern Slavery Act

The Board acknowledges the requirement to provide

information about human rights in accordance with

the UK Modern Slavery Act. The Board conducts

the business of the Company ethically and with

integrity and has a zero-tolerance policy towards

modern slavery in all its forms. As the Company has

no employees, all its Directors are non-executive

and all its functions are outsourced, there are

no further disclosures to be made in respect of

employees and human rights.

Market Abuse

The Board and relevant personnel of our Investment

Adviser and our other advisers acknowledge and

adhere to the UK Market Abuse Regulation.

By order of the Board

James Stewart

Director

24 June 2025

Directors’ report continued

62 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

The Directors are responsible for preparing

the Annual Report and Financial Statements in

accordance with applicable law and regulations.

TheCompanies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the

“Company law”) requires the Directors to prepare

financial statements for each financial year. The

Directors are required to prepare the Financial

Statements in accordance with IFRS Accounting

Standards as issued by the IASB and applicable law.

Under the Company law, the Directors must not

approve the Financial Statements unless they are

satisfied that they give a true and fair view of the

state of affairs of the Company and its profit or loss

for that year.

In preparing these Financial Statements, the

Directors are required to:

› select suitable accounting policies and apply

them consistently;

› make judgements and estimates that are

reasonable, relevant and reliable; and

› state whether applicable accounting standards

have been followed, subject to any material

departures disclosed and explained in the

Financial Statements.

The Directors are responsible for keeping proper

accounting records that are sufficient to show and

explain the Company’s transactions and disclose

with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial

position of the Company and to enable them to

ensure that the Financial Statements comply with

the Company law. They are responsible for such

internal control as they determine is necessary to

enable the preparation of financial statements that

are free from material misstatement, whether due

to fraud or error, and have general responsibility for

taking such steps as are reasonably open to them

to safeguard the assets of the Company and to

prevent and detect fraud and other irregularities.

The Directors are responsible for the maintenance

and integrity of the corporate and financial

information included on the Company’s website.

Legislation in the United Kingdom and Guernsey

governing the preparation and dissemination of

financial statements may differ from legislation in

other jurisdictions.

The Directors who hold office at the date of approval

of the Directors’ report confirm that, so far as they

are aware, there is no relevant audit information of

which the Company’s Auditor is unaware, and that

each Director has taken all the steps they ought

to have taken as a director to make themselves

aware of any relevant audit information and for

establishing that the Company’s Auditor is aware of

that information.

Responsibility statement of the Directors

inrespect of the Annual Report

Each of the Directors who served during the year,

who are listed on page 44, confirms to the best of

their knowledge and belief that:

› the Financial Statements, prepared in accordance

with IFRS Accounting Standards as issued by

the IASB, give a true and fair view of the assets,

liabilities, financial position and profit of the

Company, as required by DTR 4.1.12R; and

› the management report (comprising the Chair’s

statement, the Investment Adviser’s report, the

sustainability report, the strategic report, the

Directors’ report and other Committee reports)

includes a fair review of the development and

performance of the business during the year, and

the position of the Company at the end of the

year, together with a description of the principal

risks and uncertainties that the Company faces,

as required by DTR 4.1.8R and DTR 4.1.9R.

The Directors consider that the Annual Report,

comprising the Financial Statements and the

management report, taken as a whole, is fair,

balanced and understandable and provides the

information necessary for Shareholders to assess

the Company’s position and performance, business

model and strategy.

James Stewart

Director

24 June 2025

Statement of Directors’ responsibilities

63 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Financial

statements

Financial statements

Independent Auditor’s Report 65

Statement of comprehensive income 73

Statement of changes

in Shareholders’ equity 74

Statement of financial position 75

Statement of cash flows 76

Notes to the Financial Statements 77

64 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report

65 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Opinion

We have audited the financial statements of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited (the

‘Company’) for the year ended 31 March 2025, which comprise the Statement of Comprehensive Income,

the Statement of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity, the Statement of Financial Position, the Statement

of Cash Flows and notes to the financial statements, including material accounting policy information.

The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and IFRS

Accounting Standards (“IFRSs”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”).

In our opinion, the financial statements:

› give a true and fair view of the state of the Company’s affairs as at 31 March 2025 and of its profit for the

year then ended;

› have been properly prepared in accordance with IFRSs as issued by the IASB; and

› comply with the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008.

Basis for opinion

We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK))

and applicable law. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the ‘Auditor’s

responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements’ section of our report. We are independent of

the Company in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial

statements in Guernsey, including the FRC’s Ethical Standard as applied to listed entities, and we have

fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit

evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.

Conclusions relating to going concern

We are responsible for concluding on the appropriateness of the directors’ use of the going concern basis

of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related

to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Company’s ability to continue as a going

concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our report

to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify the

auditor’s opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our report.

However, future events or conditions may cause the Company to cease to continue as a going concern.

Our evaluation of the directors’ assessment of the Company’s ability to continue to adopt the going concern

basis of accounting included:

› We obtained the cash flow forecasts on top of discussions made with the Investment Adviser on their

assessment of going concern. The going concern assessment included a three-scenario analysis, with

a ‘Base Case’ and two ‘Downside Cases’, the ‘Base Case’ being considered by the Directors to be the

most likely scenario;

› We ascertained that the going concern assessment covered a period up until 24 June 2026, 12 months

from the date of approval of the Financial Statements;

› We reviewed the arithmetical accuracy of the ‘Base Case’ and ‘Downside Cases’ analysis and challenged

the appropriateness of the inputs used by assessing historical forecasting accuracy, challenging

management’s consideration of downside sensitivity analysis by applying further sensitivities to understand

the impact on the liquidity or a covenant breach;

› We considered the estimation uncertainty of the prior year’s most likely scenario by comparing it to

the Company’s actual performance to date, discussed material movements with the Board and the

Investment Adviser, and obtained the required supporting documentation;

› We held discussions with the Audit Committee and Investment Adviser to determine whether, in their

opinion, there is any material uncertainty regarding the Company’s ability to pay liabilities and dividends

as they fall due. Through these discussions, we considered and challenged the options available to the

Company if it were in a stressed scenario. These options included but were not limited to the use of

creditfacilities;

› We performed procedures over the Continuation Resolution, such as analysing movements in top

shareholdings and reviewing forums and blogs for investors sentiment. These procedures were performed

as top-up procedures as we acknowledge that the Continuation Resolution is approximately 2 years

away from the audit report date and failure to pass the Continuation Resolution in 2 years’ time will not

necessarily result in the winding up of the Company. Given the above assessment, we assessed that the

Continuation Resolution does not have a significant impact on the Company’s ability to continue as a

going concern; hence, this has not been reported as key audit matter in our current year’s report.

› We considered whether the Directors’ assessment of going concern as included in the Annual Report is

appropriate and consistent with the disclosures made in the Viability Statement; and

› We evaluated the disclosures made in the Annual Report and Financial Statements regarding the going

concern to ascertain that they are in accordance with IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’

and have complied with, or explained reasons for non-compliance, with all the AIC Code of Corporate

Governance provisions.

In our evaluation of the directors’ conclusions, we considered the inherent risks associated with the

Company’s business model including effects arising from macro-economic uncertainties such as the

continuing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East and of the economic policies of the current US

administration, together with the potential impact of margin calls relating to the Company’s forward foreign

exchange positions. We assessed and challenged the reasonableness of estimates made by the directors

and the related disclosures and analysed how those risks might affect the Company’s financial resources or

ability to continue operations over the going concern period.

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report continued

66 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that the directors’ use of the going concern basis of

accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.

Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events

or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the Company’s ability to continue

as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised

for issue.

In relation to the Company’s reporting on how it has applied the UK Corporate Governance Code, we have

nothing material to add or draw attention to in relation to the directors’ statement in the financial statements

about whether the directors considered it appropriate to adopt the going concern basis of accounting.

Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the directors with respect to going concern are described in

the relevant sections of this report.

Our approach to the audit

Key audit

matters

Scoping

Materiality

Overview of our audit approach

The materiality that we used for the financial statement audit was £28.8 million,

which was determined on the basis of approximately 2% of the Company’s net

assets at 31 March 2025.

Key audit matters were identified as:

› Valuation of non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss

(same as previous year).

Our auditor’s report for the year ended 31 March 2024 included a key audit

matter in relation to the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern

impacted by the continuation resolution, that has not been reported as key audit

matter in our current year’s report.

Based on the outcome at the Annual General Meeting held on 1 August 2024,

the Continuation Resolution presented by the Directors was passed, with an

overwhelming majority from the shareholders who voted in favour of it. The next

continuation vote is only due in approximately two years from the audit report

date. As a result, this area is not considered to be a key audit matter for the

audit year ended 31 March 2025.

Our audit approach was a risk-based substantive audit focused on the

Company's investment activities.

There has been no change in the audit scope from the prior year.

Key audit matters

Key audit matters are those matters that, in our

professional judgement, were of most significance

in our audit of the financial statements of the current

period and include the most significant assessed

risks of material misstatement (whether or not due

to fraud) that we identified. These matters included

those that had the greatest effect on: the overall

audit strategy; the allocation of resources in the

audit; and directing the efforts of the engagement

team. These matters were addressed in the context

of our audit of the financial statements as a whole,

and in forming our opinion thereon, and we do not

provide a separate opinion on these matters.

In the graph below, we have presented the key audit matters, significant risks and other risks relevant to

theaudit.

Description

Disclosures

Audit

Response

Our results

KAM

Low

High

Extent of management judgement

Significant risk & Key audit matter Significant risk

Potential

financial

statement

impact

Management override

of controls

Valuation of non-derivative

financial assets at fair value

through profit or loss

Low

High

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report continued

67 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Valuation of non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or

loss £1,479 million (2024: £1,493 million)

We identified the valuation of non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss

as one of the most significant assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud and error.

The Company invests principally through its Luxembourg-domiciled subsidiary, Sequoia

IDF Asset Holdings S.A. (the “Luxembourg Subsidiary”), and two established subsidiaries

domiciled in the United Kingdom, Yotta Bidco Limited and Gadwall Holdings Limited (the “UK

Subsidiaries”) (together “the Subsidiaries”). These investments in the Subsidiaries (further

referred to in this report as the “Investments”) are classified and measured at fair value through

profit or loss under the Financial Statement line item ‘Non-derivative financial assets at fair

value through profit or loss’. Through the Subsidiaries, the Company invests in a diversified

portfolio of senior and subordinated economic infrastructure loans, bonds, and equity

investments (further referred to in this report as the “Portfolio”), by principally issuing Variable

Funding Notes (“further referred to in this report as “VFNs”) to the Luxembourg Subsidiary.

The investment in the Luxembourg Subsidiary represents a significant proportion of the

Company’s net assets. The Luxembourg Subsidiary’s net asset value (after the conversion

from Luxembourg GAAP to IFRS) reflects its fair value, of which the most significant

component is its underlying Portfolio.

VFN interest pertains to interest on VFNs issued by the Luxembourg Subsidiary which is

paid to the Company on a quarterly basis. VFN interest is adjusted by an “Equalisation

Adjustment” which pertains to the net remaining profit or loss in the Luxembourg Subsidiary

after accounting for all revenue and expenses, including Luxembourg GAAP impairment

adjustments.

Every six months, the Directors together with Sequoia Investment Management Company

Limited (“Investment Adviser”) review the portfolio’s credit ratings to determine whether

investments within the Portfolio are performing or nonperforming. Investments identified as

non-performing will be valued on a modified basis (i.e., on the net present value of future

estimated cash flows based on the median outcome and discount rate that reflects the market

yield of distressed/defaulted loans or bonds).

The Portfolio is principally valued on a discounted cash flow basis. The Company engages

a third-party valuation expert (the “Valuation Agent”) to review the valuation calculations

performed by the Portfolio’s Investment Adviser. Certain portfolio are valued using broker

quotes from pricing syndicate desks. Where such market information is not externally

available, the valuations are based on yields derived from comparable loans and bonds,

takinginto consideration the instrument’s project type and structural and credit characteristics.

In responding to the key audit matter, we performed the following audit procedures:

Valuation of the Portfolio

› We obtained and inspected the valuation calculations, read the valuation report and held discussions with the Investment Adviser and Valuation Agent

to understand the scope of their work, the performance of the Company and its Portfolio, as well as assess whether the data used in the valuation

calculations was appropriate and relevant.

› We assessed the independence, competence and objectivity of the Company’s Valuation Agent.

› We engaged our internal valuation experts to assist us in performing the testing of the valuations performed by the Investment Adviser (and reviewed

by the Valuation Agent), which included the following:

› Assessed whether the valuation methodologies applied to estimate the fair values of the non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or

loss were consistent with methods usually used by market participants by comparing them with similar types of instruments.

› Held discussions with both the Investment Adviser and the Valuation Agent to understand how the underlying assets were performing relative to the

assumptions underpinning their valuation models and to identify credit and operational issues, if any, that could have impacted the valuation of the

Portfolio.

› Used our internal valuation expert’s knowledge of the market to assess, challenge, and corroborate management’s valuation by reference to prices

from pricing vendors. Where the pricing information was not available, derived an independent mark-to-market valuation based on inputs for

comparable instruments with similar structural and credit characteristics.

› For the performing Portfolio, we:

› Tested the mathematical accuracy of the discounted future cash flows provided by the Investment Adviser.

› Agreed the contractual terms, such as coupon and repayment terms, to supporting evidence (i.e. loan investment agreement and credit memos)

obtained from the Investment Adviser.

› Compared our calculations based on the contractual terms to actual cash received and evaluated the Investment Adviser’s credit memorandums to

assess whether there have been specific credit events that could have impacted the Portfolio’s fair value.

› Performed research on publicly available information to corroborate and assess for any contradictory evidence of specific credit events that would

have impacted the Portfolio’s fair value.

› Inquired with the Investment Adviser about whether there were any changes to relevant inputs used in the valuation models and corroborated this

against supporting documentation (i.e., loan investment agreements, credit memos and the Valuation Agent’s reports).

› For the Non-Performing and Under-Performing Portfolio, we:

› Tested the mathematical accuracy of the net present value of future cash flows provided by the Investment Adviser.

› Tested the reasonableness of assumptions used (i.e. distressed rate, discount rate, probability of collection) by obtaining supporting documents for

the basis of assumptions and comparing it to market data.

› Performed research on publicly available information to corroborate the facts and circumstances set out in the valuation report used by management

as a basis for the valuation.

› For level 2 non-derivative investments, we obtained prices from independent pricing vendors or, where this pricing information was not available, we

derived an independent mark to model valuation (using an appropriate platform supported by our internal valuation experts) based on market inputs for

comparable instruments with similar structural and credit characteristics.

Key Audit Matter description How our scope addressed the matter

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report continued

68 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Key Audit Matter description

Valuation of non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or

loss £1,479 million (2024: £1,493 million) continued

The valuation of the Portfolio involves complexity and subjective management judgements

and estimates. The magnitude of the amounts involved means that there is the potential for

material misstatement, which gives rise to a higher risk of misstatement and requires special

audit consideration. Since the valuation of the Portfolio is the primary driver of the Company’s

net asset value, this is an area of focus for stakeholders and a significant audit risk area.

Accordingly, the valuation of non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss

required significant auditor attention and has been reported as a Key Audit Matter.

› We assessed whether the fair value disclosures in the financial statements are appropriate, complete and in accordance with the IFRS 13 Fair Value

Measurement requirements.

Equalisation adjustment and VFN interest

› We issued audit instructions to the Grant Thornton Luxembourg audit team (“Subsidiary Auditor”) to assist us in performing procedures on significant

balances in the Luxembourg Subsidiary financial statements factored into the determination of the Equalisation Adjustment.

› We reviewed in detail the work performed by the Subsidiary Auditor, in order to ascertain that the Equalisation Adjustment and VFN interest have been

appropriately calculated. Our review included:

› Ensuring that the VFN interest income and VFN interest receivable/payable were correctly calculated, using the inputs that are in line with the terms

of the relevant agreement, and compared the recalculated amount to the amount recorded in their financial statements, whilst also ensuring that

amount accrued was in line with the requirements of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments.

› Ensuring that the impairment recognised by the Luxembourg Subsidiary was in accordance with the requirements of Luxembourg GAAP.

› Ensuring that any material balances in the Luxembourg Subsidiary accounts which are factored into the determination of the Equalisation

Adjustment, have been reviewed and are in line with IFRSs.

› Comparing the Equalisation Adjustment recognised between the Luxembourg Subsidiary and the Company to ensure the accuracy of the

recordedamount.

Relevant disclosures in the Annual Report and Audited

FinancialStatements

› Report of the Audit Committee on pages 51 to 53;

› Note 2 (Non-Derivative financial instruments – fair value and subsequent measurement);

› Note 3 (Use of Judgements and Estimates);

› Note 5 (Financial Risk Management); and

› Note 6 (Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss).

Our results

› Our testing did not identify material misstatements in relation to the valuation of non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss.

How our scope addressed the matter

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report continued

69 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Our application of materiality

We apply the concept of materiality both in planning and performing the audit, and in evaluating the effect of identified misstatements on the audit and of uncorrected misstatements, if any, on the financial statements and

in forming the opinion in the auditor’s report.

Materiality was determined as follows:

Materiality measure

Materiality for financial statements as a whole

We define materiality as the magnitude of misstatement in the financial statements that, individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected

to influence the economic decisions of the users of these financial statements. We use materiality in determining the nature, timing and extent of our

auditwork.

Materiality threshold £28.8 million (2024: £30.5 million), which represents 2% of the Company’s net assets as at 31 March 2025.

Significant judgements made by auditor in determining materiality In determining materiality, we considered Net Assets as the most appropriate benchmark as the Company’s primary performance measures for internal

and external reporting are based on net assets.

Materiality for the current year is lower than the level that we determined for the year ended 31 March 2024 due to the reductions in carrying value of the

Fund’s non-performing loans and the impact of higher discount rates, offset in part by pull-to-par gains over the year.

Performance materiality used to drive the extent of our testing

We set performance materiality at an amount less than materiality for the financial statements as a whole to reduce to an appropriately low level the

probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds materiality for the financial statements as a whole.

Performance materiality threshold £21.6 million (2024: £22.9 million), which is 75% (2024: 75%) of financial statement materiality.

Significant judgements made by auditor in determining performance materiality In determining performance materiality, we made the following significant judgements:

Performance materiality was set at 75% of materiality based on the quality of internal control at the Company and Investment Adviser level, stability of the

business, low level of corrected and uncorrected misstatements identified in the prior year and willingness of management to correct errors identified

Specific materiality

We determine specific materiality for one or more particular classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures for which misstatements of lesser

amounts than materiality for the financial statements as a whole could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the

basis of the financial statements.

Specific materiality We determined a lower level of specific materiality for related party transactions, including directors’ remuneration and related disclosures.

Communication of misstatements to the audit committee

We determine a threshold for reporting unadjusted differences to the audit committee.

Threshold for communication £1.4 million (2024: £1.5 million), which represents 5% of financial statement materiality, and misstatements below that threshold that, in our view, warrant

reporting on qualitative grounds.

Company

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report continued

70 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Our application of materiality continued

The graph below illustrates how performance materiality interacts with our overall materiality and the

threshold for communication to the audit committee.

FSM

£28.8 million

£21.6 million

TfC

£1.4 million

Net asset value, £1,439.2 million

FSM £28.8 million, 2%

FSM: Financial statement

materiality,

PM: Performance

materiality,

TfC: Threshold for

communication to the

Audit Committee

An overview of the scope of our audit

We performed a risk-based audit that requires an understanding of the Company’s business and in particular

matters related to:

Understanding the Company, its environment, including controls

› The processing and recording of investment activities. The day-to-day management of the Company’s

investment portfolio, the custody of its investments and the maintenance of the Company’s accounting

records are outsourced to third-party service providers. Accordingly, our audit work is focused on

obtaining an understanding of and evaluating, internal controls at the Company and the third-party service

providers, and inspecting records and documents held by these third-party service providers. In addition,

the Company engages an investment manager, FundRock Management Company (Guernsey) Limited

to manage the investment portfolio, which in turn engages Sequoia Investment Management Company

Limited (Investment Adviser) to manage the investment portfolio. We interacted with the Investment

Manager and the Investment Adviser in completing aspects of our audit work.

Work to be performed on financial information of the Company (including how it addressed

the key audit matters)

› We undertook substantive testing on material transactions, balances and disclosures, the extent of

which was based on various factors such as our overall assessment of the control environment, the

effectiveness of controls over individual systems and the management of specific risks;

› The majority of our substantive testing focused on the audit of the underlying investment portfolio

held through the wholly owned subsidiary and associated disclosures as at the reporting date and the

movement in investment holdings during the year;

› For subjective estimates made by management on valuing non-derivative financial assets at fair value

through profit or loss, we engaged an internal expert to confirm the appropriateness of the valuation

methodology used with consideration to valuation techniques routinely used by market participants to

value similar instruments and to value non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss

held at year-end;

› For judgements made by the Directors on assessing the appropriateness of preparing the financial

statements on a going concern basis, we challenged management’s cash flow forecasts by applying

further sensitivities to the downside sensitivity analysis made by them.

Changes in approach from previous period

There have been no changes in the scope of the current year’s audit from the previous year.

Other information

The other information comprises the information included in the annual report and audited financial

statements, other than the financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. The directors are

responsible for the other information contained within the annual report and audited financial statements.

Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and, except to the extent

otherwise explicitly stated in our report, we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon.

Our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information

is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise

appears to be materially misstated. If we identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material

misstatements, we are required to determine whether there is a material misstatement of the financial

statements themselves. If, based on the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a material

misstatement of this other information, we are required to report that fact.

We have nothing to report in this regard.

Matters on which we are required to report by exception

We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters in relation to which the Companies (Guernsey)

Law, 2008 requires us to report to you if, in our opinion:

› proper accounting records have not been kept by the Company; or

› the Company’s financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records; or

› we have not obtained all the information and explanations, which to the best of our knowledge and belief,

are necessary for the purposes of our audit.

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report continued

71 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Corporate governance statement

We have reviewed the Directors’ statement in relation to going concern, longer-term viability and that part of

the Corporate Governance Statement relating to the Company’s compliance with the provisions of the UK

Corporate Governance Code specified for our review by the Listing Rules.

Based on the work undertaken as part of our audit, we have concluded that each of the following elements

of the Corporate Governance Statement is materially consistent with the financial statements, or our

knowledge obtained during the audit:

› the Directors’ statement with regards to the appropriateness of adopting the going concern basis of

accounting and any material uncertainties identified set out on page 60;

› the Directors’ explanation as to their assessment of the Company’s prospects, the period this assessment

covers and why the period is appropriate set out on pages 60 and 61;

› the Directors’ statement on whether they have a reasonable expectation that the Company will be able to

continue in operation and meets its liabilities set out on page 60;

› the Directors’ statement on fair, balanced and understandable set out on page 63];

› the Board’s confirmation that it has carried out a robust assessment of the emerging and principal risks

set out on page 38;

› the section of the annual report that describes the review of the effectiveness of risk management and

internal control systems set out on page 49; and

› the section describing the work of the audit committee set out on pages 51 to 53.

Responsibilities of the directors

As explained more fully in the Statement of Directors’ Responsibilities set out on page 63, the directors are

responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and

fair view, and for such internal control as the Directors determine is necessary to enable the preparation of

financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, the Directors are responsible for assessing the Company’s ability to

continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the

going concern basis of accounting unless the Directors either intend to liquidate the Company or to cease

operations, or have no realistic alternative but to do so.

Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole

are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that

includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an

auditconducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists.

Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate,

they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these

financial statements.

Irregularities, including fraud, are instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations. The extent to

which our procedures are capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud, is detailed below:

› We obtained an understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks applicable to the Company and the

industry in which it operates. We determined that the following laws and regulations were most significant:

IFRS Accounting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”),

the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008, as amended, the Registered Collective Investment Schemes Rules

and Guidance 2021, the Association of Investment Companies (AIC) Code of Corporate Governance,

Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”), FCA Disclosure Guidance and Transparency

Rules, European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), EU Market Abuse Regulations, Task Force on

Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”), Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (“SFDR”), and

the relevant tax compliance regulations in the jurisdictions in which the Company operates. In addition,

we concluded that there are certain significant laws and regulations that may have an effect on the

determination of the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and those laws and regulations

relating to health and safety, employee matters, and bribery and corruption practices;

› We obtained an understanding of how the Company is complying with those legal and regulatory

frameworks by, making inquiries to management, and those responsible for legal and compliance

procedures. We corroborated our inquiries through our review of Board minutes and papers provided

tothe Audit Committee.

› Our work to identify non-compliance with the laws and regulations which were enumerated above

included:

› reviewing the Company’s compliance reports obtained from the compliance officer to identify

non-compliance with laws and regulations; and

› completing the required checklists to ensure that all areas are considered when checking that the entity

complied with the requirements of the related laws and regulations.

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

to the members of Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

Independent Auditor’s Report continued

72 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements continued

› We assessed the susceptibility of the Company’s financial statements to material misstatement,

includinghow fraud might occur by evaluating management’s incentives and opportunities for

manipulation of the financial statements. This included an evaluation of the risk of management override

ofcontrols. Audit procedures performed by the engagement team included:

› evaluation of the design and implementation of controls that management has put in place to prevent

and detect fraud;

› challenging assumptions and judgements made by management in its significant accounting estimates;

and

› identifying and testing journal entries that exhibit certain risk characteristics determined by the

engagement team and corroborating to supporting documents to understand management’s rationale

and economic substance.

› These audit procedures were designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements

were free from fraud or error. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement due to fraud is higher

than the risk of not detecting one resulting from error and detecting irregularities that result from

fraud is inherently more difficult than detecting those that result from error, as fraud may involve

collusion, deliberate concealment, forgery or intentional misrepresentations. Also, the further removed

non-compliance with laws and regulations is from events and transactions reflected in the financial

statements, the less likely we would become aware of it;

› The engagement partner’s assessment of the appropriateness of the collective competence and

capabilities of the engagement team included consideration of the engagement team’s:

› understanding of, and practical experience with, audit engagements of a similar nature and complexity,

through appropriate training and participation;

› knowledge of the industry in which the Company operates; and

› understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks applicable to the Company.

› We communicated relevant laws and regulations and potential fraud risks to all engagement team

members, including internal specialists, and remained alert to any indications of fraud or non-compliance

with laws and regulations throughout the audit.

› In assessing the potential risks of material misstatement, we obtained an understanding of:

› the Company’s operations, including the nature of its revenue sources, products and services and

its objectives and strategies to understand the classes of transactions, account balances, expected

financial statement disclosures and business risks that may result in risks of material misstatement;

› the applicable statutory provisions; and

› the Company’s control environment, including:

› the policies and procedures implemented to comply with the requirements of its regulator,

includingthe adequacy of the training to inform staff of the relevant legislation rules and other

regulations of the regulator;

› the adequacy of procedures for authorisation of transactions, internal review procedures over the

Company’s compliance with regulatory requirements;

› the authority of, and resources available to the compliance officer; and

› procedures to ensure that possible breaches of requirements are appropriately investigated and

reported.

A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial

Reporting Council’s website at: www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of our

auditor’s report.

Other matters which we are required to address

We were appointed by the Board on 8 December 2021 to audit the financial statements for the year

ending 31 March 2022. Our total uninterrupted period of engagement is 4 years, covering the years ended

31March 2022 to 31 March 2025.

The non-audit services prohibited by the FRC’s Ethical Standard were not provided to the Company and we

remain independent of the Company in conducting our audit.

Our audit opinion is consistent with the additional report to the Audit Committee.

Use of our report

This report is made solely to the Company’s members, as a body, in accordance with section 262 of the

Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the

Company’s members those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor’s report and for no other

purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other

than the Company and the Company’s members as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the

opinions we have formed.

Cyril Swale

for and on behalf of Grant Thornton Limited

Chartered Accountants

St Peter Port

Guernsey

Date: 24 June 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

for the year ended 31 March 2025

Statement of comprehensive income

Note

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Revenue

Net (losses)/gains on non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 6 (4,073,438) 70,975,563

Net gains on derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 7 21,885,607 40,756,355

Investment income 9 78,766,311 20,023,606

Net foreign exchange gains 2,588,001 161,656

Total revenue 99,166,481 131,917,180

Expenses

Investment Adviser’s fees 10 9,837,744 9,937,332

Investment Manager’s fees 10 427,098 401,973

Directors’ fees and expenses 333,969 367,726

Administration fees 10 505,738 504,656

Auditor’s fees 246,112 210,700

Legal and professional fees

1,850,074 2,523,484

Valuation fees 725,500 733,100

Custodian fees 219,056 231,465

Listing, regulatory and statutory fees 167,894 142,101

Other expenses 720,827 512,949

Total operating expenses 15,034,012 15,565,486

Loan finance costs 15 4,332,589 5,926,840

Total expenses 19,366,601 21,492,326

Profit and total comprehensive income for the year 79,799,880 110,424,854

Basic and diluted earnings per Ordinary Share 13 5.04p 6.58p

1. Legal and professional fees include an amount of £1,025,463 (2024: £1,237,263) in respect of fees relating to the Fund’s investment in Bulb Energy

All items in the above statement are from continuing operations.

The accompanying notes on pages 77 to 105 form an integral part of the Financial Statements.

73 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

for the year ended 31 March 2025

Statement of changes in Shareholders’ equity

Year ended 31 March 2025 Note

capital

Retained

losses

Tot al

At 1 April 2024 1,720,452,093 (196,169,547) 1,524,282,546

Ordinary Shares buybacks during the year 12 (55,858,674) — (55,858,674)

Total comprehensive income for the year — 79,799,880 79,799,880

Dividends paid during the year 4 — (109,035,152) (109,035,152)

At 31 March 2025 1,664,593,419 (225,404,819) 1,439,188,600

Year ended 31 March 2024 Note

capital

Retained

losses

Total

At 1 April 2023 1,808,622,511 (190,769,209) 1,617,853,302

Ordinary Shares buybacks during the year 12 (88,170,418) — (88,170,418)

Total comprehensive income for the year — 110,424,854 110,424,854

Dividends paid during the year 4 — (115,825,192) (115,825,192)

At 31 March 2024 1,720,452,093 (196,169,547) 1,524,282,546

The accompanying notes on pages 77 to 105 form an integral part of the Financial Statements.

74 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

for the year ended 31 March 2025

Statement of financial position

Note

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Non-current assets

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 6 1,479,215,419 1,493,171,675

Current assets

Cash and cash equivalents 8 7,523,136 7,507,495

Trade and other receivables 14 2,411,179 602,507

Derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 7 17,669,291 28,098,804

Total current assets 27,603,606 36,208,806

Total assets 1,506,819,025 1,529,380,481

Current liabilities

Trade and other payables 16 3,596,055 4,322,344

Derivative financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss 7 7,181,087 775,591

Total current liabilities 10,777,142 5,097,935

Non-current liabilities

Loan payable 15 56,853,283 —

Total liabilities 67,630,425 5,097,935

Net assets 1,439,188,600 1,524,282,546

Equity

Share capital 12 1,664,593,419 1,720,452,093

Retained losses (225,404,819) (196,169,547)

Total equity 1,439,188,600 1,524,282,546

Number of Ordinary Shares 12 1,555,061,936 1,625,484,274

Net asset value per Ordinary Share 92.55p 93.77p

The Financial Statements on pages 73 to 105 were approved and authorised for issue by the Board of Directors on 24 June 2025 and signed on its behalf by:

James Stewart

Chair

The accompanying notes on pages 77 to 105 form an integral part of the Financial Statements.

75 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

for the year ended 31 March 2025

Statement of cash flows

Note

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Cash flows from operating activities

Profit for the year 79,799,880 110,424,854

Adjusted for:

Net losses/(gains) on non-derivative financial

assets at fair value through profit or loss 6 4,073,438 (70,975,563)

Net gains on derivative financial assets at fair

value through profit or loss 7 (21,885,607) (40,756,355)

Investment income (78,766,311) (20,023,606)

Net foreign exchange gains (2,588,001) (161,656)

Loan finance costs 15 4,332,589 5,926,840

(Increase)/decrease in trade and other

receivables (excluding prepaid finance costs

and investment income) 14 (59,360) 52,156

Decrease in trade and other payables (excluding

accrued finance costs, investment income and

Ordinary Share buybacks) 16 (58,883) (546,980)

(15,152,255) (16,060,310)

Cash received on settled forward contracts 36,116,611 31,086,892

Cash paid on settled forward contracts (1,682,966) (25,459,874)

Cash investment income received 107,906,897 131,219,401

Cash received on disposal of interest rate swaps 7 5,323,394 —

Interest rate swap interest paid 7 (1,036,423) —

Purchases of investments 6 (304,401,710) (349,917,050)

Sales of investments 6 285,143,942 619,536,166

Net cash inflow from operating activities 112,217,490 390,405,225

The accompanying notes on pages 77 to 105 form an integral part of the Financial Statements.

Note

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Cash flows from financing activities

Proceeds from loan drawdowns 15 92,493,120 77,384,713

Loan repayments 15 (35,538,975) (256,710,836)

Payment of loan finance costs 15 (5,030,210) (4,810,404)

Ordinary Share buybacks (57,033,497) (87,992,882)

Dividends paid (109,035,152) (115,825,192)

Net cash outflow from financing activities (114,144,714) (387,954,601)

Net (decrease)/increase in cash and cash

equivalents (1,927,224) 2,450,624

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning

ofyear 7,507,495 7,363,120

Effect of foreign exchange rate changes on

cash and cash equivalents during the year 1,942,865 (2,306,249)

Cash and cash equivalents at end of year 7,523,136 7,507,495

76 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements

for the year ended 31 March 2025

1. General information

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited (the “Company”) was incorporated and registered in

Guernsey under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 on 30 December 2014. The Company’s registration

number is 59596 and it is regulated by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission as a registered

closed-ended collective investment scheme under The Registered Collective Investment Scheme Rules

and Guidance 2021. The Company is listed and began trading on the Main Market of the London Stock

Exchange and was admitted to the premium segment of the Official List of the UK Listing Authority on

3March 2015.

The Company makes its investments principally through its subsidiary domiciled in Luxembourg, Sequoia

IDF Asset Holdings S.A. (the "Luxembourg Subsidiary"). The Company controls the Luxembourg Subsidiary

through a holding of 100% of its shares. The Company further invests in the Luxembourg Subsidiary through

the acquisition of Variable Funding Notes (“VFNs”) issued by the Luxembourg Subsidiary.

The Luxembourg Subsidiary has established three Delaware-domiciled investment holding entities (the

“Underlying Subsidiaries”), which it controls through holdings of 100% of their shares, as follows:

› Fussell Circus Capital, Inc.

› Mears Square Advisors, Inc.

› Bajtos Lane Management, Inc.

The Company has also established two subsidiaries domiciled in the United Kingdom, Yotta Bidco Limited

and Gadwall Holdings Limited (the “UK Subsidiaries”). Gadwall Holdings Limited was incorporated during

the year in order to hold an equity stake arising from the restructuring of a borrower group in which the

Luxembourg Subsidiary had invested. The Company controls the UK Subsidiaries through holdings of 100%

of their shares.

Through the Luxembourg Subsidiary and the UK Subsidiaries (together “the Subsidiaries”), the Company

invests in a diversified portfolio of senior and subordinated economic infrastructure debt investments.

With effect from 28 January 2015, Sequoia Investment Management Company Limited (the “Investment

Adviser”) was appointed as the Investment Adviser and FundRock Management Company (Guernsey)

Limited (the “Investment Manager”) was appointed as the Investment Manager.

2. Material accounting policies

Statement of compliance

The Annual Financial Statements (the “Financial Statements”), which give a true and fair view, have been

prepared in accordance with IFRS Accounting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting

Standards Board (“IASB”) and are in compliance with the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008, the Listing

Rules and the FCA Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules.

Basis of preparation

The Company’s Financial Statements have been prepared on a going concern basis under the historical cost

convention, as modified by the revaluation of financial instruments measured at fair value through profit orloss.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with IFRS as issued by the IASB requires the Directors

to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of

the Financial Statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.

Actual results could differ from those estimates. Significant estimates and judgements are discussed in

note3. The principal material accounting policies adopted are set out below.

The Directors believe that the Annual Report and Financial Statements contain all of the information required

to enable Shareholders and potential investors to make an informed appraisal of the investment activities

and profits and losses of the Company for the year to which it relates and does not omit any matter or

development of significance.

In accordance with the investment entities exemption contained in IFRS 10, “Consolidated Financial

Statements”, the Board has determined that the Company satisfies the criteria to be regarded as an

investment entity and that the Company provides investment-related services. As a result, the Company is

required to only prepare separate Financial Statements under IFRS as issued by the IASB and measures its

investment in its Subsidiaries at fair value. This determination involves a degree of judgement (see note 3 for

further details).

Going concern

The Company has been incorporated with an unlimited life. In accordance with the Company’s Articles, the

Directors are required to propose an ordinary resolution (the “Continuation Resolution”) every three years. Should

a Continuation Resolution not be passed, the Directors are required, within six months, to put forward proposals

for the reconstruction or reorganisation of the Company to the Shareholders for their approval. These proposals

may or may not involve winding up the Company and, accordingly, failure to pass a Continuation Resolution will

not necessarily result in the winding up of the Company. Should the failure of a Continuation Resolution result

in a winding up of the Company, it is likely that such winding up would in any case take longer than 12 months.

The last Continuation Resolution was proposed in August 2024 and was passed by an overwhelming majority.

77 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

2. Material accounting policies continued

Going concern continued

The Directors have reviewed the Fund’s holdings in cash and cash equivalents and investments, including

a consideration of the impact on the portfolio of the market uncertainty related to the continuing conflicts in

Ukraine and the Middle East and of the economic policies of the current US administration. The Directors

have also considered the potential impact on the Company’s liquidity arising from margin calls relating to the

Company’s forward foreign exchange positions.

In conducting this review, the Board has also considered the sustainability of the environmental and

social impact of the Fund’s activities. The Company has a strong balance sheet, with a very low level of

gearing. The higher interest rate environment of recent years has impacted on the fair values of fixed-rate

investments, however such losses as have been incurred – which have and will reverse as the investments

move closer to maturity and their valuations accrete to par – are unrealised, and therefore have no direct

effect on the solvency of the business. The risk of realised losses arising through loans defaulting is limited to

a few specific investments, representing a small proportion of the Fund’s investment portfolio. The Directors

also note that the interest income cash flow of the Fund continues to be sufficient to cover operating costs

and to pay the Company’s target dividend; and that the Company was able to refinance its revolving credit

facility with a new lender on more favourable terms during the year.

As a result of this review, the Directors have concluded that it is appropriate to adopt the going concern

basis in preparing the Financial Statements, as the Company, despite the current challenging economic

environment, retains a strong balance sheet and adequate financial resources to continue in operational

existence for at least 12 months from the date of approval of these Financial Statements and to meet its

liabilities as they falldue.

New and amended accounting standard effective and adopted

› IAS 1 (amended), “Presentation of Financial Statements” (amendments regarding the classification of debt

with covenants, effective for periods commencing on or after 1 January 2024).

The adoption of this amended standard has had no material impact on the Financial Statements of the

Company.

New and amended accounting and sustainability standards applicable to future

reportingperiods

The following relevant IFRSs, which have not been applied in these Financial Statements, were in issue at

the reporting date but not yet effective:

› IFRS 7 (amended), “Financial Instruments: Disclosures” (effective for accounting periods commencing on

or after 1 January 2026);

› IFRS 9 (amended), “Financial Instruments” (effective for accounting periods commencing on or after

1January 2026); and

› IFRS 18, “Presentation and Disclosures in Financial Statements” (effective for accounting periods

commencing on or after 1 January 2027).

The amendments to IFRS 7 and IFRS 9 were published in May 2024 and relate to the classification and

measurement of financial instruments.

The Directors do not anticipate that the adoption of these amended standards in future periods will have a

material impact on the financial statements of the Company.

IFRS 18 sets out requirements for the presentation and disclosure of information in financial statements to

help ensure they provide relevant information that faithfully represents an entity’s assets, liabilities, equity,

income and expenses.

In addition, the ISSB published the following Sustainability Disclosure Standards in June 2023, effective for

accounting periods commencing on or after 1January2024:

› IFRS S1, “General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information”; and

› IFRS S2, “Climate-related Disclosures”.

IFRS S1 sets out overall requirements with the objective to require an entity to disclose information about its

sustainability-related risks and opportunities.

IFRS S2 sets out the requirements for identifying, measuring and disclosing information about climate-related

risks and opportunities.

The purpose of both standards is to provide information that is useful to primary users of general purpose

financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.

These standards have not been formally endorsed by Guernsey, the UK or the EU and have therefore not yet

been adopted by the Company. The Directors are currently assessing the impact that the adoption of these

three new standards in future periods will have on the Financial Statements of the Company.

Investment income

Investment income includes interest income from the Company’s investment in VFNs issued by the

Luxembourg Subsidiary and from cash and cash equivalents.

VFN interest

VFN interest is recognised on an accruals basis, and is calculated as the net remaining profit or loss in

the Luxembourg Subsidiary after accounting for all revenue and realised gains receivable deriving from its

investments and cash and cash equivalents, less any realised losses or impairments on investments and

expenses due or payable.

Interest on VFNs issued by the Luxembourg Subsidiary is paid to the Company on a quarterly basis.

TheVFN interest receivable recognised in the Company’s statement of comprehensive income comprises

the quarterly cash payments received from the Luxembourg Subsidiary, adjusted by the accrued balances of

VFN interest brought forward at the start of the year and carried forward at the year end. For details, please

refer to note 9.

78 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

2. Material accounting policies continued

Net gains/(losses) on financial assets at fair value through profit or loss

Net gains/(losses) on financial assets at fair value through profit or loss consists of realised and unrealised

gains and losses on both non-derivative and derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss, and

are recognised in profit or loss in the statement of comprehensive income. Gains or losses on non-derivative

financial instruments are calculated as described in the section “Non-derivative financial instruments - fair

value and subsequent measurement” within this note; gains or losses on derivative financial instruments

are calculated as described in the section “Derivative financial instruments – fair value and subsequent

measurement” within this note.

Share‑based payments (equity‑settled)

Services received in exchange for the grant of any share-based payments are measured at the fair value of

the services received. Share-based payments are recognised as an expense in profit or loss of the statement

of comprehensive income and in equity as an increase in share capital.

In accordance with the terms of the Investment Advisory Agreement, one-tenth of the Investment Adviser’s

fee is settled through the issue of Ordinary Shares in the Company, subject to market conditions. However,

during the current and prior years, due to the discount of the Company’s Ordinary Share price to NAV, the

Investment Adviser’s fees have been paid entirely in cash, with an obligation on the part of the Investment

Adviser to use one-tenth of the fee to acquire Ordinary Shares in the market (see note 10).

As a result, there have been no share-based payments made during the current or prior years.

Expenses

Expenses of the Company are recognised in profit or loss of the statement of comprehensive income on an

accruals basis.

Ordinary Shares

The Ordinary Shares of the Company are classified as equity based on the substance of the contractual

arrangements and in accordance with the definition of equity instruments under IAS 32. The proceeds from

the issue of Ordinary Shares are recognised in the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity, net of

issuecosts.

Cash and cash equivalents

Cash comprises current deposits with banks. Cash equivalents are short-term, highly liquid investments

that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash, are subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value

and are held for the purpose of meeting short-term cash commitments rather than for investments or other

purposes. Certain amounts of the Company’s cash may be held as collateral against the Company’s forward

foreign exchange trading facilities (see note 8).

Financial instruments

Classification

The Company classifies its financial assets and financial liabilities into categories in accordance with IFRS 9,

“Financial Instruments”.

Financial assets and liabilities at fair value through profit and loss

Financial assets and liabilities classified in this category are designated by management on initial recognition

as part of a group of financial assets and/or liabilities which are managed and their performance evaluated

on a fair value basis, in accordance with a documented investment strategy. This category includes the

Company’s non-derivative financial assets (investment in shares and VFNs issued by the Subsidiaries)

and derivative financial assets and liabilities (forward foreign exchange contracts and interest rate swaps).

Theinvestment entities exception to consolidation in IFRS 10, “Consolidated Financial Statements” requires

subsidiaries of an investment entity to be accounted for at fair value through profit or loss in accordance

withIFRS 9.

Non-derivative financial assets at amortised cost

This category comprises cash and cash equivalents and trade and other receivables, other than

prepaidexpenses.

Non-derivative financial liabilities at amortised cost

This category comprises loans payable and trade and other payables.

Recognition and initial measurement

Financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss are measured initially at fair value,

being the transaction price, on the trade date. Transaction costs on financial assets at fair value through

profit or loss are expensed immediately. Financial assets or financial liabilities not at fair value through

profit or loss are initially recognised at fair value plus transaction costs that are directly attributable to their

acquisition or issue.

Non-derivative financial instruments - fair value and subsequent measurement

After initial measurement, the Company measures non-derivative financial assets classified at fair value

through profit or loss at their fair values. Changes in fair value are recorded within “Net gains/(losses) on

non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss” in the statement of comprehensive income.

This account includes foreign exchange differences.

“Fair value” is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly

transaction between market participants at the measurement date in the principal or, in its absence, the

most advantageous market to which the Company has access at that date. The fair value of a liability

reflects its non-performance risk.

If there is no quoted price in an active market, the Company uses valuation techniques that maximise

the use of relevant observable inputs and minimise the use of unobservable inputs. The chosen valuation

technique incorporates all of the factors that market participants would take into account in pricing a

transaction. Please refer to note 6 for further details.

79 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

2. Material accounting policies continued

Financial instruments continued

Non-derivative financial instruments – amortised cost measurement

After initial measurement, other financial liabilities are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest

rate method. The amortised cost of a financial asset or financial liability is the amount at which the financial

asset or financial liability is measured on initial recognition, minus principal repayments, plus or minus the

cumulative amortisation using the effective interest method of any difference between the initial amount

recognised and the maturity amount, minus any allowance for expected credit losses.

At each reporting date, the Company measures the loss allowance on financial assets carried at amortised

cost at an amount equal to the lifetime expected credit losses, if the credit risk has increased significantly

since initial recognition. If, at the reporting date, the credit risk has not increased significantly since initial

recognition, the Company measures the loss allowance at an amount equal to 12-month expected credit

losses. The expected credit losses are estimated based on the Company’s historical credit loss experience,

adjusted for factors that are specific to the financial asset, general economic conditions and an assessment

of both the current as well as the forecast direction of conditions at the reporting date, including the time

value of money where appropriate.

The measurement of expected credit losses is a function of the probability of default, loss given default (i.e.

the magnitude of the loss if there is a default) and exposure at the default. The assessment of the probability

of default and loss given default is based on historical data adjusted by forward-looking information.

As at 31 March 2025 and 31 March 2024, the carrying amount of the short-term receivables and payables

approximate their fair value.

Derivative financial instruments – fair value and subsequent measurement

The Company holds derivative financial instruments to minimise its exposure to foreign exchange risks (in

the form of forward foreign exchange contracts) and to minimise its exposure to interest rate risks (in the

form of interest rate swaps). Derivatives are classified as financial assets or financial liabilities (as applicable)

at fair value through profit or loss and are initially recognised at fair value; attributable transaction costs

are recognised in profit or loss in the statement of comprehensive income when incurred. Subsequent

to initial recognition, derivatives are measured at fair value and changes thereto are recorded within

“Netgains/(losses) on derivative financial instruments at fair value through profit or loss” in the statement

ofcomprehensive income. This account includes foreign exchange differences but excludes interest income.

The fair values of derivative transactions are measured using their market prices at the reporting date.

Derecognition

A financial asset is derecognised when the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial asset

expire, or when the financial asset and substantially all the risks and rewards thereof are transferred.

A financial liability is derecognised when it is extinguished, discharged, cancelled or expires.

Foreign currency

Functional and presentation currency

The Financial Statements of the Company are presented in the currency of the primary economic

environment in which the Company operates (its functional currency). The Directors have considered

the primary economic currency of the Company; the currency in which the original finance was raised;

the currency in which distributions will be made; and ultimately what currency would be returned to

Shareholders if the Company was wound up. The Directors have also considered the currency to which the

Company’s investments are exposed. On balance, the Directors believe that Sterling best represents the

functional currency of the Company during the year. Therefore, the books and records are maintained in

Sterling and, for the purpose of the Financial Statements, the results and financial position of the Company

are presented in Sterling, which has been selected as the presentation currency of the Company.

Transactions and balances

Foreign currency transactions are translated into the functional currency using the exchange rates prevailing

at the dates of the transactions. Foreign currency balances at the year end are translated into the functional

currency at the exchange rates prevailing at the year-end date. Foreign exchange gains and losses resulting

from the settlement of such transactions and from the translation at year-end exchange rates of monetary

assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are recognised in profit or loss of the statement of

comprehensive income.

Non-monetary items measured at historical cost are translated using the exchange rates at the date of the

transaction. Non-monetary items measured at fair value are translated using the exchange rates at the date

when fair value was determined.

Dividends

Interim dividends paid to Shareholders are recorded through the statement of changes in Shareholders’

equity when they are declared to Shareholders. Final dividends are recorded through the statement of

changes in Shareholders’ equity when they are approved by Shareholders. The payment of any dividend

by the Company is subject to the satisfaction of a solvency test as required by the Companies (Guernsey)

Law,2008.

Segmental reporting

The Chief Operating Decision Maker, which is the Board, is of the opinion that the Company is engaged

in a single segment of business, through its investment in the Subsidiaries, being investment in senior and

subordinated infrastructure debt instruments and related and/or similar assets, with the aim of providing

sustained long-term distributions and capital appreciation. The financial information used by the Chief

Operating Decision Maker to manage the Company presents the business as a single segment.

Segment information is measured on the same basis as that used in the preparation of the Company’s

Financial Statements.

The Company receives no revenues from external customers. Other than the UK Subsidiaries, which

are United Kingdom companies, the Luxembourg Subsidiary, which is a Luxembourg company, and its

underlying subsidiaries, which are Delaware companies, the Company holds no non-current assets in any

geographical area other than Guernsey.

80 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

3. Use of judgements and estimates

The preparation of Financial Statements in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB requires the Board

to make judgements, estimates and assumptions that affect the application of policies and the reported

amounts of assets and liabilities and income and expenses. The estimates and associated assumptions are

based on various factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which

form the basis of making the judgements about carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily

apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on a semi-annual basis. Revisions to accounting

estimates are recognised in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period,

or in the period of the revision and future periods if the revision affects both current and future periods.

The principal judgements and estimates are as follows:

Judgements

Functional currency

Refer to note 2 “Functional and presentation currency”.

Going concern

Refer to note 2 “Going concern”.

Investment entity

The Board has determined that the Company has all the elements of control as prescribed by IFRS 10 in

relation to the Subsidiaries and the Underlying Subsidiaries, as the Company owns 100% of the equity

of each of the Subsidiaries (and the Luxembourg Subsidiary owns 100% of the equity of the Underlying

Subsidiaries), is exposed and has rights to the returns of the Subsidiaries and the Underlying Subsidiaries,

and has the ability either directly or through the Investment Adviser to affect the amount of its returns from

the Subsidiaries and Underlying Subsidiaries.

The Company provides investment management services and has a number of investors who pool their

funds to gain access to these services and investment opportunities that they might not have had access to

individually. The Company, being listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange, obtains funding

from a diverse group of external Shareholders, to whom it has committed that its business purpose is to

invest funds solely for the returns from capital appreciation and investment income.

The Company has three direct investments – the Luxembourg Subsidiary and the two UK Subsidiaries –

ineachof which it holds 100% of the equity, however its investments in the Subsidiaries are used to acquire

exposure to a portfolio comprising a large number of investments. The fair value method is used to represent

the Subsidiaries’ performance in its internal reporting to the Board, and to evaluate the performance of the

Subsidiaries’ investments and to make investment decisions for mature investments. Those investments

have documented maturity/redemption dates or will be sold if other investments with better risk/reward

profiles are identified, which the Directors consider demonstrates a clear exit strategy.

The Subsidiaries serve as asset holding companies and do not provide investment-related services.

Accordingly, when the Subsidiaries are assessed based on the structure of the Company and its

Subsidiaries as a whole as a means of carrying out activities, the Board has concluded that the Company

satisfies sufficient of the criteria above to meet the definition of an investment entity. As a result, under the

terms of IFRS 10, the Company is not permitted to consolidate the Subsidiaries, but must measure its

investments in the Subsidiaries at fair value through profit or loss. The Company has determined that the

fair values of the Subsidiaries are the Subsidiaries’ net asset values and has concluded that the Subsidiaries

meet the definition of unconsolidated subsidiaries under IFRS 12 and has made the necessary disclosures.

Estimates

Fair value of non-derivative and derivative financial instruments at fair value through

profitor loss

The Company records its investment in the Subsidiaries and in forward foreign exchange contracts and

interest rate swaps at fair value. Details of the valuation methodologies applied in determining the fair value

of the Subsidiaries and its underlying infrastructure investments are disclosed in note 6. The valuations of

forward foreign exchange contracts are prepared with reference to prevailing exchange rates. Valuations of

the interest rate swaps are provided by the counterparty, with reference to prevailing levels of interest rates.

The Directors consider that these valuations represent the best estimate of the fair values of the Company’s

investments in the Subsidiaries and their underlying infrastructure investments and in forward foreign

exchange contracts and interest rate swaps.

81 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

4. Dividends

In the absence of any significant restricting factors, the Board expects to pay dividends totalling 6.875p per Ordinary Share per annum. The Company pays dividends on a quarterly basis.

The Company declared and paid the following dividends on its Ordinary Shares during the year ended 31 March 2025:

Period to Payment date

Dividend rate per

Ordinary Share

(p)

Net dividend

payable

(£) Record date Ex-dividend date

31 March 2024 23 May 2024 1.71875 27,754,247 26 April 2024 25 April 2024

30 June 2024 23 August 2024 1.71875 27,344,422 26 July 2024 25 July 2024

30 September 2024 22 November 2024 1.71875 27,058,301 25 October 2024 24 October 2024

31 December 2024 28 February 2025 1.71875 26,878,182 31 January 2025 30 January 2025

On 17 April 2025, the Company declared an interim dividend of 1.71875p per Ordinary Share in respect of the quarter ended 31 March 2025. The dividend was paid on 30 May 2025.

The Company paid the following dividends on its Ordinary Shares during the year ended 31 March 2024:

Period to Payment date

Dividend rate per

Ordinary Share

(p)

Net dividend

payable

(£) Record date Ex-dividend date

31 March 2023 26 May 2023 1.71875 29,662,764 28 April 2023 27 April 2023

30 June 2023 25 August 2023 1.71875 29,140,324 28 July 2023 27 July 2023

30 September 2023 24 November 2023 1.71875 28,675,830 27 October 2023 26 October 2023

31 December 2023 29 February 2024 1.71875 28,346,274 26 January 2024 25 January 2024

Under Guernsey law, the Company can pay dividends in excess of its retained earnings provided it satisfies the solvency test prescribed by the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008. The solvency test considers whether the

Company is able to pay its debts when they fall due, and whether the value of the Company’s assets is greater than its liabilities. The Company satisfied the solvency test in respect of all dividends declared or paid in theyear.

The Directors are authorised to offer Shareholders a scrip dividend alternative instead of cash. However, during the current and prior years, due to the continuing discount of the Company’s Ordinary Share price to the NAV, no

scrip dividends were paid.

5. Financial risk management

The Board of Directors has overall responsibility for the establishment and oversight of the Company’s risk management framework. The Company’s risk management policies are established to identify and analyse the risks

faced by the Company, to set appropriate risk limits and controls and to monitor risks and adherence to limits. Risk management policies are reviewed regularly to reflect changes in market conditions and the Company’s

activities. Below is a non-exhaustive summary of the risks that the Company is exposed to as a result of its use of financial instruments. It should be noted that, whilst the non-derivative financial instruments recognised in the

Company’s statement of financial position principally comprise its investments in the Subsidiaries, much of the following analysis focuses on the underlying assets and liabilities held within the Subsidiaries, as this is where the

financial risks faced by the Company principally arise.

The following table provides a reconciliation of the financial assets at fair value through profit or loss of the Subsidiaries to the Company’s financial assets at fair value through profit or loss:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Subsidiaries’ non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 1,423,647,101 1,380,690,694

Subsidiaries’ net current assets 55,568,318 112,480,981

Company’s non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 1,479,215,419 1,493,171,675

82 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

5. Financial risk management continued

Market risk

Market risk is the risk that changes in market factors such as foreign exchange rates, interest rates and equity prices will affect the Company’s income and/or the value of its holdings in financial instruments.

The Company’s exposure to market risk comes mainly from movements in the value of its investment in the Subsidiaries and on a look-through basis to the underlying investments in the Subsidiaries’ portfolios. Changes

in credit spreads (in the case of bond or loan investments) or in discount rates (in the case of private equity investments) may further affect the Subsidiaries’ net equity or net income, and hence the value of the Company’s

investment in the Subsidiaries.

The objective of market risk management is to manage and control market risk exposures within acceptable parameters while optimising the return on risk. The Company’s strategy for the management of market risk is

driven by its investment objective to provide investors with regular, sustained, long-term distributions and capital appreciation from a diversified portfolio of senior and subordinated economic infrastructure investments,

which are held in portfolios by the Subsidiaries. The various components of the Company’s market risk are managed on a daily basis by the Investment Manager in accordance with policies and procedures in place,

asdetailed below.

In addition, the Company, through its Subsidiaries, intends to mitigate market risk generally by not making investments that would cause it to have exposure to any one individual infrastructure asset exceeding 10% of

the Fund’s investments at the time of investment. The Subsidiaries’ market positions are monitored on a quarterly basis by the Board of Directors and by the Investment Manager at the point of investment and on an

ongoingbasis.

Interest rate risk

Interest rate risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market interest rates. The Subsidiaries’ interest-bearing financial assets and liabilities expose

them to risks associated with the effects of fluctuations in the prevailing levels of market interest rates on their financial position and cash flows.

The Company is exposed to cash flow interest rate risk in respect of its cash and cash equivalents and the floating rate debt investments held by the Subsidiaries and to fair value interest rate risk in respect of the fixed-

rate debt investments held by the Subsidiaries.

As the Company and the Subsidiaries have no investment restrictions which would confine their investment universe to short-dated issues, the Investment Manager is mindful that fixed interest portfolios with longer

durations may be subject to relatively greater adverse effects of a rising interest rate environment and inflationary considerations.

Interest rate risk is mitigated through the diversification of assets by duration and jurisdiction and the use of interest rate swaps.

Interest receivable on bank deposits or payable on loans or bank overdraft positions will be affected by fluctuations in interest rates. Interest rate risk on cash and cash equivalents and loans payable is not considered

significant.

The following table shows the interest rate profile of the Subsidiaries’ investment portfolios:

31 March 2025 31 March 2024

Range of

interest rates £

Range of

interest rates £

Investments with floating interest rates 0.00% to 18.68% 667,191,402 0.00% to 21.93% 645,860,368

Investments with fixed interest rates 0.00% to 12.00% 736,848,296 0.00% to 12.00% 704,147,820

Non-interest-bearing investments N/A 19,607,403 N/A 30,682,506

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss (note 6) 1,423,647,101 1,380,690,694

83 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

5. Financial risk management continued

Market risk continued

Interest rate risk continued

The following table shows the Directors’ best estimate of the sensitivity of the Company’s interest rate swaps

and the portfolios of fixed-rate and floating rate investments held within the Subsidiaries to stressed changes

in interest rates, with all other variables held constant. The table assumes parallel shifts in the respective

forward yield curves and is based on the modified duration of the assets.

Possible reasonable change in interest rate

31 March 2025

effect on net assets

and profit or loss

31 March 2024

effect on net assets

and profit or loss

Fixed-rate investments +3% (69,640,307) (74,954,049)

Floating rate investments +3% 24,985,824 23,044,283

Interest rate swaps +3% (12,945,299) (8,452,793)

(57,599,782) (60,362,559)

Fixed-rate investments -3% 80,467,416 86,699,146

Floating rate investments -3% (23,787,614) (22,779,112)

Interest rate swaps -3% 8,825,683 8,452,793

65,505,485 72,372,827

The possible change in the interest rate of 3% (2024: 3%) is regarded as reasonable in the context of the

current economic environment and the levels of global interest rates during the year.

The sensitivity analysis relating to the fixed-rate investments and the interest rate swaps represents a

measure of the fair value interest rate risk attached to the Subsidiaries’ investments, based on changes in

the discount rates used to value the investments, whilst the sensitivity analysis relating to the floating rate

investments represents a measure of the cash flow interest rate risk, based on changes in base rates or

other interest rate benchmarks attached to the investments.

Under the terms of the Prospectus, the Company is permitted to use interest rate hedging instruments to

protect against exposure to interest rate risk. During the year, the Company entered into interest rate swap

transactions to lock in current levels of interest rates for a period of seven years (see note 7).

Currency risk

Currency risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because

of changes in foreign exchange rates.

The Company is directly exposed to currency risk in respect of its cash and cash equivalents and derivatives

denominated in currencies other than Sterling, and indirectly through its investment in the Luxembourg

Subsidiary.

The functional and presentational currency of the Company is Sterling. The Company invests in its

Luxembourg Subsidiary through VFNs denominated in various currencies other than the functional currency,

currently US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar and Swiss Franc (2024: US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar and

Swiss Franc). The Luxembourg Subsidiary in turn invests in financial instruments and enters into transactions

that are denominated in currencies other than the functional currency. Consequently, the Company is

exposed to risk that the exchange rate of its functional currency relative to other foreign currencies may

change in a manner that has an adverse effect on the fair value or future cash flows of the Company’s

financial assets orliabilities.

The Investment Manager monitors the exposure to foreign currencies and reports to the Board on a regular

basis. The Investment Manager measures the risk of the foreign currency exposure by considering the effect

on the net asset value and income of a movement in the rates of exchange to which the assets, liabilities,

income and expenses are exposed. A currency hedging programme is in place at the Company level, in line

with the intentions stated in the Prospectus, to protect against the effects of currency exposure on the future

income arising from the underlying portfolio of investments held by the Luxembourg Subsidiary.

The total net foreign currency exposure of the Company and the Subsidiaries combined at the year end

was as detailed in the following table. These figures have been presented on a combined basis, as there

exist foreign currency assets and liabilities in both the Company and the Luxembourg Subsidiary, and the

forward foreign exchange contracts held at the Company level (see note 7) are taken out to hedge currency

exposure existing at the Luxembourg Subsidiary level.

84 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

5. Financial risk management continued

Market risk continued

Currency risk continued

31 March 2025

USD exposure

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 615,774,220

Forward foreign exchange contracts (636,971,441)

Cash and cash equivalents 12,775,520

Trade and other receivables 8,562,036

Loan payable (36,414,349)

Net USD exposure (36,274,014)

EUR exposure

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 429,951,408

Forward foreign exchange contracts (452,021,628)

Cash and cash equivalents 6,101,515

Trade and other receivables 13,763,567

Trade and other payables (264,071)

Loan payable (20,438,934)

Net EUR exposure (22,908,143)

CHF exposure

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 39,418,360

Forward foreign exchange contracts (42,014,453)

Cash and cash equivalents 769,899

Trade and other receivables 8,194

Net CHF exposure (1,818,000)

AUD exposure

Cash and cash equivalents 352,583

Net AUD exposure 352,583

Total exposure (60,647,574)

31 March 2024

USD exposure

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 685,957,857

Forward foreign exchange contracts (738,617,469)

Cash and cash equivalents 74,744,708

Trade and other receivables 5,303,610

Net USD exposure 27,388,706

EUR exposure

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 328,439,367

Forward foreign exchange contracts (372,470,134)

Cash and cash equivalents 3,512,871

Trade and other receivables 8,611,982

Trade and other payables (296,898)

Net EUR exposure (32,202,812)

CHF exposure

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 39,546,533

Forward foreign exchange contracts (41,985,053)

Cash and cash equivalents 888,908

Trade and other receivables 39,480

Net CHF exposure (1,510,132)

AUD exposure

Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 1,300,532

Forward foreign exchange contracts (1,499,018)

Cash and cash equivalents 1,658

Trade and other receivables 515,327

Net AUD exposure 318,499

Total exposure (6,005,739)

85 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

5. Financial risk management continued

Market risk continued

Currency risk continued

Possible reasonable

change in exchange rate

31 March 2025

net exposure

31 March 2025

effect on net assets

and profit or loss

Possible reasonable

change in

exchange rate

31 March 2024

net exposure

31 March 2024

effect on net asset

and profit or loss

USD/GBP +/- 10% (36,274,014) -/+ 3,627,401 +/- 10% 27,388,706 +/- 2,738,871

EUR/GBP +/- 10% (22,908,143) -/+ 2,290,814 +/- 10% (32,202,812) -/+ 3,220,281

CHF/GBP +/- 10% (1,818,000) -/+ 181,800 +/- 10% (1,510,132) -/+ 151,013

AUD/GBP +/- 10% 352,583 +/- 35,258 +/- 10% 318,499 +/- 31,850

The possible change in exchange rates of 10% (2024: 10%) is regarded as reasonable, due to the increased volatility during the year of Sterling against the major currencies to which it is exposed.

The following table details the split of currencies based on fair value of bonds and loans in the Subsidiaries’ investment portfolios:

Currency

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Sterling 338,503,113 325,446,405

US Dollar 615,774,220 685,957,857

Euro 429,951,408 328,439,367

Swiss Franc 39,418,360 39,546,533

Australian Dollar — 1,300,532

Total 1,423,647,101 1,380,690,694

86 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

5. Financial risk management continued

Credit and counterparty risk

Credit risk is the risk that a counterparty to a financial instrument will fail to discharge an obligation or

commitment that it has entered into with the Company or one of the Subsidiaries or a vehicle in which the

Company or one of the Subsidiaries invests, resulting in a financial loss to the Company. It arises principally

from debt securities held, and also from derivative financial assets and cash and cash equivalents. For

risk management reporting purposes, the Company considers and aggregates all elements of credit risk

exposure (such as individual obligation default risk, country risk and sector risk).

In respect of the debt investments, credit risk is the risk that the fair value of a loan (or more generally, a

stream of debt payments) will decrease due to a change in the borrower’s ability to make payments, whether

that change is an actual default or a change in the borrower’s probability of default.

The Investment Manager’s management of the Subsidiaries’ portfolios is underpinned by the ongoing

monitoring and mitigation of credit risk in the portfolio to ensure that any credit events or institutional ratings

changes are identified in a timely manner. Gains or losses arising in the Subsidiaries will be reflected in an

increase or decrease in the amount of VFN interest receivable recognised in the Company.

The following table analyses the external ratings of the Subsidiaries’ portfolio investments, calculated using

all available ratings for the portfolio investments from Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch.

Standard & Poor’s rating (or equivalent)

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

BB- to BB+ 21,548,307 54,494,305

B- to B+ 141,355,748 62,405,933

Unrated 1,260,743,046 1,263,790,456

1,423,647,101 1,380,690,694

Prior to any investment purchase, the Investment Adviser provides a credit memorandum to the Investment

Manager which includes a Sequoia credit rating (based on an in-house rating system, which takes into

account certain facets of the investment, including the issuer’s security, financial statements, debt covenants

and the type of debt) for the debt investment, along with a recommendation to purchase the asset.

TheInvestment Manager vets the recommendation and liaises with the Risk Committee where appropriate.

The mitigation of credit risk starts with the Investment Adviser’s Investment Committee, which monitors risks

associated with potential debt investments and makes recommendations for acquisitions whilst allocating a

Sequoia credit rating.

The Investment Adviser formally performs credit reviews of the full portfolio at least semi-annually or as and

when a particular “Credit Event” occurs. No investments were downgraded during the current or prior years.

The table below analyses the Company’s maximum exposure to credit risk for the components of the

statement of financial position.

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through

profit or loss 1,479,215,419 1,493,171,675

Cash and cash equivalents 7,523,136 7,507,495

Derivative financial assets at fair value through

profitorloss 17,669,291 28,098,804

1,504,407,846 1,528,777,974

In line with the Company’s original Prospectus, a Cash Management Policy has been put in place.

Cashdeposits will only be placed with banks that hold a short-term rating of at least A-1, P-1 or F1 from

Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s or Fitch respectively and no more than 40% of net assets may be placed

with any one bank at any time. The Investment Manager carefully manages this process ensuring uninvested

cash is dispersed to adequately rated banks whilst maximising interest received. The Bank of New York

Mellon, as Custodian, holds cash in relation to the portfolio operations and in order to settle investment

transactions. Atthe year end the Standard and Poor’s short-term credit rating of Bank of New York Mellon

was A-1+ (2024: A-1+).

For operational purposes, the Company’s policy is to utilise banks with an investment grade rating or higher

(A-3, P-3 or F3 from Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s or Fitch respectively). The Company’s operational cash

is held with The Royal Bank of Scotland International Limited (“RBSI”). During the year, the Company has

used ING Bank (“ING”), Macquarie Bank Limited (“Macquarie”), Morgan Stanley, Nomura Bank International

(“Nomura”), Goldman Sachs International (“GSI”) and RBSI to undertake forward foreign exchange and

interest rate swap transactions. Hedging collateral may be held with these institutions if required.

At the year end the short-term credit ratings of these institutions were as follows (Standard & Poor’s unless

otherwise specified): GSI: A-1; ING: A-1; Macquarie: A-1; Morgan Stanley: A-2; Nomura: A-2; and RBSI:

A-1 (2024: GSI: A-1; IBCI: F2 (Fitch); ING: A-1; Macquarie: A-1; Morgan Stanley: A-2; Nomura: A-2; and

RBSI:A-1).

Bankruptcy or insolvency of any of the above financial institutions may cause the Company’s rights with

respect to the cash held to be delayed or limited. The Company monitors its risk by regularly monitoring the

credit ratings of these financial institutions.

Credit risk arising on debt securities held by the Subsidiaries is constantly monitored by the Investment

Manager. Credit risk is mitigated by the diversification of assets by maturity profile and jurisdiction.

87 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

5. Financial risk management continued

Credit and counterparty risk continued

The Subsidiaries’ exposure to credit risk in respect of their investments, based on the country of registration,

is summarised below:

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

United States of America/Canada 647,674,936 730,024,524

Europe 407,670,076 308,077,649

United Kingdom 368,302,089 341,287,989

Australia — 1,300,532

Subsidiaries’ non-derivative financial assets

at fair value through profit or loss (note 6) 1,423,647,101 1,380,690,694

The table below summarises the Subsidiaries’ portfolio concentrations:

Largest portfolio

holding of a

single asset

% of total portfolio

Average portfolio

holding % of

total portfolio

31 March 2025 4.34 1.69

Largest portfolio

holding of a

single asset

% of total portfolio

Average portfolio

holding % of

total portfolio

31 March 2024 4.39 1.82

The following table summarises the Subsidiaries’ exposure to market risk, based on its concentration

byindustry:

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Accommodation 89,768,829 44,955,066

Power 201,636,778 287,231,944

Renewable energy 127,693,512 139,598,873

Digitalisation 349,605,969 356,776,337

Transport 118,892,647 101,637,884

Transportation equipment 174,637,095 122,892,333

Utilities 205,966,206 158,707,627

Other 155,446,065 168,890,630

Subsidiaries’ non-derivative financial assets

at fair value through profit or loss (note 6) 1,423,647,101 1,380,690,694

Activities undertaken by the Company and the Subsidiaries may give rise to settlement risk. Settlement risk

is the risk of loss due to the failure of an entity to honour its obligations to deliver cash, securities or other

assets as contractually agreed.

For the majority of transactions, settlement risk is mitigated by conducting settlements through a broker to

ensure that a trade is settled only when both parties have fulfilled their contractual settlement obligations.

Settlement limits form part of the credit approval and limit monitoring processes. The Investment Manager

also conducts reviews of the settlement process and the Custodian to ensure a stringent settlement process

is inplace.

Liquidity risk

Liquidity risk is the risk that the Company or the Subsidiaries will encounter difficulty in meeting the

obligations associated with their financial liabilities that are settled by delivering cash or another

financialasset.

The Company’s policy and the Investment Manager’s approach to managing liquidity risk in both the

Company and the Subsidiaries is to ensure, as far as possible, that they will always have sufficient liquidity

to meet their liabilities when due, under both normal and stress conditions, without incurring unacceptable

losses or risking damage to the Company’s reputation.

In accordance with the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”), the Company has

implemented a liquidity policy that is consistent with its underlying obligations and redemption policy,

inaccordance with the requirements relating to quantitative and qualitative risk limits and which considers

both funding and trading liquidity.

88 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

5. Financial risk management continued

Liquidity risk continued

The Investment Manager manages the Company’s liquidity risk by taking into account the liquidity profile

and strategy of the Company and at the level of the Subsidiaries primarily through investing in a diverse

portfolio of assets. Liquidity risk mitigation will be sought through careful selection of assets, asset duration,

asset liquidity profiling through loan market interaction, geographical focus, currency allocations, cash

management and other Company considerations.

Given the Company’s permanent capital structure as a closed-ended fund, it is not exposed to redemption

risk. However, the financial instruments of the Company and the Subsidiaries include derivative contracts

traded over-the-counter and debt investments, which are not traded in an organised public market and

which may be illiquid.

The overall liquidity risk of the Company and the Subsidiaries is monitored on a quarterly basis by the

Board of Directors and on an ongoing basis by the Investment Manager. Shareholders will have no right of

redemption and must rely, in part, on the existence of a liquid market in order to realise their investment.

There are no Company assets subject to special arrangements arising from their illiquid nature.

The following table details the undiscounted contractual cash flows arising from the Company’s financial

liabilities, based on the remaining period from the year-end date to the contractual maturity date.

As at 31 March 2025

Less than

1 year

Between

1 and 3 years

Tot al

Derivative financial liabilities at fair

value through profit or loss 2,449,176 4,731,911 7,181,087

Loan payable 3,163,539 60,952,882 64,116,421

Trade and other payables 3,596,055 — 3,596,055

Total financial liabilities 9,208,770 65,684,793 74,893,563

As at 31 March 2024

Less than

1 year

Between

1 and 3 years

Total

Derivative financial liabilities at fair

value through profit or loss 586,348 189,243 775,591

Trade and other payables 4,322,344 — 4,322,344

Total financial liabilities 4,908,692 189,243 5,097,935

Operational risk

Operational risk is the risk of direct or indirect loss arising from a wide variety of causes associated with

the processes, technology and infrastructure supporting the Company’s activities relating to financial

instruments, either internally or on the part of service providers, and from external factors other than credit,

market and liquidity risks such as those arising from legal and regulatory requirements and generally

accepted standards of investment management behaviour.

Operational risk is managed so as to balance the limiting of financial losses and reputational damage with

achieving the investment objective of generating returns to investors.

The Investment Manager works with the Board to identify the risks facing the Company and the Subsidiaries.

The key risks are documented and updated in the Risk Matrix by the Investment Manager.

The primary responsibility for the development and implementation of controls over operational risk rests

with the Board. This responsibility is supported by the development of overall standards for the management

of operational risk, which encompasses the controls and processes at the service providers and the

establishment of service levels with the service providers.

The Directors’ assessment of the adequacy of the controls and processes in place at service providers with

respect to operational risk is carried out through having discussions with and reviewing reports from the

Investment Manager, who conducts regular discussions with the service providers.

Capital management

The Board’s policy is to maintain a strong capital base so as to maintain investor, creditor and market

confidence and to sustain future development of the Company. Capital is managed in accordance with the

investment policy, in pursuit of its investment objectives. Share buybacks have been utilised during the year

to manage the discount of share price to NAV. There are no duration restrictions on the investments acquired

by the Subsidiaries. Target annual returns

for investors in the Company are an income return of 6% to 7%

and a capital return of 1% to 2%.

The Company may employ leverage for short-term liquidity or investment purposes. During the year, the

Company has maintained a revolving credit facility. Until 17 July 2024, the facility was £325 million (with an

additional £75 million accordion facility) with a consortium of four banks led by the Royal Bank of Scotland

International Limited (see note 15). On that date, a new facility of £300 million (with a £50 million accordion

facility) was agreed with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., London Branch.

1. See Appendix for Alternative Performance Measures ("APMs")

89 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

6. Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss

The Company’s non-derivative assets at fair value through profit or loss comprise the following:

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

VFNs issued by the Luxembourg Subsidiary 1,572,602,915 1,579,044,726

Luxembourg subsidiary equity at fair value through

profit or loss 104,402,452 83,743,399

UK Subsidiaries equity at fair value through profit or loss 967,088 —

VFN interest paid in advance by the Luxembourg

Subsidiary to the Company (198,757,036) (169,616,450)

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value

through profit or loss at the end of the year 1,479,215,419 1,493,171,675

The following table provides a reconciliation of the movements in non-derivative assets at fair value through

profit or loss during the year:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Cost at the start of the year 1,505,935,819 1,775,554,935

VFNs purchased during the year 302,401,710 349,917,050

VFNs redeemed during the year (285,143,942) (619,536,166)

Investment in UK Subsidiary 2,000,000 —

Cost at the end of the year 1,525,193,587 1,505,935,819

Cumulative net unrealised losses of the Fund on

non-derivative financial assets at the end of the year

(see table on page 91) (45,978,168) (12,764,144)

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value

through profit or loss at the end of the year 1,479,215,419 1,493,171,675

The following table provides a reconciliation of the financial assets at fair value through profit or loss of the

Subsidiaries to the Company’s financial assets at fair value through profit or loss:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Subsidiaries’ non-derivative financial assets at fair value

through profit or loss 1,423,647,101 1,380,690,694

Subsidiaries’ net current assets 55,568,318 112,480,981

Company’s non-derivative financial assets at fair

value through profit or loss 1,479,215,419 1,493,171,675

None of the Subsidiaries’ non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss is subject to any

special arrangements arising from their illiquid nature.

The Company’s net (losses)/gains on non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss in the

year comprises the following:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Unrealised foreign exchange losses on VFNs (23,699,579) (31,814,258)

Unrealised gains on revaluation of the Subsidiaries 19,626,141 102,789,821

Net (losses)/gains on non-derivative financial

assets at fair value through profit or loss (4,073,438) 70,975,563

90 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

6. Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss continued

On a look-through basis, the Fund’s cumulative net losses on non-derivative financial assets at fair value

through profit or loss as at 31 March 2025 comprises the following:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Subsidiaries

Investment income during the year 121,564,594 146,519,383

Net return on financial assets and liabilities during

theyear, including foreign exchange and VFN

interestpayable (142,086,376) (163,069,527)

Net other income during the year 11,007,337 8,144,170

Subsidiaries’ losses during the year (9,514,445) (8,405,974)

Subsidiaries’ losses brought forward (85,873,052) (77,467,078)

Subsidiaries’ losses carried forward at the end

oftheyear (95,387,497) (85,873,052)

Company

Unrealised foreign exchange gains on VFNs

broughtforward 73,108,908 104,923,166

Unrealised foreign exchange losses on VFNs

during the year (23,699,579) (31,814,258)

Net losses on non-derivative financial assets at

fair value through profit or loss carried forward at

the end of the year (45,978,168) (12,764,144)

Fair value measurement

IFRS 13 requires that a fair value hierarchy be established that prioritises the inputs to valuation techniques

used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active

markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable

inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy under IFRS 13 are as follows:

› Level 1: inputs that are quoted market prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical instruments;

› Level 2: inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability,

either directly (as prices) or indirectly (derived from prices). This category includes instruments valued

using: quoted market prices in active markets for similar instruments; quoted for identical or similar

instruments in markets that are considered less than active; or other valuation techniques in which all

significant inputs are directly or indirectly observable from market data;

› Level 3: inputs that are unobservable. This category includes all instruments for which the valuation

technique includes inputs not based on observable data and the unobservable inputs have a significant

effect on the instruments’ valuations. This category includes instruments that are valued based on quoted

prices for similar instruments but for which significant unobservable adjustments or assumptions are

required to reflect differences between the instruments.

The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement is categorised in its entirety is

determined on the basis of the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement. For this

purpose, the significance of an input is assessed against the fair value measurement in its entirety. If a fair

value measurement uses observable inputs that require significant adjustment based on unobservable

inputs, that measurement is a Level 3 measurement. Assessing the significance of a particular input to the

fair value measurement requires judgement, considering factors specific to the asset or liability.

The determination of what constitutes “observable” requires the exercise of judgement. Observable data

is considered to be market data that is readily available, regularly distributed or updated, reliable, not

proprietary, and provided by independent sources that are actively involved in the relevant market.

The Company’s investment in the Subsidiaries, through the acquisition of shares and the issue of VFNs, is

classified within Level 3, as it is not traded and contains unobservable inputs. The Board considers that the

NAVs of the Subsidiaries are representative of their fair value.

91 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

6. Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss continued

Fair value measurement continued

31 March 2025

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Tot al

Assets

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss — — 1,479,215,419 1,479,215,419

Derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss — 17,669,291 — 17,669,291

Total — 17,669,291 1,479,215,419 1,496,884,710

Liabilities

Derivative financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss — 7,181,087 — 7,181,087

Total — 7,181,087 — 7,181,087

31 March 2024

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Total

Assets

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss — — 1,493,171,675 1,493,171,675

Derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss — 28,098,804 — 28,098,804

Total — 28,098,804 1,493,171,675 1,521,270,479

Liabilities

Derivative financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss — 775,591 — 775,591

Total — 775,591 — 775,591

During the year there have been no transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy. Such transfers are recognised at the end of the reporting period in which the change has occurred.

92 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

6. Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss continued

Fair value measurement continued

Movements in the Company’s Level 3 financial instruments during the year were as follows:

Currency

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Opening balance 1,493,171,675 1,803,011,023

Purchases of VFNs 302,401,710 349,917,050

Sales of VFNs (285,143,942) (619,536,166)

Investment in UK Subsidiary 2,000,000 —

Net (losses)/gains on non-derivative financial assets in the year (4,073,438) 70,975,563

Movement in VFN interest balance during the year (29,140,586) (111,195,795)

Closing balance 1,479,215,419 1,493,171,675

The investments held by the Subsidiaries in the underlying portfolios are classified within the fair value hierarchy as follows:

31 March 2025

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Tot al

Assets

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss — 130,364,306 1,293,282,795 1,423,647,101

31 March 2024

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Total

Assets

Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss — 43,145,201 1,337,545,493 1,380,690,694

The Subsidiaries’ Level 3 investment valuations are calculated by discounting future cash flows at a yield appropriate to comparable infrastructure loans or bonds (with such yield assessed primarily from publicly available

sources and secondarily in consultation with brokers and syndicate desks). Spread data will also be cross-referenced to recently priced primary market transactions if possible. When identifying comparable loans or

bonds, for the purpose of assessing market yields, structural and credit characteristics and project type are also considered.

The equity investments arising from the restructuring of a borrower group have been fair valued principally on a discounted cash flow basis.

During the year, no investments were transferred between levels of the fair value hierarchy (2024: 10 investments with a value of £288,086,219 were transferred from Level 2 to Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy).

Suchtransfers are recognised at the end of the reporting period in which the change has occurred.

The following table summarises the significant unobservable inputs the Company used to value its Subsidiaries’ underlying investments categorised within Level 3 at 31 March 2025. The table is not intended to be

all-inclusive but instead captures the significant unobservable inputs relevant to our determination of fair values.

93 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

6. Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss continued

Fair value measurement continued

31 March 2025

Type Sector

Fair value

Primary valuation

technique

Significant

unobservable inputs Range input

Private debt Accommodation 98,574,073 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 6.6%-20.0%

Private debt Power 201,636,778 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 4.6%-27.4%

Private debt Renewable energy 127,693,512 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 4.5%-9.9%

Private debt Digitalisation 349,605,969 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 4.8%-10.3%

Private debt Transport 84,887,844 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 5.7%-7.1%

Private debt Transport assets 143,326,643 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 5.2%-7.3%

Private debt Utilities 148,481,370 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 4.8%-15.0%

Private debt Other 139,076,606 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 4.4%-12.0%

1,293,282,795

94 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

6. Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss continued

Fair value measurement continued

31 March 2024

Type Sector

Fair value

Primary valuation

technique

Significant

unobservable inputs Range input

Private debt Accommodation 44,955,066 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 7.1%-15.0%

Private debt Power 253,346,143 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 3.8%-10.9%

Private debt Power 14,236,838

Pricing of index with

similar credit quality Index price N/A

Private debt Renewable energy 139,598,873 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 4.5%-10.2%

Private debt Digitalisation 356,776,337 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 5.8%-11.7%

Private debt Transport 101,637,884 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 6.0%-7.7%

Private debt Transport assets 99,396,095 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 5.3%-7.7%

Private debt Utilities 128,025,121 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 4.7%-15.0%

Private equity Utilities 30,682,506 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 15.0%

Private debt Other 98,119,006 Discounted cash flow Discount rate 7.0%-12.0%

Private debt Other 48,937,300 Underlying property valuation Property valuation N/A

Private debt Other 21,834,324 Non-binding offer received Offer value N/A

1,337,545,493

The following table shows the Directors’ best estimate of the sensitivity of the Subsidiaries’ Level 3 investments to changes in the principal unobservable input, with all other variables held constant.

Possible reasonable

change in interest rate

31 March 2025

effect on net assets

and profit or loss

31 March 2024

effect on net assets

and profit or loss

Fixed-rate investments +3% (62,809,544) (70,665,404)

Floating rate investments +3% 23,044,469 22,454,106

(39,765,075) (48,211,298)

Fixed-rate investments -3% 72,608,289 81,700,946

Floating rate investments -3% (21,846,259) (22,188,935)

50,762,030 59,512,011

95 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

6. Non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss continued

Fair value measurement continued

The sensitivity analysis assumes a change in the level of interest rates of 3% (2024: 3%), with all other variables

unchanged. This possible change in the interest rate is regarded as reasonable in the context of the current

economic environment and the levels of global interest rates during the year.

The sensitivity analysis relating to the fixed-rate investments represents a measure of the fair value interest rate

risk attached to the Subsidiaries’ Level 3 investments, based on changes in the discount rates used to value

the investments, whilst the sensitivity analysis relating to the floating rate investments represents a measure of

the cash flow interest rate risk, based on changes in base rates or other interest rate benchmarks attached to

the investments.

Valuation techniques for the investment portfolio of the Subsidiaries

With effect from 18 April 2017, the Company engaged PwC as Valuation Agent, with responsibility for reviewing

the valuations applied by the Investment Adviser in relation to the acquisition of loans and bonds on a monthly

basis. The principles and techniques utilised by the Investment Adviser and reviewed by PwC during the year in

calculating the valuations are described below.

Performing portfolio assets

Valuations of performing portfolio loans and bonds are based on actual market prices (bid-side prices) obtained

from third-party brokers and syndicate desks if available (such brokers to be agreed with the Investment

Adviser); if such prices are not available, then valuations are calculated by discounting future cash flows at a

yield appropriate to comparable infrastructure loans or bonds (with such yield assessed primarily from publicly

available sources and secondarily in consultation with brokers and syndicate desks). Spread data will also be

cross-referenced to recently priced primary market transactions if possible.

When identifying comparable loans or bonds, for the purpose of assessing market yields, the following will be

taken into account:

› project type: jurisdiction, sector, project status, transaction counterparties such as construction companies,

facility management providers;

› structural characteristics: maturity and average life, seniority, secured/unsecured, amortisation profile, cash

sweeps, par versus discount; and

› credit characteristics: credit ratios (e.g. equity cushion, asset cover/LTV, debt service coverage ratios

orequivalent, debt/EBITDA), ratings and ratings trajectory.

In calculating the net present value of future cash flows on loans with uncertain cash flows (such as

cash-sweep mechanisms), “banking base case” cash flows are used unless there is clear evidence that the

market is using a valuation based upon another set of cash flows.

In the case of discount loans with step-up margins, the assumption will be that market discounts are calculated

on a yield-to-worst basis, unless there is clear evidence that the market convention for that loan isdifferent.

For variable rate loans and bonds, for the purposes of projecting cash flows, the market convention of simple

compounding to the next interest payment date is used and swap rates for subsequent interest payments,

unless there is clear evidence that the market convention for that loan or bond is different.

The equity investments arising from the restructuring of a borrower group during the year have been fair

valued principally on a discounted cash flow basis.

Non-performing portfolio assets

Valuations of non-performing portfolio loans and bonds are based on actual market prices obtained from

third-party brokers if available, otherwise the net present value of future expected loan cash flows will be

calculated, estimated on the basis of the median outcome and discount rate that reflects the market yield

ofdistressed/defaulted loans or bonds.

In assessing the median outcome cash flows, a project/corporate model that reflects the distressed state

of the project will be used in order to assess a range of potential outcomes for expected future cash flows

with regards to, for example, interest or principal recoveries and timing. The Investment Adviser will work

closely with the Valuation Agent and they will have access to the Investment Adviser’s own model, analysis

and internal valuations. These valuations are subject to a high degree of management oversight and ultimate

approval by the Investment Manager.

In the opinion of the Investment Adviser, as at 31 March 2025, there are two non-performing assets in the

portfolio (2024: four), with a total value of £15.1 million (2024: £81.8 million).

Finalising the net asset value

Once the appropriate position price has been determined to be applied to each investment, the calculation

of the Subsidiaries’ net asset values is finalised through the following steps:

› conversion of each investment into GBP based on month-end foreign exchange rates;

› reconciliation of any interest accrued since issue of the most recent coupon; and

› aggregation of the investments into a single Fund NAV position statement (clean and dirty price).

7. Derivative financial assets/(liabilities) at fair value through profit or loss

The Company’s derivative financial instruments at fair value through profit or loss comprise the following

assets and liabilities:

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Forward foreign exchange contract assets 17,669,291 25,537,739

Interest rate swap assets — 2,561,065

Total derivative assets at fair value through profit or loss 17,669,291 28,098,804

Forward foreign exchange contract liabilities (4,034,017) (775,591)

Interest rate swap liabilities (3,147,070) —

Net derivative assets at fair value through profit

or loss 10,488,204 27,323,213

96 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

7. Derivative financial assets/(liabilities) at fair value through profit or loss continued

Forward foreign exchange contracts

As at 31 March 2025, the Company had the following outstanding commitments in respect of open forward foreign exchange contracts, by currency and by counterparty.

31 March 2025

Currency

amount

Buying

currency

GBP

amount

Unrealised

gains

Unrealised

losses

Net unrealised

gains

Selling currency

USD 824,300,000 GBP 644,694,641 8,157,535 (2,818,277) 5,339,258

EUR 539,500,000 GBP 467,266,108 8,812,181 (1,215,740) 7,596,441

CHF 45,000,000 GBP 42,014,453 595,663 — 595,663

1,153,975,202 17,565,379 (4,034,017) 13,531,362

Buying currency

USD 10,000,000 GBP 7,723,200 21,138 — 21,138

EUR 18,300,000 GBP 15,244,480 82,774 — 82,774

22,967,680 103,912 — 103,912

1,131,007,522 17,669,291 (4,034,017) 13,635,274

Counterparty

Unrealised

gains

Unrealised

losses

Net unrealised

gains/(losses)

GSI 633,368 (24,957) 608,411

ING 4,044,472 — 4,044,472

Macquarie 2,311,174 (911,224) 1,399,950

Morgan Stanley 1,287,100 (1,431,474) (144,374)

Nomura 8,087,388 — 8,087,388

RBSI 1,305,789 (1,666,362) (360,573)

17,669,291 (4,034,017) 13,635,274

97 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

7. Derivative financial assets/(liabilities) at fair value through profit or loss continued

Forward foreign exchange contracts continued

31 March 2024

Currency

amount

Buying

currency

GBP

amount

Unrealised

gains

Unrealised

losses

Net unrealised

gains/(losses)

Selling currency

USD 953,900,000 GBP 769,979,369 16,409,587 (701,837) 15,707,750

EUR 421,600,000 GBP 372,470,134 7,700,216 (70,716) 7,629,500

CHF 45,000,000 GBP 41,985,053 1,270,727 — 1,270,727

AUD 2,900,000 GBP 1,499,018 — (3,038) (3,038)

1,185,933,574 25,380,530 (775,591) 24,604,939

Buying currency

USD 39,500,000 GBP 31,361,900 157,209 — 157,209

31,361,900 157,209 — 157,209

1,154,571,674 25,537,739 (775,591) 24,762,148

Counterparty

Unrealised

gains

Unrealised

losses

Net unrealised

gains

GSI 221,055 (55,596) 165,459

ING 1,064,155 (298,785) 765,370

Macquarie 5,822,510 — 5,822,510

Morgan Stanley 9,363,285 (70,716) 9,292,569

Nomura 4,120,824 — 4,120,824

RBSI 4,945,910 (350,494) 4,595,416

25,537,739 (775,591) 24,762,148

All forward foreign exchange positions at the year end were held with Goldman Sachs International, ING Bank, Macquarie Bank Limited, Morgan Stanley, Nomura Bank International or the Royal Bank of Scotland

International, as noted above. There are no master netting arrangements in place.

The forward foreign exchange positions at the year end have various maturity dates ranging from 10 April 2025 to 10 February 2027 (2024: 4 April 2024 to 9 March 2026).

98 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

7. Derivative financial assets/(liabilities) at fair value through profit or loss continued

Interest rate swaps

On 23 October 2023, the Company entered into an interest rate swap transaction with Macquarie

Bank Limited to receive a fixed-rate of 4.512% on an amount of USD 90 million against 3-month CME

Term SOFR, commencing on 29 December 2023 and continuing quarterly until the termination date of

20October2030.

On 7 May 2024, the Company entered into an additional interest rate swap transaction with Macquarie

to receive a fixed-rate of 4.320% on an amount of £30 million against 3-month compounded SONIA,

commencing on 30 June 2024 and continuing quarterly until the termination date of 7 November 2030.

Thepreviously placed USD 90 million 3-month CME Term SOFR interest rate swap has been repriced

on 17 September 2024, with the Company receiving 2.948% as a fixed-rate. The repricing included a

USD7.07million (£5,323,394) mark-to-market settlement in favour of the Company.

On 28 March 2025, the Company entered into a new interest rate swap transaction with Macquarie

to receive a fixed-rate of 3.617% on USD 70 million against weighted average SOFR, commencing on

30June2025 and continuing quarterly until the termination date of 31 March 2032.

As at 31 March 2025, the interest rate swaps were valued at -£3,147,070, in accordance with valuations

provided by the counterparty.

The net gains/(losses) on derivative financial assets in the year comprises both realised and unrealised gains

and losses as follows:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Net realised gains on forward foreign exchange

contracts 34,433,645 5,627,018

Net unrealised (losses)/gains on forward foreign

exchange contracts (11,126,874) 32,568,272

Realised gain on interest rate swap 5,323,394 —

Unrealised (losses)/gains on interest rate swaps (5,708,135) 2,561,065

Interest rate swap interest paid (1,036,423) —

Net gains on derivative financial instruments

during the year 21,885,607 40,756,355

8. Cash and cash equivalents

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Cash held on call or overnight deposit accounts 7,523,136 7,507,495

7,523,136 7,507,495

Under the terms of its forward foreign exchange trading agreements with Goldman Sachs International,

ING Bank, Macquarie Bank Limited, Morgan Stanley, Nomura International and the Royal Bank of Scotland

International, the Company may be required in certain circumstances to retain balances in collateral

accounts representing the applicable margin on each facility. As at 31 March 2025, £Nil (2024: £Nil)

washeld in collateral accounts.

9. Investment income

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Investment income on financial assets atamortisedcost

Cash and cash equivalents 250,320 317,457

Investment income on the Company’s non-derivative

financial assets at fair value through profit and loss

Cash VFN interest income received 107,656,577 130,901,944

Movement in VFN interest balance (see note 6) (29,140,586) (111,195,795)

78,515,991 19,706,149

78,766,311 20,023,606

The Company’s investment income on non-derivative financial assets at fair value through profit or loss (VFN

interest) is derived from its investment in VFNs issued by its Luxembourg Subsidiary and comprises the

net of the Luxembourg Subsidiary’s revenue (principally interest on loans and bonds) and realised gains on

investments, less expenses, realised investment losses and investment book cost impairment losses.

During the current and prior years, year-end impairments in the Luxembourg Subsidiary to the book

costs of certain non-performing and underperforming loans have negatively impacted the amount of VFN

interest income recognised in the books of the Company. It should be noted however that such book cost

impairments have no effect on the Company’s NAV – as all of the Subsidiaries’ investments are measured at

fair value – nor on the VFN interest cash flows arising on the Company’s investments in the VFNs.

99 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

10. Related parties and other material contracts

Transactions with Investment Manager and Investment Adviser

Investment Adviser

Sequoia Investment Management Company Limited (the “Investment Adviser”) was appointed as the

Investment Adviser with effect from 28 January 2015. With effect from 1 September 2018, the Investment

Adviser is entitled to receive from the Company a base fee calculated as follows:

› 0.74% of the market value of the investments (excluding committed but not yet invested investments and

cash) owned by the Subsidiaries up to £1 billion; plus

› 0.56% of the market value of the investments (excluding committed but not yet invested investments and

cash) owned by the Subsidiaries in excess of £1 billion.

All such fees are payable quarterly. Subject to market conditions, 10% of the Investment Adviser’s fee is

applied in subscribing for Ordinary Shares in the Company, which the Investment Adviser shall retain with

a three-year rolling lock-up (such that those Ordinary Shares may not be sold or otherwise disposed of by

the Investment Adviser without the prior consent of the Company before the third anniversary of the date of

issue of the relevant Ordinary Shares). However, during the current and prior years, due to the discount of

the Company’s Ordinary Share price to NAV, the Investment Adviser’s fees have been paid entirely in cash,

with an obligation on the part of the Investment Adviser to use one-tenth of the fee to acquire Ordinary

Shares in the market.

On 15 April 2024, the Investment Adviser acquired 300,000 Ordinary Shares in the market in relation to fees

payable for the quarter ended 31 March 2024.

On 15 July 2024, the Investment Adviser acquired 314,588 Ordinary Shares in the market in relation to fees

payable for the quarter ended 30 June 2024.

On 22 October 2024, the Investment Adviser acquired 306,410 Ordinary Shares in the market in relation to

fees payable for the quarter ended 30 September 2024.

On 20 January 2025, the Investment Adviser acquired 314,470 Ordinary Shares in the market in relation to

fees payable for the quarter ended 31 December 2024.

On 28 April 2025, the Investment Adviser acquired 318,381 Ordinary Shares in the market in relation to fees

payable for the quarter ended 31 March 2025.

The Investment Advisory agreement can be terminated by either party giving not less than six months’

written notice. The Investment Adviser’s appointment will be automatically terminated upon termination of

the Investment Manager’s appointment under the Investment Management agreement.

Investment Manager

FundRock Management Company (Guernsey) Limited (the “Investment Manager”) was appointed as the

Investment Manager with effect from 28 January 2015. With effect from 1 December 2016, the Investment

Manager was entitled to receive a management fee for AIFM services calculated as follows:

› if the Company’s NAV is less than £200 million, 0.075% per annum of the value of the Company’s

NAV;plus

› if the Company’s NAV is more than £200 million and less than £400 million, 0.05% per annum of the

Company’s NAV not included above; plus

› if the Company’s NAV is more than £400 million and less than £500 million, 0.04% per annum of the

Company’s NAV not included above; plus

› if the Company’s NAV is more than £500 million, 0.015% per annum of the Company’s NAV not included

above.

The fee is subject to an annualised minimum of £80,000 applied on a monthly basis and is payable monthly

in arrears. With effect from 2 May 2017, the management fee was capped at £320,000 per annum, subject

to an annual inflation-linked increase (with effect from 1 May 2025: £436,440; with effect from 1 May 2024:

£420,463).

The Investment Management agreement can be terminated by either party giving not less than six months’

written notice.

100 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

10. Related parties and other material contracts continued

Ordinary Shares held by related parties

The shareholdings of the Directors in the Company were as follows:

As at 31 March 2025 As at 31 March 2024

Name

Number of

Ordinary Shares

Percentage of

Ordinary Shares

in issue

Number of

Ordinary Shares

Percentage of

Ordinary Shares

in issue

James Stewart (with his spouse) 80,815 0.01% 43,275 0.00%

Tim Drayson 207,000 0.01% 207,000 0.01%

Margaret Stephens 24,519 0.00% — —

Paul Le Page — — — —

Fiona Le Poidevin N/A N/A — —

Sandra Platts (in a family RATS) N/A N/A 27,953 0.00%

As at 31 March 2025, the Investment Adviser held an aggregate of 6,944,131 Ordinary Shares (2024: 5,708,663 Ordinary Shares), which is 0.45% (2024: 0.35%) of the issued share capital.

As at 31 March 2025, the members of the Investment Adviser’s founding team held an aggregate of 835,656 Ordinary Shares (2024: 835,656 Ordinary Shares), which is 0.05% (2024: 0.05%) of the issued share capital.

As at 31 March 2025, the Investment Manager held an aggregate of 50,000 Ordinary Shares (2024: 50,000 Ordinary Shares), which is 0.00% (2024: 0.00%) of the issued share capital.

Directors’ fees

The Directors of the Company receive fees for their services as Directors. During the year, the Directors received fees of £321,250 (2024: £329,692). As at 31 March 2025, there were no Directors’ fees outstanding

(2024:£Nil). For details of the structuring of the Directors’ remuneration, please refer to the Directors’ remuneration report on pages 58 and 59.

Administrator

With effect from 28 January 2015, Apex Fund and Corporate Services (Guernsey) Limited

(the “Administrator”) was appointed as the Administrator. With effect from 1 June 2016, the Administrator is entitled to receive

from the Company a base fee calculated as follows and payable monthly:

› if the Company’s NAV is less than £300 million, 0.07% per annum of the value of the Company’s NAV; plus

› if the Company’s NAV is more than £300 million and less than £400 million, 0.05% per annum of the Company’s NAV not included above; plus

› if the Company’s NAV is more than £400 million, 0.04% per annum of the Company’s NAV not included above.

The base fee is subject to a minimum of £65,000 applied on a monthly basis and was capped at £300,000 per annum, subject to an annual inflation-linked increase (with effect from 1 May 2025: £400,366; with effect

from 1 May 2024: £375,556). The Administrator is also entitled to a fee for company secretarial services based on time costs.

The Administration agreement can be terminated by either party giving not less than 90 days’ written notice.

1. See footnote on page 49

101 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

10. Related parties and other material contracts continued

Other material contracts

Subsidiary Administrator

With effect from 28 January 2015, TMF Luxembourg S.A. (the “Subsidiary Administrator”) was appointed

as the Administrator of the Luxembourg Subsidiary. During the calendar year 2025, the Subsidiary

Administrator will receive an estimated amount in recurring and ad hoc fees from the Luxembourg Subsidiary

of €92,545 per annum (£77,521) (2024: €90,288 per annum (£77,209) during the calendar year 2024).

Custodian

With effect from 27 February 2015, The Bank of New York Mellon (the “Custodian”) was appointed as the

Custodian. The Custodian is entitled to receive fees, as agreed from time to time, for services provided as

portfolio administrator, depositary, calculating agent, account bank and custodian.

The Custodian agreement can be terminated by either party giving not less than 60 days’ written notice.

The amounts charged for the above-mentioned fees during the year ended 31 March 2025 and outstanding

at 31 March 2025 are as follows:

Year ended 31 March 2025

Charge for

the year

Amounts outstanding

at 31 March 2025

Investment Adviser’s fees 9,837,744 2,445,667

Administration fees 505,738 20,000

Investment Manager’s fees 427,098 —

Directors’ fees and expenses 333,969 —

Sub-administration fee

117,515 780

Fees payable to the Custodian

335,905 143,362

11,557,969 2,609,809

Year ended 31 March 2024

Charge for

the year

Amounts outstanding

at 31 March 2024

Investment Adviser’s fees 9,937,332 2,456,473

Administration fees 401,973 30,000

Investment Manager’s fees 504,656 —

Directors’ fees and expenses 367,726 —

Sub-administration fee

104,615 2,541

Fees payable to the Custodian

868,559 141,780

12,184,861 2,630,794

1. Includes expenses of both the Company and the Subsidiaries

Loan collateral

With effect from 17 July 2024, security for a revolving credit facility of £300 million (see note 15) with

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., London Branch was provided by, inter alia, a charge over the bank accounts

of the Company, a charge over the shares in the Subsidiaries held by the Company and a charge on the

assets of the Company.

11. Tax status

The Company is exempt from Guernsey income tax and is charged an annual exemption fee of £1,600

(2024: £1,600) under The Income Tax (Exempt Bodies) (Guernsey) Ordinance 1989.

12. Share capital

The Company’s Ordinary Shares and C shares are classified as equity. Incremental costs directly attributable

to the issue of Ordinary Shares and C shares are recognised as a deduction in equity and are charged to the

relevant share capital account.

The Company undertakes that it shall ensure that its records and bank accounts are operated in such a way

that the assets attributable to the Ordinary Shares and the C shares can be separately identified. Onthe

conversion of C shares to Ordinary Shares, C Shareholders shall be allocated an appropriate number of

Ordinary Shares, calculated by reference to the conversion ratio.

The authorised share capital of the Company is represented by an unlimited number of shares of nil par

value, to which the following rights are attached:

a) dividends: Ordinary Shareholders and C Shareholders are entitled to receive, and participate in, any

dividends or other distributions resolved to be distributed from their respective pools of assets in respect

of any accounting period or other period, provided that no calls or other sums due by them to the

Company are outstanding;

102 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

12. Share capital continued

b) winding up: On a winding up, the Ordinary Shareholders and C Shareholders shall be entitled to the

surplus assets remaining in their respective pools of assets after payment of creditors; and

c) voting: Ordinary Shareholders have the right to receive notice of and to attend, speak and vote at general

meetings of the Company and each holder being present in person or by proxy shall upon a show of

hands have one vote and upon a poll one vote in respect of every Ordinary Share held. C Shareholders

have no right to attend or vote at any meeting of the Company, except that the consent of C Shareholders

is required for any alteration to the Memorandum or Articles of the Company; for the passing of any

resolution to wind up the Company; and for the variation or abrogation of the rights attached to the

Cshares.

The Company may acquire its own Ordinary Shares, up to a maximum number of 14.99%. perannum of the

Ordinary Shares in issue.

There were no C shares in issue during either the current or prior years.

Issued share capital

31 March 2025

Ordinary Shares

Number

31 March 2024

Ordinary Shares

Number

Share capital at the beginning of the year 1,625,484,274 1,734,819,553

Share buybacks (70,422,338) (109,335,279)

1,555,061,936 1,625,484,274

Issued share capital

31 March 2025

Ordinary Shares

31 March 2024

Ordinary Shares

Share capital at the beginning of the year 1,720,452,093 1,808,622,511

Share buybacks (55,858,674) (88,170,418)

1,664,593,419 1,720,452,093

The number of Ordinary Shares in issue disclosed in the above table excludes Ordinary Shares bought back

into treasury.

On 29 April 2024, the Company announced that 154,046,443 Ordinary Shares previously bought back into

treasury had been cancelled. As at 31 March 2025, the Company had a total of 1,614,192,555 Ordinary

Shares in issue (2024: 1,768,238,998), of which 59,130,619 Ordinary Shares were held in treasury (2024:

142,754,724).

During the year, no Ordinary Shares have been issued to the Investment Adviser in relation to fees payable

(2024: no Ordinary Shares issued).

During the year, no Ordinary Shares were issued in respect of scrip dividends (2024: no Ordinary

Sharesissued).

Subsequent to the year end, the Company has bought back a further 11,004,912 Ordinary Shares at a cost

of £8,465,682.

13. Basic and diluted earnings per share

Issued share capital

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Profit for the year £79,799,880 £110,424,854

Weighted average number of Ordinary Shares 1,582,817,987 1,679,167,955

Basic and diluted earnings per Ordinary Share 5.04p 6.58p

The weighted average number of Ordinary Shares is based on the number of Ordinary Shares in issue during

the year under review, excluding Ordinary Shares held in treasury, as detailed in note 12.

There were no dilutive financial instruments in issue during the years ended 31 March 2025 or

31March2024.

14. Trade and other receivables

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Prepaid finance costs 2,293,151 543,839

Other prepaid expenses 118,028 58,668

2,411,179 602,507

15. Loan payable

During the year, the Company successfully refinanced its existing multi-currency revolving credit facility

(“RCF”) of £325 million, which was previously held with the Royal Bank of Scotland International Limited

(“RBSI”) as lead arranger and was due to mature on 12 November 2024.

The new multi-currency RCF of £300 million is provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., London Branch

(“JPM”), has an accordion facility of £50 million and matures in July 2027. The proceeds of the loan are to be

used in or towards the making of investments in accordance with the Company’s investment policy.

The loan imposes an interest cover test and is secured by, inter alia, a charge over the bank accounts of the

Company, a charge over the shares in the Subsidiaries held by the Company and a charge on the assets

of the Company. In accordance with the Company’s investment policy, any borrowings undertaken by the

Company will not exceed 20% of the value of the assets of the Company less its liabilities. Should the value

of the underlying assets held in the Subsidiaries fall below a certain level, further margin calls may be made

by JPM, however no margin calls were made during the current period.

103 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

15. Loan payable continued

The following table represents a reconciliation of the liabilities arising from financing activities during the year, as required by IAS 7.

For the year ended 31 March 2025

EUR facility

GBP facility

USD facility

Tot al

RBSI RCF

Balance brought forward — — — —

Cash flows

Drawdowns — 15,000,000 — 15,000,000

Repayments — (15,495,491) — (15,495,491)

Non-cash changes

Capitalised interest and loan fees — 495,491 — 495,491

Closing balance — — — —

JPM RCF

Cash flows

Drawdowns 40,408,753 — 37,084,367 77,493,120

Repayments (20,043,484) — — (20,043,484)

Non-cash changes

Capitalised interest and loan fees 47,320 — — 47,320

Foreign exchange revaluations 26,345 — (670,018) (643,673)

Balance carried forward 20,438,934 — 36,414,349 56,853,283

For the year ended 31 March 2024

GBP facility

USD facility

Total

RBSI RCF

Balance brought forward 79,742,568 102,046,294 181,788,862

Cash flows

Drawdowns — 77,384,713 77,384,713

Repayments (79,742,568) (176,968,268) (256,710,836)

Non-cash changes

Foreign exchange revaluations — (2,462,739) (2,462,739)

Balance carried forward — — —

104 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes to the Financial Statements continued

for the year ended 31 March 2025

15. Loan payable continued

Interest on the loan is charged at a rate of SONIA (for Sterling), SOFR (for US Dollars) or EURIBOR (for Euro)

(or equivalents) plus 1.9% per annum (2024: SONIA (or equivalent) plus 2.0% per annum). Loan interest of

£3,022,901 (2024: £4,944,143) and upfront and facility fees of £1,309,688 (2024: £982,697) have been

charged on the loans during the year. A total of £5,030,210 (2024: £4,810,404) was paid in cash during the

year in respect of upfront and facility fees and interest.

The carrying value of the loan is considered to be a reasonable approximation of its fair value.

16. Trade and other payables

31 March 2025

31 March 2024

Investment Adviser’s fee payable 2,445,667 2,456,473

Ordinary Share buybacks payable — 1,174,823

Loan interest payable 800,362 292,945

Other payables 350,026 398,103

Balance carried forward 3,596,055 4,322,344

17. Commitments

As at 31 March 2025, £193.4 million (2024: £54.7 million) was committed by the Subsidiaries to new or

existing investments. These commitments will be settled from the existing cash reserves of the Company

and the Subsidiaries and through drawdowns from the Company’s revolving credit facility.

18. Subsequent events

On 1 April 2025, Selina Sagayam was appointed as a non-executive Director of the Company.

On 17 April 2025, the Company declared a dividend of 1.71875p per Ordinary Share in respect of the

quarter ended 31 March 2025. The dividend was paid on 30 May 2025.

Subsequent to the year end, the Company has bought back a further 11,004,912 Ordinary Shares at a cost

of £8,465,682.

On 19 June 2025, the Company announced the appointment of Nicola Paul as a non-executive Director

ofthe Company, effective 1 July 2025.

There have been no significant events since the year end which would require revision of the figures or

disclosures in the Financial Statements.

105 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Additional

information

Additional information

Officers and advisers 107

Appendix – Alternative

performance measures 109

Appendix – TCFD report 113

Appendix – GHG emissions

and climate scenarios methodology 122

Appendix – SFDR product-level

periodic disclosure 124

Appendix – SFDR principal

adverse impact statement 130

Contacts 131

106 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Officers and advisers

Directors

James Stewart

(Independent non-executive Chair)

Tim Drayson

(Independent non-executive Director)

Margaret Stephens

(Independent non-executive Director)

Paul Le Page

(Independent non-executive Director,

appointed 7 June 2024)

Fiona Le Poidevin

(Independent non-executive Director,

retired 31 March 2025)

Selina Sagayam

(Independent non-executive Director,

appointed 1 April 2025)

Registered Office

1 Royal Plaza

Royal Avenue

St Peter Port

Guernsey GY1 2HL

Custodian

Bank of New York Mellon

1 Canada Square

London E14 5AL

Investment Adviser

Sequoia Investment Management Company

Limited

Kent House, 6th Floor

14-17 Market Place

London W1W 8AJ

Investment Manager

FundRock Management Company

(Guernsey) Limited

1 Royal Plaza

Royal Avenue

St Peter Port

Guernsey GY1 2HL

Independent Auditor

Grant Thornton Limited

St James Place

St James Street

St Peter Port

Guernsey GY1 2NZ

Administrator

Apex Fund and Corporate Services

(Guernsey) Limited

(previously Sanne Fund Services

(Guernsey)Limited)

1 Royal Plaza

Royal Avenue

St Peter Port

Guernsey GY1 2HL

Joint Broker

Jefferies International Limited

100 Bishopsgate

London EC2N 4JL

Joint Broker

(with effect from 25 February 2025)

J.P. Morgan Cazenove

25 Bank Street

Canary Wharf

London E14 5JP

Subsidiary Administrator

TMF Luxembourg S.A.

46A, Avenue JF Kennedy

L-1855 Luxembourg

Legal Adviser (as to Guernsey Law)

Mourant

Royal Chambers

St Julian’s Avenue

St Peter Port

Guernsey GY1 4HP

Legal Adviser (as to UK Law)

Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP

78 Cannon Street

London EC4N 6AF

Valuation Agent

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

7 More London Riverside

London SE1 2RT

Communications Adviser

Teneo

85 Fleet Street

London EC4Y 1AE

Registrar

Computershare Investor Services (Guernsey)

Limited

1st Floor Tudor House

Le Bordage

St Peter Port

Guernsey GY1 1DB

Independent Consultants

Andrea Finegan

Kate Thurman (until 4 March 2025)

1. See footnote on page 49

107 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Officers and advisers continued

Disclosure of directorships in public companies listed on recognised stock exchanges

The Directors who held office during the year and to the date of signing these Financial Statements have held the following directorships in other public companies during the year:

Director Company name Stock exchange

James Stewart None

Sandra Platts (retired 7 June 2024) Taylor Maritime Investments Limited London Stock Exchange – Main Market

Marble Point Loan Financing Limited London Stock Exchange – SFS

Tim Drayson None

Fiona Le Poidevin (retired 31 March 2025) ICG-Longbow Senior Secured UK Property Debt Investments Limited London Stock Exchange – Main Market

Doric Nimrod Air Two Limited (until delisting on 21 January 2025) London Stock Exchange – SFS

Doric Nimrod Air Three Limited London Stock Exchange – SFS

Margaret Stephens VH Global Sustainable Energy Opportunities plc London Stock Exchange – Main Market

AVI Japan Opportunity Trust plc London Stock Exchange – Main Market

Paul Le Page (appointed 7 June 2024) TwentyFour Income Fund Limited London Stock Exchange – Main Market

NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited London Stock Exchange – Main Market

RTW Biotech Opportunities Limited London Stock Exchange – Main Market

Selina Sagayam (appointed 1 April 2025) The Renewables Infrastructure Group Limited London Stock Exchange – Main Market

108 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – Alternative Performance Measures

used in the Annual Report

NAV per Ordinary Share

NAV per Ordinary Share is a calculation of the Company’s NAV divided by the number of Ordinary Shares in issue and provides a measure of the value of each Ordinary Share in issue.

31 March 2025 31 March 2024

NAV £1,439,188,600 £1,524,282,546

Number of Ordinary Shares in issue 1,555,061,936 1,625,484,274

NAV per Ordinary Share 92.55p 93.77p

Ordinary Share (discount)/premium to NAV

Ordinary Share (discount)/premium to NAV is the amount by which the Ordinary Share price is lower/higher than the NAV per Ordinary Share, expressed as a percentage of the NAV per Ordinary Share, and provides a

measure of the Company’s share price relative to the NAV.

31 March 2025 31 March 2024

NAV per Ordinary Share 92.55p 93.77p

Closing Ordinary Share price 78.30p 81.10p

Ordinary Share discount (15.4)% (13.5)%

Total NAV/share price return

Total NAV return/total share price return are calculations showing how the NAV/share price per share has performed over a period of time, taking into account dividends paid to Shareholders. It is calculated on

the assumption that dividends are reinvested at the prevailing NAV/share price on the last day of the month that the shares first trade ex-dividend. This provides a useful measure to allow Shareholders to compare

performances between investment funds where the dividend paid may differ.

Year ended 31 March 2025

Total NAV

return

Total share

price return

Opening NAV/share price per share 93.77p 81.10p

Closing NAV/share price per share 92.55p 78.30p

Dividends paid during the year 6.875p 6.875p

Weighted average NAV/share price per share 93.74p 78.48p

Dividend adjustment factor 1.0754 1.0906

Adjusted closing NAV/share price per share 99.53p 85.39p

Total NAV/share price return 6.1% 5.3%

109 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – Alternative Performance Measures continued

used in the Annual Report

Total NAV/share price return continued

Year ended 31 March 2024

Total NAV

return

Total share

price return

Opening NAV/share price per share 93.26p 80.40p

Closing NAV/share price per share 93.77p 81.10p

Dividends paid during the year 6.875p 6.875p

Weighted average NAV/share price per share 91.53p 79.81p

Dividend adjustment factor 1.0751 1.0861

Adjusted closing NAV/share price per share 100.81p 88.09p

Total NAV/share price return 8.1% 9.6%

Cash dividend cover

Cash dividend cover is the ratio of operating cash flow divided by total dividend payments, and is used as a measure of the extent to which a company is able to generate sufficient cash flow to pay its dividends.

The dividend cash cover calculation reflects the cash movements of the entire Fund, including the Subsidiaries, and will therefore not reconcile to figures stated in the Company’s statement of cash flows on page 76).

Item

Year ended

31 March 2025

Amount (£m)

Year ended

31 March 2024

Amount (£m)

Cash interest received 117.46 132.69

Consent fees received in cash 0.53 1.98

Prepayment fees 0.73 1.76

Upfront fees/discounts amortised 8.77 9.80

Cash expenses (18.41) (23.21)

Net cash income 109.08 123.02

Dividends paid 109.04 115.80

Dividend cash cover 1.00x 1.06x

110 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – Alternative Performance Measures continued

used in the Annual Report

Annualised dividend yield

The dividend yield of a company can provide a useful measure of the income yield of an investment in the company, and is calculated by dividing the total annualised dividends per share paid in the period by the

company’s current share price.

The Company’s annualised dividend yield for the year ended 31 March 2025 was as follows:

Year ended

31 March 2025

Year ended

31 March 2024

Dividends per share paid in the year 6.875p 6.875p

Share price at the end of the year 78.30p 81.10p

Annualised dividend yield 8.8% 8.5%

Portfolio yield-to-maturity/Gross portfolio return

The yield-to-maturity of an individual debt instrument is calculated using a formula involving its annual interest pay-out, face value, current price and number of years to maturity. Portfolio yield-to-maturity is the weighted

average of these yields-to-maturity, or total annualised returns, in a portfolio of interest-bearing investments, discounted for the time value of money and based on the assumption that the investments are held to their

maturity. This provides a useful measure of likely projected returns on a portfolio. This measure is applied in this Annual Report to the portfolio of investments held in the Subsidiaries.

Construction risk

Construction risk is the proportion by value of investments held in a portfolio that relate to construction projects. This provides a useful measure of the degree of exposure of the Fund to the increased risk associated with

lending to projects that are pre-operational. This measure is applied in this Annual Report to the portfolio of investments held in the Subsidiaries.

31 March 2025 31 March 2024

Investments exposed to construction risk £176,222,310 £102,558,615

Total investments held in the Subsidiaries £1,423,647,101 £1,380,690,694

Construction risk 12.4% 7.4%

Average equity cushion

An equity cushion exists in relation to a debt investment if there is collateral within the borrower available to the lender that exceeds the amount of the outstanding debt. The average equity cushion percentage of the

portfolio of investments held in the Subsidiaries is the percentage of the total excess borrower collateral available divided by the total outstanding portfolio debt. This is a useful quantification of the degree of security

available to the Fund in case of default by borrowers.

31 March 2025 31 March 2024

Total excess borrower collateral available £548,826,768 £521,965,025

Total investments held in the Subsidiary £1,423,647,101 £1,380,690,694

Equity cushion 39% 38%

111 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – Alternative Performance Measures continued

used in the Annual Report

Modified duration

The modified duration of a debt instrument provides a useful measure of the sensitivity of the debt instrument’s value to changes in interest rates, and is calculated by dividing the instrument’s price by the change in the

instrument’s yield caused by a 1% change in interest rates. This measure is applied in this Annual Report to the portfolio of investments held in the Subsidiaries. The modified duration of the portfolio of 1.9 (2024: 2.2)

indicates that a 1% increase in interest rates would cause the value of the portfolio to fall by 1.9% (2024: 2.2%).

Ongoing charges ratio (“OCR”)

The ongoing charges ratio of an investment company is the annual percentage reduction in shareholder returns as a result of recurring operational expenditure. Ongoing charges are classified as those expenses which are

likely to recur in the foreseeable future, and which relate to the operation of the company, excluding investment transaction costs, financing charges and gains or losses on investments. The OCR is calculated as the total

ongoing charges for a period divided by the average net asset value over that period.

Year ended 31 March 2025

The Company

The Subsidiaries

Tot al

Total expenses 19,366,601 1,141,047 20,507,648

Non-recurring and excluded expenses (6,084,616) (699,287) (6,783,903)

Total ongoing expenses 13,281,985 441,760 13,723,745

Average NAV 1,490,819,836

Ongoing charges ratio (using AIC methodology) 0.92%

Year ended 31 March 2024

The Company

The Subsidiaries

Total

Total expenses 21,492,326 1,555,246 23,047,572

Non-recurring and excluded expenses (8,231,680) — (8,231,680)

Total ongoing expenses 13,260,646 1,555,246 14,815,892

Average NAV 1,559,771,323

Ongoing charges ratio (using AIC methodology) 0.95%

112 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report

Our progress against the TCFD recommendations

In line with the current UK Listing Rules requirements, our TCFD-aligned disclosures take into account

the implementation recommendations in the 2017 TCFD Annex and the 2021 TCFD Annex. Having made

significant strides in our borrower engagement and now onboarded Altitude by AXA Climate to help

to address data challenges and gaps, we are very pleased to be able to this year report total absolute

emissions for the Company and full portfolio, along with the following greenhouse gas (“GHG”) metrics

for the portfolio: financed emissions, carbon to investment and weighted average carbon intensity.

TheCompany has been able to conduct and report here for the first time climate scenario analysis of

physical and transition risksfor the portfolio in line with TCFD recommendations.

Governance

Disclose the organisation’s governance around climate-related risks and opportunities.

TCFD recommended disclosures

A. The Board’s oversight of climate‑related risks and opportunities.

The whole Board is responsible for setting the strategy for the Company, including in relation to

climate-related risks and opportunities. The Board meets at least quarterly, during which they, together

with their Independent Consultants and the IA, review the sustainability risks and opportunities facing the

portfolio, including in relation to climate change. As part of this review, the IA prepares a sustainability report

each quarter for the Board. The Company has a number of Committees, which are tasked with focusing on

various elements of climate-related risks and opportunities. Below are highlighted some of the focus areas

of the Committees, but they work in tandem with cross-functional co-ordination and alignment to ensure a

unifiedstrategy:

› the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee reviews, approves and monitors performance against

the Company’s Sustainability Policy. In furtherance of the Company’s sustainability aspirations and the

increased attention from stakeholders on these matters, the Board formed this dedicated committee with

delegated responsibility for addressing key sustainability-related matters. The Board recognises the value

and importance to all stakeholders of organisations implementing effective environmental, social and

governance policies;

› the Management Engagement Committee is responsible for monitoring, and where practicable,

encouraging the Company’s key service providers in their efforts to minimise their avoidable GHG

emissions and offset unavoidable emissions, thereby helping to minimise the Company’s Scope 3

emissions;

› the Audit Committee assists with oversight of climate-related regulatory disclosures including Sustainable

Finance Disclosures Regulation (“SFDR”), TCFD and the Sustainable Disclosure Requirements (“SDR”)

Anti-Greenwashing Rule. The Company’s SFDR disclosures are also made available on the website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/; and

› the Risk Committee oversees and advises the Board on its risk strategy and exposure including

sustainability risks.

The Company’s Board members have a wealth of experience and expertise related to the oversight of

climate issues as well as other sustainability areas more broadly. For instance, Selina Sagayam, the incoming

Chair of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee, brings deep corporate finance (public company

transactional and corporate governance legal experience) and sustainability expertise from international

law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher where she led the firm’s global ESG practice and advised asset owners,

managers and investors on a range of ESG and sustainability issues. Selina also chaired Gibson Dunn’s UK

Diversity & Inclusion Committee and sat on its Global Diversity Committee. She is a trustee and Vice Chair

of the charity Refuge (and previously chaired its People, Nomination and Remuneration Committee), is a

member of the AIC’s ESG forum and is a non-executive director and the inaugural ESG Committee Chair of

The Renewables Infrastructure Group, a FTSE 250-listed alternatives investment fund.

Margaret Stephens has been a Director and Chair of the Audit Committee of VH Global Sustainable Energy

Opportunities Fund Plc (“GSEO”), which is classified as an SFDR Article 9 fund, since IPO in 2021. GSEO’s

sustainable energy infrastructure investments aim to support and accelerate the energy transition towards

a net zero carbon world. The investment process uses the UN Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”)

as the framework to achieve these objectives and it seeks to be leader in adopting sustainability reporting

standards and requirements.

James Stewart, Chair of the Board, served as Chief Executive of Infrastructure UK; in 2010 he was

responsible for developing the first UK National Infrastructure Plan, which had a strong sustainability focus.

Since then, his global role at KPMG allowed him to promote sustainability principles in infrastructure around

the world. More recently, James chaired the project team responsible for developing the UNECE’s PPP

Evaluation Methodology for the SDGs.

Fiona Le Poidevin, a member of the Board and of the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee until

her retirement on 31 March 2025, was involved in promoting ESG and sustainable investment for over

a decade. In 2018, she led the launch of The International Stock Exchange’s first green finance market

segment for companies, bonds and funds creating a positive environmental impact.

Paul Le Page was the Audit and Risk Committee Chair for Bluefield Solar Investment Fund Limited (“BSIF”),

one of the first LSE-listed investment companies to achieve Guernsey Green Fund status and has been

externally validated as an Article 8 fund under SFDR. He has recently retired from BSIF and is currently the

Interim Chair for NextEnergy Solar Fund Limited (“NESF”). NESF is classified as an Article 9 fund under

SFDR and is advised by the award-winning ESG team at NextEnergy Capital.

Andrea Finegan is an Independent Consultant to the Board and the ESG and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee. Sheisa Non-Executive Director and Chair of the Pantheon Infrastructure PLC’s Sustainability

Committee. Andrea has experience in and expertise on climate change, in particular in the renewables

sector. She is currently the independent chair of the Schroders Greencoat Valuation Committee, having

previously served as COO of Greencoat. Prior to this, Andrea was responsible for similar management

functions at Climate Change Capital.

113 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Governance continued

TCFD recommended disclosures continued

B. Describe management’s role in assessing and managing climate‑related risks and

opportunities.

Sustainability, including climate-related risks and opportunities, is embedded in the IA’s approach to

infrastructure debt.

Climate risks are considered at each stage of the investment process, including the initial screening of

opportunities (where positive and negative screening are applied, as outlined in the Sustainability Policy) and

by the IA’s Investment Committee. Risk assessment takes the form of both quantitative analysis (such as

calculation of an ESG risk score) and qualitative assessments (such as of the quality and experience of the

management of investee companies).

After an investment has been made, the IA continues to monitor it for changes to its climate-related risk

profile. Primarily this is undertaken through regular discussion with, and information gathering from, the

borrowers that the Fund has lent to. This is further enhanced in some cases by bespoke climate-related

covenants and undertakings included within loan agreements.

The IA also considers climate-related risks not only in relation to individual investments but also aggregated

at the portfolio level where possible and relevant. Specifically, the IA endeavours to identify and assess

correlations of climate-related risks: for example, geographical concentrations in areas that may be prone

tocoastal flooding.

Key developments

› This year the Company developed and published a stand-alone Governance Policy, providing a detailed

and transparent account of its governance structures, policies and practices. This policy also describes

how the Company assesses good governance of the Company’s borrowers

› For the fifth year, the Company engaged KPMG to provide independent limited assurance under ISAE

(UK) 3000 on the ESG scores for the portfolio. We understand that we were the first FTSE 250 investment

fund to undertake such a process in relation to sustainability matters

› For the second period running, for 2024/25 financial year, the scope of KPMG’s assurance was extended

to cover the Company’s negative screening and thematic investing (positive screening) activities

∆

› The ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee, established in March 2022, met three times

over the 2024/25 financial year. The topics that were addressed by the Committee this year included

the sustainability regulatory landscape developments, approach to climate scenarios, Shareholder

engagement plans and a review and update of the Company’s existing sustainability processes

and policies. TheBoard received external training on the regulatory ESG landscape and emerging

sustainability trends

› The IA joined the PRI-supported Initiative Climat International (“iCl”), a global community of investors

driving private market action on climate change, with a collective commitment to understand and reduce

carbon emissions of private markets-backed companies and secure sustainable investment performance.

SIMCo also became a member of UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (“UKSIF”), a

leading network championing responsible finance in the UK, advocating for policies and practices that

drive sustainable outcomes. Membership provides access to current sustainable finance insights, industry

best practices and collaboration opportunities, supporting our IA in ongoing efforts to enhance its

sustainability integration and stay ahead of emerging sustainability trends and regulatory developments.

This is bolstered by the IA’s Sustainability Manager having been elected to serve on UKSIF’s Membership

Committee

› The IA’s Sustainability Manager is involved with assessing and managing climate-related risks and

opportunities at portfolio companies, for instance through devising and then delivering on bespoke action

plans for assets and engaging with the borrowers’ management teams on these key risk or opportunity

areas. This year, she was recognised with two industry awards: ESG Rising Star by IJGlobal and the

Highly Commended accolade in the Sustainable & ESG Investment Woman of the Year category for small

and medium firms by Investment Week

Strategy

Disclose the actual and potential impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities on the organisation’s

businesses, strategy and financial planning where such information is material.

TCFD recommended disclosures

A. Describe the climate‑related risks and opportunities the organisation has identified over

the short, medium and long term.

Based on the scenario analysis detailed below, the Altitude platform has identified the highest physical

risks to the portfolio to be water stress, extreme heat, storm, flood and landslide over the three different

timehorizons.

The analysis also identified increased cost of raw materials, regulation on energy efficiency and certification

and increased pricing of GHG emissions as the biggest transition risks posed to the portfolio over all

timespans. The top three transition opportunities identified for the portfolio comes in the form of expansion

of low-emissions goods and services, shift in customer preferences and use of lower-emissions sources

ofenergy.

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

114 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Strategy continued

TCFD recommended disclosures continued

B. Describe the impact of climate‑related risks and opportunities on the organisation’s

businesses, strategy and financial planning.

There are two potential impacts of climate-related risk on the Fund. Firstly, some sectors within the

infrastructure market may become uninvestable in the future, for example assets in the hydrocarbon value

chain such as coal-fired power stations or upstream oil and gas assets. This is especially likely to be the case

in low temperature increase scenarios, where the economy has transitioned rapidly to a low-carbon state.

Currently, under its Sustainability Policy, the Fund is avoiding those sectors where there is a near-term or

medium-term high-level risk of them becoming uninvestable. Therefore, this potential impact of more sectors

becoming unviable for the Fund can be considered long term. Should it happen, the Fund’s portfolio might over

time become further and prematurely less diversified; however, in the opinion of the IA, this risk is more than

outweighed by the new and developing investment opportunities describedabove.

Secondly, the credit quality of some of the borrowers that the Fund lends to might deteriorate. For example,

extreme weather events might materially increase the cost of insuring some assets, or they may not be

insurable without investing in asset hardening. This risk is mitigated in a number of ways:

› each of the borrowers has equity capital at risk ahead of the loan. This acts as a “shock absorber” in that

the equity capital would need to be lost before the Fund as lender can lose money;

› the Fund’s loans are typically short dated. The majority are due to be repaid within five years, that is,

before many of the most serious climate risks are likely to manifest; and

› the IA undertakes thorough due diligence on each borrower that the Fund lends to, and assessing their

exposure to climate risk is part of the diligence process. In other words, the Fund is taking steps with the

aim to avoid making a loan to a business that has poor resilience to climate change risk.

The investment portfolio is highly diversified in terms of the location of its borrowers and the sectors and

sub-sectors they operate in. This will reduce the effect of many risks, such as technological disruption or

unexpected adverse domestic regulation or legislation.

The impact of the climate-related opportunities identified is that the Fund is expected to be able to deploy capital

on attractive terms to a wider range of sectors and sub-sectors than it does currently, such as towards battery

storage, carbon capture, grid enhancement and energy efficiency projects. This will increase the diversification of

the portfolio and help it to deliver an attractive risk-adjusted return to Shareholders. Conversely, avoiding sectors

where there is an unduly high level of climate-related risk, or even limiting the Fund’s exposure to sectors where

there is some climate-related risk, will decrease the portfolio’s diversification. The Investment Adviser’s view is

that, between these two factors, there will be a net benefit for the Fund’s strategy. This is because the Fund is

already avoiding the most at-risk sectors and is at the early stages of identifying the full range of opportunities that

are likely to arise. The Fund takes the view that avoiding borrowers with a high degree of climate-related risk is

simply prudent lending, which it would seek to do regardless of implementation of its Sustainability Policy.

One of the purposes of the Fund’s ESG scoring methodology is to help track resilience to climate change. A goal

for the Fund, taking account of the spread of its investments, is to improve the portfolio’s weighted average ESG

score over time, and improving the portfolio’s resilience to climate change risks will contribute to this goal.

C. Describe the resilience of the organisation’s strategy, taking into consideration different

climate‑related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenario.

Given the nature of our business, with no direct employees or physical assets, the climate impacts on the

Company’s operations are limited, with the key indirect risks presented to companies that the Fund lends to.

If certain climate risks materialise, it could impact borrower revenues, OpEx and CapEx requirements, and

thus their ability to repay lenders including the Fund. If such material climate risks were to play out across

numerous companies in the portfolio, then the Fund’s performance and ability to generate income and

deliver return to our investors may be adversely affected under certain scenarios.

SEQI is using the Altitude platform by AXA Climate to support its analysis of the physical and transition risks

and opportunities of its portfolio under different forward-looking climate scenarios, with the aim to monitor

and improve its understanding of the climate resilience of its portfolio. Explanation of the methodology

used for climate scenario analysis is provided in the Appendix. Our relative credit position as lenders should

also be taken into account when considering the analysis, as this often comes with barriers of protection

against the financial effects of certain risks manifesting. Further, the average life of our loans is around 3.4

years, which means the portfolio will have experienced significant churn prior to the 2030, 2040 and 2050

time horizons considered for this analysis. The IA will seek to further explore mitigating measures already in

place by our borrowers and engage with them where more work may be needed to address notable risks

identified to improve the accuracy of the different analyses.

115 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Strategy continued

TCFD recommended disclosures continued

C. Describe the resilience of the organisation’s strategy, taking into consideration different

climate‑related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenario. continued

Physical risks

SEQI is using the Altitude platform to assess the physical risk for its portfolio as Low, Medium or High risk (as

relevant). The physical risks to the portfolio have been assessed for two future time periods (2030 and 2040)

and under three different IPCC warming scenarios:

› SSP1-2.6 – Optimistic Scenario: the optimistic scenario of global temperature warming stabilising to

1.8°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100

› SSP2-4.5 – Middle of the Road Scenario: the realistic scenario of temperature rising 2.7°C by 2100

› SSP5-8.5 – High-Reference Scenario: the pessimistic scenario of temperature rising 4.4°C by 2100

The IA then overlaid its own analysis to refine some of the automated outputs using their detailed

understanding of relevant assets and nature of their respective businesses. For example, the “Medium”

risk of landslide flagged for one of our rail assets was reclassified to “Low” risk because the project actually

leases out its rolling stock and the current contract is to a rail system that operates underground with

mitigating measures like protective tunnel linings, retaining structures, and drainage systems that reduce

vulnerability to surface hazards like landslides. Note, these expert-driven refinements had no effect on the

overall resultant portfolio-level risk classifications.

2030 2050

SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP5-8.5 SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP5-8.5

Chronic risks

Changing air temperature

Changing wind patterns

Changing precipitation patterns

Water stress

Sea level rise

Soil erosion

Risks heatmap

Low

Medium

High

2030 2050

SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP5-8.5 SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP5-8.5

Acute risks

Extreme heat

Extreme cold

Wildfire

Tropical cyclone

Storm

Drought

Extreme precipitation

Flood

Landslide

Earthquake

Subsidence

The analysis has identified there is a risk of flooding present to some of the assets owned by our borrowers

due to their coastal locations, such as Brightline East LLC Holdco, a privately owned passenger rail

project in Florida. Extreme heat could impact the cooling systems at some of our data centre positions

and the electrical efficiency of the panels in our Spanish solar portfolios, which are inherent risks to the

asset classes. Storm could damage the physical infrastructure at some of our European companies,

but we consider that the impacts of these are unlikely to materially compromise the borrowers’ ability to

repay our loan, particularly for the services companies that have less of a physical presence than tangible

infrastructureprojects.

116 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Strategy continued

TCFD recommended disclosures continued

C. Describe the resilience of the organisation’s strategy, taking into consideration different

climate‑related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenario. continued

Transition risks and opportunities

The Company is using Altitude’s tool to assess transition risks and opportunities for the Fund’s portfolio.

Altitude uses TCFD’s recommended categories of transition risks and opportunities and identifies those that

are potentially material for each portfolio company. These risks and opportunities are then modelled at 2020,

2030 and 2040 under three different forward-looking climate scenarios:

› Net Zero 2050 – Orderly Scenario of global warming being limited to 1.5°C by 2100 through stringent

policies and innovation and reaching net zero by 2050

› Delayed Transition – Disorderly Scenario assuming annual emissions do not decrease until 2030 and

strong policies are needed to limit global warming to below 2°C by 2100

› Nationally Determined Contributions – Business-As-Usual Scenario based on the current

pledgedpolicies

For every borrower in the portfolio, Altitude applies a Low, Medium or High score (as applicable) for material

transition risks and material transition opportunities.

Transition risks:

2030 2040

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Policy & legal

Increased pricing of GHG

emissions

Mandates on and regulation of

existing products and services

Regulation on energy efficiency

& certification

Exposure to litigation

Emerging regulation on reporting

requirements

Risks heatmap

Low

Medium

High

2030 2040

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Technology

Cost to transition to

lower-emission alternatives

Increased cost of raw materials

Increased energy/electricity

prices

Market

Shift in customer preferences

Reputation

Increased stakeholder concerns

The high risk of increasing raw materials costs mainly stems from SEQI’s renewables exposure. As demand

for renewables grows, this strains the demand for the minerals and metals, such as lithium, copper, nickel,

manganese and cobalt, that will be crucial to the energy transition. This is a global issue, but also one that

our renewables borrowers should seek to address through their own supply chain management, contracts

and practices. The infrastructure asset class, by its nature, includes high-emitting, hard-to-abate sectors that

are exposed to increased carbon pricing. The Fund seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the implications

of volatile raw materials and carbon pricing on its borrowers and portfolio.

Lastly, adherence to compliance with regulations and availability of compliance certifications is an important

constituent of the due diligence undertaken by the IA and is an area we intend to continue to manage

diligently.

117 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Strategy continued

TCFD recommended disclosures continued

C. Describe the resilience of the organisation’s strategy, taking into consideration different

climate‑related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenario. continued

Transition opportunities:

2030 2040

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Policy & legal

Favourable regulatory frameworks

and public incentives

Technology

Promote more efficient buildings

and operations

Use of more efficient modes

oftransport

Use of more efficient production

and distribution process

Use of lower-emission sources

of energy

Use of recycling

Resource substitution

ordiversification

Market

Access to new markets

Increased reliability of

supplychain

Expansion of low-emission

goods and services

Shift in customer preferences

Opportunity score

Low

Medium

High

2030 2040

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Net Zero

2050

Delayed

Transition NDC

Reputation

Increased stakeholder concerns

As economies transition towards lower-emission goods and services and consumer preferences follow, the

Fund plans to continue to explore and pursue related investment opportunities, which would be aligned

with the Fund’s investment theme of “Enabling the transition to a lower-carbon world”. Such thematic

investments from the current portfolio include the likes of service providers that support utility and energy

efficiency and assets that improve grid capacity to enable the rising electricity demands. Similarly, the

platform has identified investment opportunities as the world generally moves towards lower-emission

sources of energy. This is an opportunity the Company has already been focusing on through positively

screening for “Renewable energy” thematic investments.

Key developments

› This year the Company is pleased to have been able to conduct climate scenario analysis for the portfolio,

which marks a real milestone for the Company’s climate reporting following critical foundational work

over some time. This analysis was delivered through the third party Altitude by AXA Climate platform.

The IA undertook a careful assessment of various providers and products before presenting a shortlist of

three solution providers for the Board’s consideration. The Board in turn evaluated the different platforms

based on a number of factors such as the accuracy in emissions estimates when compared to calculated

and verified numbers provided by borrowers, transparency of methodologies, integration of biodiversity

metrics and value relative to costs. As such, the Fund is now better able to assess physical and transition

climate-related risks presented to assets and the portfolio as a whole under different climate scenarios

and time horizons

› This year, the number of projects in the portfolio with sustainability-related covenants in the loan

documents increased. These covenants are generally designed with the aim of either managing or

monitoring risks or helping to capture opportunities related to material sustainability areas. Asat

31March2025, there were eight projects in the portfolio with sustainability-related covenants

incorporated in the loans. This number has been increasing over the years: two (2020), three (2021),

three(2022), six(2023), seven (2024), and is atrend we seek to continue to target

› Sectors that are overly exposed to climate-related risks, such as thermal coal, continued to be excluded

through the Fund’s negative screening criteria, with 100%

∆

compliance throughout 2024/25 as assured

byKPMG

∆ KPMG has issued independent limited assurance over the selected data indicated with a reference in the 2025 Annual

Report. The reporting criteria and assurance opinion are available in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www.seqi.fund/sustainability/publications/

118 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Strategy continued

› Two of the Fund’s positive investment themes are focused on climate-related opportunities: “Renewable

energy” assets and “Enabling the transition to a lower-carbon world”. One new investment the Fund

made during the year was to Techem, a leading provider of energy efficiency solutions for residential

and commercial buildings, with operations across Europe and beyond. Techem’s services include smart

metering, energy billing and heating and water consumption monitoring, which enable building owners and

tenants to better understand and manage their energy usage. By promoting behavioural change, efficiency

upgrades and tracking data, Techem contributes to improving building energy efficiency and reducing

energy consumption and emissions in the built environment. During the year, the Fund extended four loans

to borrowers that, like Techem, seek to enable the transition to a lower-carbon world, with these thematic

investments representing in aggregate nearly 19% of the capital deployed to new investments in the year

Risk management

Disclose how the organisation identifies, assesses and manages climate-related risks.

TCFD recommended disclosures

A. Describe the organisation’s processes for identifying and assessing climate‑relatedrisks.

Climate-related risks are primarily assessed at the level of each investment, and individual asset level of a

borrower where possible, and form part of the IA’s due diligence process.

Typically, third-party expert reports will be commissioned to assess key risks. For example, engineers might

review the physical condition of the borrower’s assets, including their exposure and resilience to extreme

weather risk. This will then be analysed in tandem with a review of the borrower’s insurance policy and any

other resources to cover uninsured risks.

Climate-related risks are thus identified, and where possible quantified, in the due diligence phase of an

investment and discussed by the Investment Committee. Risks that are unacceptably high will result in an

investment not being made.

B. Describe the organisation’s processes for managing climate‑related risks.

The Investment Adviser monitors each loan at least twice a year and more frequently if considered necessary.

This includes a review not just of credit quality, but also of the borrower’s sustainability profile, including

climate-related factors. To assist in this oversight, each borrower is sent annually a detailed questionnaire

including qualitative and quantitative topics which will assist the Investment Adviser in updating its analysis.

The Investment Adviser then creates an action plan which is used for ongoing engagement with the

borrowers.

A range of steps can be taken as a result of this ongoing monitoring of investments. For example, the internal

credit rating assigned may be adjusted, the loan may be considered for disposal, or the decision may be

made not to participate in a refinancing of the loan when it comes to its maturity date. Ultimately, if it becomes

clear that a borrower’s resilience to climate change is deteriorating, the Fund may choose to dispose of

theloan.

Similarly, if a sector or sub-sector is beginning to experience higher levels of climate-related risks, the IA

willavoid making new loans in it. Given the relatively short maturity of many of the loans in the portfolio,

thiscan rapidly decrease the Fund’s exposure to that sector.

C. Describe how processes for identifying, assessing and managing climate‑related risks

areintegrated into the organisation’s overall risk management.

Climate risk is integrated into the entire investment and risk management process.

At an early stage, when considering whether to dedicate further resources to assess a potential new loan,

the IAwill apply negative and positive screening and estimate the borrower’s ESG score. Some potential

investments will be rejected at this stage if the climate-related risks are likely to be unacceptably high.

Following the due diligence process, the Investment Committee will consider sustainability matters as a part

ofits deliberations. The investment’s ESG score will be agreed upon by the Committee.

Subsequently, the investment is considered by the Investment Manager and in some cases the Risk Committee

of the Board, who will assess both credit quality and sustainability profile, including, where appropriate,

resilience to climate change. The Risk Committee carries out a regular assessment of the Fund’s risks, including

sustainability risks, with certain credit risks being escalated to it by the Investment Manager for approval. ESG

scores for investments that are <50 automatically trigger further scrutiny by the Risk Committee.

The ESG and Stakeholder Engagement Committee is responsible for overseeing the Company’s overall

sustainability strategy.

Finally, each quarter, the Investment Adviser prepares a sustainability report for the Board, which includes a

review of the overall portfolio.

Key developments

› The Company has a comprehensive framework to identify and assess climate change risk. This is fully

integrated into its loan approval, monitoring and risk management processes. This framework is kept

under regular review. Given that the methodology does not incorporate an exhaustive list for every

possible sub-sector within infrastructure, this year new sub-sectors were added as the Fund looked at

opportunities and extended loans to areas that it had not actively considered previously. The existing

sub-sector definitions were also more clearly delineated with a view to ensuring high levels of consistency

and standardisation across credit analysts and the functions across all of the different teams that are

involved in work on the Fund

› This year, the IA again conducted two firm-wide internal training sessions on sustainability. The aim of

these was to help to promote a consistent process and approach across the team as well as keeping all

functions of the firm abreast of the latest sustainability trends and developments

› Following subscription to the AXA Climate Altitude platform, the Board is exploring how to extract further

value from this tool to enhance risk management through due diligence screenings. This should enable

the Fund to gain a deeper understanding of an asset’s exposure to physical and transition risks as well

as its carbon emissions profile before an investment decision is made. As we work to fully integrate the

tool into existing processes, we look to develop this potential value-add Altitude may bring to our risk

management over the forthcoming year

119 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Metrics and Targets

Disclose the metrics and targets used to assess and manage the relevant climate-related risks and opportunities where such information is material.

TCFD recommended disclosures

A. Disclose the metrics used by the organisation to assess climate‑related risks and opportunities in line with its strategy and risk management process.

Currently, the ESG score is the key metric for assessing the sustainability profile of the Fund’s investments, including on environmental matters. This ESG scoring framework helps the allocation of capital between projects and

to measure its progress over time in a quantitative way. The methodology blends the “E”, “S” and “G” components without allowing strength in one area to offset entirely weakness in another. For example, a polluting company

will always get a poor score, even if it has excellent social and governance policies. Moreover, the policy is not to lend to companies with a very low E score, of less than one, regardless of the overall ESG score.

Going forward, the Company is looking to widen its range of metrics used, including potentially GHG emissions. Whilst the Company measures its own and its portfolio emissions to the fullest extent possible, currently this is

not used as a KPI or target as the data that is available, in the context of a private debt portfolio, is not considered wholly reliable and relies on unverified reported data and third-party estimates of varying degrees ofquality.

B. Disclose Scope 1, Scope 2 and, if appropriate, Scope 3 GHG emissions and the relatedrisks.

Company operational emissions

Company emissions

tCO

Year ended

31 March 2024

tCO

Year ended

31 March 2025

Scope 1 nil nil

Scope 2 nil nil

Scope 3 (operational) 44 44

Due to the nature of Company’s business, it produces no Scope 1 or 2 emissions. The Company’s Scope 3 operational emissions have been estimated in consultation with a specialist adviser and are intentionally

conservative by design. These have been offset by the Company through the purchase of carbon offsets. Many of the Company’s suppliers already have their own emissions reduction and offsetting programmes in place.

Company Scope 3 portfolio emissions

The following TCFD-recommended GHG emissions metrics have been estimated for the Fund’s portfolio in line with the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (“PCAF”) standards:

› total absolute emissions of portfolio companies;

› financed emissions;

› carbon to investment; and

› Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (“WACI”).

Explanation of the calculation and methodology used for GHG emissions metrics is provided in the Appendix.

Year ended 31 March 2024 Year ended 31 March 2025

Portfolio emissions

Total absolute

tCO

Reported

coverage

Total absolute

tCO

(reported)

Reported

coverage

Total absolute

tCO

(estimated)

Estimated

data

Total absolute

tCO

e (estimated

& reported)

Scope 1 5,930,417 66% 7,441,400 67% 858,141 33% 8,299,541

Scope 2 364,102 58% 309,177 61% 52,316 39% 361,493

Scope 3 437,562 39% 727,409 43% 2,349,946 57% 3,077,355

120 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – TCFD report continued

Metrics and Targets continued

TCFD recommended disclosures continued

B. Disclose Scope 1, Scope 2 and, if appropriate, Scope 3 GHG emissions and the relatedrisks.

continued

Company Scope 3 portfolio emissions continued

SEQI Year ended 31 March 2025

Financed

emissions

(tCO

Carbon to

investment

(tCO

e/£m)

Weighted Average

Carbon Intensity

(“WACI”)

(tCO

e/£m revenue)

Total 1,377,745 882

2,505

(94% coverage)

Due to the diverse nature of the Fund’s investments, it would not have been accurate to extrapolate reported

emissions numbers to the rest of the portfolio. Instead, for the year ended 31 March 2025, the Fund has

been able to derive an estimate for each borrower for which it lacked data. To assist with this, the Company

has utilised Altitude by AXA Climate, a software solutions platform to support climate risk management,

which has been designed with inputs from various sectors, including finance, infrastructure and industry.

This platform has enabled estimates for GHG metrics to be generated for the whole of the Fund’s portfolio.

Itshould be noted that these figures are overestimates as, where emissions for specific or individual projects/

assets being financed by the Fund were unavailable, total emissions for the portfolio company borrower have

been used. Thismeans that the emissions specifically attributable to the Fund’s financing activities would be

less than the reported figures provided. As our internal capacities evolve, we look to refine this methodology

to improve the accuracy of GHG emissions data reported going forward.

The apparent increase in reported absolute emissions produced by portfolio companies is largely attributable

to new reporting by one of the assets. As SEQI is now able to estimate the remainder of the portfolio,

this short-term anomaly in reporting should smooth out over time. It should also be noted that as there is

meaningful regular portfolio churn/movements, the absolute emissions produced by borrowing entities may

vary significantly year-on-year and should not be interpreted as providing a definitive indication of emission

performance at a portfolio company level.

Also of note is that the WACI number excludes pre-revenue assets as the WACI calculation is based on the

portfolio company’s revenues and accordingly cannot be reliably computed for companies without revenues.

In this regard, the WACI number covers 94% of the portfolio by outstanding amount as at 31 March 2025.

C. Describe the targets used by the organisation to manage climate‑related risks and

performance against targets.

The Fund has three sustainability goals: to comply with its negative screening criteria, to progress thematic

investing (positive screening) and to improve the portfolio’s weighted average ESG score over time.

Key developments

› Last year the Company reported absolute emissions of the portion of the portfolio for which reliable

information on the borrower was available. In the first instance, this was made possible by the significant

progress we supported through our borrower engagement. Since then, further advancements have been

made as the Company onboarded Altitude by AXA Climate to help address data challenges and gaps.

Asa result, for the first time this year, we have been able to report total portfolio emissions as well as

GHGmetrics for the portfolio, namely: financed emissions, carbon to investment and WACI

› A sustainability questionnaire is sent to our portfolio companies annually, which includes requesting

quantitative data, such as Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 GHG emissions. This year we received a

joint-record response rate to our questionnaire from 93% of borrowers. We obtained reported Scope 1

emissions data for 69% of portfolio companies and Scope 2 emissions of 60% of the portfolio (in each

case calculated by reference to outstanding amounts as at 31 March 2025)

› The Fund has improved its average portfolio ESG score from 62.77 last year to 64.70 as at

31March2025, largely as a result of its sustainability-focused investment strategy and active engagement

work with companies that resulted in 14 existing positions increasing their ESG scores during the period.

This marks a notable improvement since the Company started calculating and measuring the portfolio’s

ESG score in 2020 which was 59.61 for this first reporting year

121 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – GHG emissions and climate scenarios methodology

There are some potential limitations of the report and its use. While we have been working hard to improve

the quality and quantity of emissions data, we are unable to verify either reported or estimated emissions

numbers. We have endeavoured to provide transparent and comprehensive detail on the methodology and

assumptions used in order to support the assessment of data set out in this report. There are also limitations

inherent in climate scenario analysis itself due to the outsourcing of climate modelling, including reliance

on third-party processes, as well as complexity, uncertainty, lack of consistency and varying levels of data

quality and availability. We remain committed to engaging with portfolio companies and our supplier, Altitude

by AXA Climate, with a view to continue refining our approach to scenario analysis going forward.

GHG emissions

Total absolute emissions:

The Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (“PCAF”) emissions Data Quality Score for the portfolio

is 2.25. This average takes into account the data quality score for each borrower, weighted by the total

outstanding loan amount per company. The Fund has verified emissions based on physical data for six

portfolio companies, as some borrowers have had their emissions externally verified (earning a PCAF Data

Quality Score 1). The remainder of the portfolio has either reported some or all of their Scope 1-3 emissions

on an unverified basis (assigned PCAF Data Quality Score 2), or (in the case of 16 borrowers in the portfolio)

had their Scope 1, 2 and/or 3 emissions estimated based on sector and turnover using the third-party data

provider Altitude by AXA Climate (PCAF Data Quality Score 4).

Reported emissions:

Where data for the specific project/asset being financed by the Fund was unavailable, company-level

information has been used. For instance, the emissions specific to the project SEQI finances may be

unknown by certain borrowers, however they are able to provide total emissions for their company;

in these cases the borrower’s total emissions reported for the whole company have been used in our

calculations. This means that the total emissions and associated GHG metrics reported by SEQI have

beenoverestimated and are higher than the actual emissions attributable to SEQI. As our internal capacities

evolve, we look to refine this methodology to improve the accuracy of GHG emissions data going forward.

The total absolute reported emissions data covers the most recent calendar year to the fullest extent

possible, i.e. our total year ended 31 March 2025 number refers to emissions produced by portfolio

companies from 1 January to31 December. Where this is unavailable, the latest available company

datahasbeen used.

The coverage rate for the year ended 31 March 2025 indicates the percentage of the portfolio that has

provided emissions information and is measured by outstanding loan amounts as at 31 March 2025.

Thecoverage rate for the year ended 31 March 2024 is measured by net asset value (“NAV”) as at

31March2024, as this was the principal valuation metric used throughout SEQI’s financial and sustainable

reporting and at the time the Company did not runcalculations of emissions metrics using outstanding

borrowed amount.

Estimated emissions by Altitude:

Altitude’s GHG calculation tool has been developed following the guidance from the Greenhouse Gas

Protocol, developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable

Development and establishing comprehensive global standardised frameworks to measure and manage

GHG emissions from private and public sector operations. The calculation approach is based on

Environmentally Extended Input Output (“EEIO”) models. The resulting EEIO emission factors can be used

to estimate GHG emissions for a given industry or product category. EEIO models are derived by allocating

national GHG emissions to groups of finished products based on economic flows between industry sectors.

Altitude considers the EXIOBASE dataset, which provides extensive geographical and sectorial coverage

(49 regions across 163 industry classifications). However, it should be noted that the level of granularity is

relatively low compared to other sources of data.

Altitude provides a breakdown of estimates in terms of Scope 1, Scope 2 and upstream (“cradle to gate”)

Scope 3 through a preliminary screening approach based on proxy data and financial inputs. This allows for

the assessment of the GHG footprint.

Altitude also benchmarks certain elements of the estimated carbon intensity of portfolio companies against

that of prominent global companies in a similar sector of activity (by reference to Scopes 1, 2 and 3

upstream). As with all benchmarking exercises, the results should be interpreted with appropriate contextual

caution. However, the Fund considers that this data still provides additional useful insights to support

transaction due diligence assessments.

Our understanding of Altitude’s methodology and the composition of their tool is based on information

provided to us by Altitude.

122 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – GHG emissions and climate scenarios methodology continued

GHG emissions continued

Financed emissions:

This is the carbon footprint of the Fund, i.e. the total absolute emissions of all the companies in the portfolio

based on the extent to which SEQI finances the activities of these borrowers.

Financed emissions =

∑

Attribution factor

p/c

× Total emissions

p/c

p = project, c = investee company/borrower which was used where the specific emissions for the project being financed

were unknown

The vast majority of the portfolio comprises loans with a known use of proceeds, which uses the following

attribution factor:

Attribution factor =

∑

Attribution factor

p/c

Total equity + Total debt

p/c

The same attribution factor is used for the small number of bonds in the portfolio as they are made to private

companies. On the small number of occasions where the Fund has ended up with an equity stake in a

position, this has been factored into the calculation of the “outstanding amount”.

In line with PCAF standards, for all carbon metrics the outstanding debt amounts have been used and the

figure used for the total AUM takes the sum of these. This differs from the valuation, AUM figures and other

financial metrics reported elsewhere by SEQI, which use NAV. Whilst we consider NAV to better reflect the

relative exposure of the Fund based on fair market valuation, in order to align with best practices advised by

PCAF and TCFD and to allow for comparability and consistency across products and financial institutions,

SEQI has used outstanding debt amounts instead of NAV. For completeness, SEQI has calculated carbon

metrics using both outstanding debt amounts and NAV and found minimal difference in the carbon to

investment and WACI metrics, with an approximate 10% differential in the financed emissions number.

Specifically, NAV-based financed emissions were lower than the financed emissions calculated using

outstanding debt amount. Hence, the reported headline figures above could be interpreted as conservative

overestimated figures.

Carbon to investment:

This is the amount of GHG emissions produced by the portfolio’s companies relative to the amount of money

invested in those companies, which therefore provides a representation of how much carbon is emitted for

each million GBP deployed by SEQI.

Carbon to investment =

Financed emissions

Total AuM

Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (“WACI”):

This metric represents the portfolio’s exposure to carbon-intensive companies. It is calculated as the

sum of each company’s carbon intensity (emissions per unit of revenue) weighted by the proportion that

each company represents of the portfolio. As this metric is not appropriate for pre-revenue companies,

pre-revenue investments have been excluded from the calculation.

WACI =

∑

(

Outstanding amount

p/c

Total emissions

p/c

)

Total AuM Revenue

p/c

Climate scenario analysis

Physical risks

Altitude evaluates climate physical risks of real assets using the asset type and their geolocation.

Therisksare a function of three pillars as defined by IPCC (hazard, vulnerability and exposure) and come

in 16 different types that can either be defined as acute or chronic. For every asset, Altitude calculates

a risk score for each material physical hazard. For companies with multiple assets, the asset-level risks

are aggregated. The overall company scores are then aggregated and weighted to produce consolidated

portfolio-level risks that are classified as: Low, Medium or High. Materiality is assessed based on the asset

type, which is informed by AXA Climate’s expertise and dataset, and geolocation, where each hazard peril

is evaluated using one or more metrics derived from Global Climate Models and additional specialised

resources for separate hazards.

The evolution of climate hazards over time are modelled using the 30-year averages (monthly, seasonally,

yearly) around 2000, 2020, 2030 and 2050.

Transition risks and opportunities

Material transition risks and opportunities are identified per sector and geography using AXA Climate’s

in-house expertise. Risk levels (low, medium, high) are calculated using their Network for Greening

the Financial System (“NGFS”) proxy models, which are weighted by a carbon factor representing the

carbon intensity of the sector in a specific geography relative to all other carbon intensities in the world.

TheNGFS proxies then model the identified risks and opportunities in 2020, 2030 and 2040 under the

three forward-looking scenarios. If no proxies are available, targeted literature reviews and CDP datasets

areconsulted.

A risk is considered material if it can have a significant impact on the company under consideration based

on a qualitative assessment of potential impacts on revenues, OpEx and CapEx of portfolio companies.

p/c

123 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – SFDR product‑level periodic disclosure

Template periodic disclosure for the financial products referred to in Article

8, paragraphs 1, 2 and 2a, of Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 and Article 6, first

paragraph, of Regulation (EU) 2020/852

Product name: Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund

Legal entity identifier: 2138006OW12FQHJ6PX91

Environmental and/or social characteristics

Did this financial product have a sustainable investment objective?

It made sustainable investments with

an environmental objective:

___%

in economic activities that

qualify as environmentally

sustainable under the

EU Taxonomy

in economic activities that

do not qualify as

environmentally

sustainable under the

EU Taxonomy

It made sustainable investments

with a social objective:

___%

It promoted Environmental/Social

(E/S) characteristics and while it did

not have as its objective a

sustainable investment, it had a

proportion of

___% of sustainable

investments

with an environmental

objective in economic

activities that qualify as

environmentally sustainable

under the EU Taxonomy

with an environmental

objective in economic

activities that do not qualify

as environmentally

sustainable under the

EU Taxonomy

It promoted E/S characteristics,

but did not make any sustainable

investments

___%

with a social objective

Sustainable investment

means an investment

in an economic activity

that contributes to an

environmental or social

objective, provided that

the investment does not

significantly harm any

environmental or social

objective and that the

investee companies follow

good governance practices.

The EU Taxonomy is a

classification system laid

down in Regulation (EU)

2020/852, establishing

a list of environmentally

sustainable economic

activities. That Regulation

does not lay down a list

of socially sustainable

economic activities.

Sustainable investments

with an environmental

objective might be aligned

with the Taxonomy or not.

To what extent were the environmental and/or social characteristics

promoted by this financial product met?

The Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund (“SEQI”, the “Fund”)

incorporates the three following criteria in the selection of underlying assets for

its portfolio:

› negative screening;

› thematic investing (positive screening); and

› ESG scoring.

Deriving from the above criteria, the Fund seeks to promote sustainability

characteristics, with a focus on environmental, by applying the following:

1. excluding certain positions determined to cause negative or adverse

environmental impact based on negative screening;

2. assessing the underlying asset’s capability to contribute towards determined

positive sustainability themes; and

3. making investment decisions that can increase the portfolio’s overall weighted

average ESG score.

The Fund’s investment policy precludes investing in companies with a very low

Escore (<1), irrespective of the overall ESG score.

The sustainability principles were applied to the portfolio in order to meet our

three sustainability goals: 1) Comply with negative screening criteria, 2) Progress

thematic investing (positive screening) and 3) Over time, increase portfolio

weighted average ESGscore.

The sustainability characteristics promoted by the Fund were met as the

exclusions continued to be fully applied and the average ESG score for the

portfolio increased this year. The percentage of thematic investments show a

small increase year-on-year.

How did the sustainability indicators perform?

For the reference period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, 100% of projects

were compliant with the Fund’s negative screening criteria. During the period,

the Fund did not finance any projects that initially do not meet the negative

screening criteria but have the aim of transitioning to a more sustainable and

compliant business model.

As at 31 March 2025, thematic investing covered 71% of the Fund’s

investmentportfolio.

As at 31 March 2025, the average weighted ESG score for the Fund’s portfolio

was 64.70.

KPMG provided independent limited assurance under ISAE (UK) 3000 over

these three KPIs. This confirmation is contained in the Company’s 2024/25

Annual Report. The reporting criteria and KPMG’s limited assurance opinion

areavailable in the Sustainability Publications section of our website:

www. seqi. fund/sustainability/publications/.

Sustainability indicators

measure how the

environmental or social

characteristics promoted

by the financial product are

attained.

124 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – SFDR product‑level periodic disclosure continued

Performance in line with these sustainability indicators does not necessarily align

with a guaranteed year-on-year increase in the ratio of investments that promote

sustainability characteristics.

…and compared to previous periods?

The process of reducing the exposure to assets not permitted under the

negative screening, through disposal of assets and planned repayments of loans

started in 2021 was completed by 31 March 2022. Since then the Fund reached

full compliance with the negative screening criteria and has maintained 100%

compliance since, including throughout the year ended 31 March 2025.

The portion of the portfolio covered by thematic investing is measured as at

31March each year. This had consistently increased: 59% (2021), 61% (2022),

72% (2023), until a small dip last year: 70% (2024). The portion of thematic

investments this year was 71%, a small year-on-year increase as the number

has likely reached its natural roof.

The weighted average ESG score for the Fund’s portfolio measured as at

31March each year has consistently increased: 59.61 (2020), 60.59 (2021),

61.88 (2022), 62.29 (2023), 62.77 (2024).

31 Mar

2022

31 Mar

2023

31 Mar

2024

31 Mar

2025

Negative screening 100% 100% 100% 100%

Thematic investing 61% 72% 70% 71%

Weighted average portfolio

ESG score 61.88 62.29 62.77 64.70

What were the objectives of the sustainable investments that the

financial product partially made and how did the sustainable

investment contribute to such objectives?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund does not commit to make

“sustainable investments” within the definition of Article 2(17) of Regulation (EU)

2019/2088 (SFDR) or the definition set out by the EU Taxonomy.

Principal adverse

impacts are the most

significant negative impacts

of investment decisions

on sustainability factors

relating to environmental,

social and employee

matters, respect for human

rights, anti-corruption and

anti-bribery matters.

How did the sustainable investments that the financial product

partially made not cause significant harm to any environmental or

social sustainable investment objective?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund does not commit to make

“sustainable investments” within the definition of Article 2(17) of Regulation (EU)

2019/2088 (SFDR) or the definition set out by the EU Taxonomy.

How were the indicators for adverse impacts on sustainability factors

taken into account?

Principal adverse impacts (“PAIs”) on sustainability factors have not been taken

into account for this financial product. The Fund is not subject to mandatory

consideration and disclosure of principal adverse impacts under Article4(1)(a)

ofSFDR.

Were sustainable investments aligned with the OECD Guidelines for

Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business

and Human Rights? Details:

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and OECD

Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises have not been formally embedded into

the Fund’s investment process, but the negative screening and ESG scorecards

will have gone some way in excluding companies that might be in breach

of international norms described in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational

Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

The Fund ensured that all companies are compliant with minimum human rights

and labor standards.

How did this financial product consider principal adverse impacts on

sustainability factors?

The Fund does not consider the principal adverse impacts (“PAIs”) of its

investment on sustainability factors. The Fund does not commit to make

“sustainable investments” per the definition of Article 2(17) of Regulation (EU)

2019/2088 (SFDR) and, as such, does not calculate or report the principal

adverse impact indicators for the Fund.

125 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – SFDR product‑level periodic disclosure continued

What were the top investments of this financial product?

Largest investments Sector % Assets Country

1 Renewables 4.35 UK

2 Digitalisation 4.33 US

3 Utility 4.00 UK

4 Renewables 3.75 US

5 Digitalisation 3.61 US

6 Transport – vehicles 3.60 US

7 Power 3.41 Germany

8 Power 3.26 US

9 Digitalisation 3.16 US

10 Digitalisation 3.10 Holland

11 Transport – systems 3.02 Belgium

12 Transport – systems 2.94 Denmark

13 Other 2.86 US

14 Digitalisation 2.83 Switzerland

15 Digitalisation 2.77 US

These percentages have been calculated by averaging the exposure as at each quarter end for the reference period.

What was the proportion of sustainability‑related investments?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund does not commit to a minimum proportion of investments of the financial product used to meet environmental or social characteristics promoted

by the Fund in accordance with the binding elements of the investment strategy.

Note, there were no sovereign exposures.

What was the asset allocation?

The Fund invests in economic infrastructure private loans and bonds across a range of industries in stable, low-risk jurisdictions, creating equity-like returns with the protections of debt. It is the

only UK-listed fund investing exclusively in economic infrastructure debt.

Asset allocation describes

the share of investments in

specific assets.

The list includes the

investments constituting

the greatest proportion

of investments of the

financial product during

the reference period

which is: 1 April 2024

to31March2025

126 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – SFDR product‑level periodic disclosure continued

In which economic sectors were the investments made?

Sector Sub-sector

Accommodation 6.63% Health care 5.22%

Student housing 1.42%

Other 11.52% Agricultural infra 0.06%

Hospitality 0.52%

Hospitals 0.92%

Schools 1.92%

Smart metering 0.30%

Social infra 0.89%

Residential infra 3.07%

Waste-to-energy 3.78%

#1 Aligned with E/S characteristics includes the investments of the financial product used to attain the environmental or social characteristics

promoted by the financial product.

#2 Other includes the remaining investments of the financial product which are neither aligned with the environmental or social characteristics,

nor are qualified as sustainable investments.

The category #1 Aligned with E/S characteristics covers:

- The sub-category #1B Other E/S characteristics

covers investments aligned with the environmental or social characteristics that do not

q qualify as sustainable investments.

Investments

#2 Other

27%

#1B Other E/S

characteristics

73%

#1 Aligned with E/S

characteristics

73%

Sector Sub-sector

Power 15.89% Baseload 6.82%

Energy efficiency 0.68%

Energy transition 1.05%

Nuclear power 0.69%

Other electricity generation 5.02%

Power services 0.82%

Standby generators 0.80%

Renewables 9.52% Landfill gas 4.35%

Solar & wind 5.17%

Digitalisation 22.82% Broadband & fibre 3.01%

Data centres 12.70%

Telecom towers 7.10%

Transport – systems 8.60% Ferries 2.94%

Port 3.02%

Rail 2.50%

Road 0.13%

Transport – vehicles 10.30% Aircraft 1.60%

Health & safety 1.19%

Rolling stock 2.20%

Specialist shipping 5.32%

Utility 14.73% Renewable electricity supply 1.56%

Midstream 5.37%

Utility services 7.81%

These percentages have been calculated by averaging the exposure as at each quarter end for the

referenceperiod.

During the reference period, the Fund had eight investments across four companies which derive revenues

from exploration, mining, extraction, production, processing, storage, refining or distribution, including

transportation, storage and trade, of fossil fuels. This averaged at 13.4% of the portfolio NAV over the year.

Note, this includes for instance a port company that represents on average 3.02% of the portfolio; the

company derive ~2.5% of their revenues from customers that use them to handle/store a limited amount

ofcoal. There were no new investments in these type of companies during the year.

127 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – SFDR product‑level periodic disclosure continued

To what extent were the sustainable investments with an

environmental objective aligned with the EU Taxonomy?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund does not commit to a minimum

share of “sustainable investments” with an environmental objective aligned with

the EU Taxonomy.

Did the financial product invest in fossil gas and/or nuclear energy ‑

related activities complying with the EU Taxonomy

 Yes:

In fossil gas In nuclear energy



No

Whilst the financial product makes investments related to fossil gas and nuclear

energy, the Fund does not measure or track investments in activities that comply

with the EU Taxonomy.

To comply with the EU

Taxonomy, the criteria

for fossil gas include

limitations on emissions

and switching to fully

renewable power or

low-carbon fuels by the

end of 2035. For nuclear

energy, the criteria include

comprehensive safety and

waste management rules.

Enabling activities directly

enable other activities

to make a substantial

contribution to an

environmental objective.

Transitional activities

are economic activities

for which low-carbon

alternatives are not yet

available and that have

greenhouse gas emission

levels corresponding to the

best performance.

Taxonomy-aligned activities

are expressed as a shareof:

› turnover reflects the

“greenness” of investee

companies today.

› capital expenditure

(“CapEx”) shows the

green investments made

by investee companies,

relevant for a transition

toa green economy.

› operational

expenditure (“OpEx”)

reflects the green

operational activities of

investee companies.

*For the purpose of these graphs, “sovereign bonds” consist of all sovereign exposures

The graphs below show in green the percentage of investments that were aligned with the EU

Taxonomy. As there is no appropriate methodology to determine the Taxonomy alignment

of sovereign bonds*, the first graph shows the Taxonomy alignment in relation to all the

investments of the financial product including sovereign bonds, while the second graph

shows the Taxonomy alignment only in relation to the investments of the financial product

other than sovereign bonds.

1. Taxonomy alignment of investments

including sovereign bonds*

2. Taxonomy alignment of investments

excluding sovereign bonds*

100%

Taxonomy-aligned Fossil gas

Taxonomy-aligned Nuclear

Taxonomy aligned (no gas & nuclear)

Non-Taxonomy aligned

Taxonomy-aligned Fossil gas

Taxonomy-aligned Nuclear

Taxonomy aligned (no gas & nuclear)

Non-Taxonomy aligned

This graph represents 100% of the total investments.

OpEx

Turnover

CapEx

OpEx

Turnover

CapEx

1. Fossil gas and/or nuclear-related activities will only comply with the EU Taxonomy

where they contribute to limiting climate change (“climate change mitigation”) and do

no significant harm to any EU Taxonomy objective - see explanatory note in the left

hand margin. The full criteria for fossil gas and nuclear energy economic activities that

comply with the EU Taxonomy are laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)

2022/1214

What was the share of investments made in transitional and

enabling activities?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Fund does not measure its share investments

in “transitional” and “enabling” activities as per the definition under the EU

Taxonomy.

How did the percentage of investments that were aligned with the EU

Taxonomy compare with previous reference periods?

N/A

What was the share of sustainable investments with an

environmental objective not aligned with the EU Taxonomy?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund does not commit to a minimum

share of “sustainable investments” with an environmental objective that are not

aligned with the EU Taxonomy.

What was the share of socially sustainable investments?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund does not commit to a minimum

share of “socially sustainable investments”.

What investments were included under “other”, what was their

purpose and were there any minimum environmental or social

safeguards?

The “#2 Other” investments includes the lowest quartile of ESG scores, which

represented 25% of the Fund’s portfolio by NAV as at 31 March 2025. The Fund

aims to increase the portfolio’s average ESG score over time, whilst anticipating

natural fluctuations and recognising this may not always be possible given

market circumstances. Further, when considering disposals, we will look at the

lower-scoring assets as a priority, whilst taking disposal decisions based on

financial metrics.

The purpose of these investments is diversification. As specified in the

investment criteria, the Fund will invest across different sectors and sub-sectors

to ensure the portfolio is sufficiently diversified. Naturally, certain sectors and

sub-sectors are more aligned with environmental characteristics than others, as

a result there will always be a spread in ESG scores within the portfolio.

128 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – SFDR product‑level periodic disclosure continued

Compliance with minimum environmental or social safeguards cannot be reliably

measured, due to the lack of data and evidence to do so since many of the

investee companies lack the sufficient resources and/or capabilities to be able

toensure compliance with minimum safeguards throughout their value chains.

Nonetheless, all assets undergo our three-part process of negative screening,

thematic investing (positive screening) and ESG scoring, as described in the

Fund’s Sustainability Policy. This means that assets not meeting the Fund’s

investment criteria and negative screening criteria will be excluded, thus

making an investment in an asset not meeting minimum environmental or social

safeguards unlikely.

Furthermore, where appropriate, loan terms will include covenants or

repeated representations to ensure that the borrower complies with its stated

sustainability objectives and to encourage it to improve its standards over time.

These could include obligations to meet minimum environmental safeguards.

Borrower engagement on sustainability matters is part of the ongoing monitoring

process. For example, annual sustainability questionnaires are sent to all

borrowers, which includes questions related to the maintenance of minimum

safeguards.

What actions have been taken to meet the environmental and/or

social characteristics during the reference period?

The Fund continued to make investment decisions this year in line with its three

sustainability goals. Based on the Fund’s investment strategy, when evaluating

potential investments, the Investment Adviser prioritised new transactions with

higher ESG scores, and when considering the potential disposal of investments,

the Investment Adviser prioritised transactions with lower ESG scores, whilst

taking disposal decisions based on financial metrics.

The Investment Adviser continued to take a proactive approach to managing the

loan book and engage with borrowers in relation to sustainability-related topics

on a regular basis as per the Fund’s Sustainability Policy. The Fund’s range

of engagement strategies are designed to encourage and promote positive

behaviour in the companies that it lends to, and some of those that were

employed during this reference period are described below.

Where appropriate, loan terms included covenants or repeated representations

to ensure that the borrower complies with its stated sustainability objectives

and to encourage it to improve its standards over time. In addition, where

appropriate, loan terms included an obligation on the borrower to report suitable

sustainability metrics on a best-efforts basis.

Borrowers were asked to complete annual post-investment sustainability

questionnaires. These cover quantifiable sustainability metrics/KPIs when

appropriate, CO

emissions, health and safety records, etc. as well as

confirmation of the borrower’s overall sustainability policies and procedures.

TheFund requires supporting documentation and/or external verification

to evidence borrowers’ sustainability claims. Action plans are created for

all assets,which identify areas of improvement in borrowers’ sustainability

credentials and/or the additional evidence that would be required to be

able to fully assess certain indicators within the ESG scoring framework.

These lists of actionable areas formed the basis of the ongoing engagement

with theborrowers over the course of the year with the aim of making

improvements,collecting more evidence of initiatives that are said to

beinplaceor mitigating risks.

The environmental characteristics of the Fund and sustainability indicators used

to measure this were met through a combination of investing in higher scoring

opportunities, disposing of lower-scoring opportunities and using a range of

engagement strategies with borrowers.

How did this financial product perform compared to the

referencebenchmark?

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund does not use a specific index

designated as a reference benchmark to determine whether the product is

aligned with the environmental and/or social characteristics it promotes.

How does the reference benchmark differ from a broad market

index?

N/A

How did this financial product perform with regard to the

sustainability indicators to determine the alignment of the reference

benchmark with the environmental or social characteristics

promoted?

N/A

How did this financial product perform compared with the reference

benchmark?

N/A

How did this financial product perform compared with the broad

market index?

N/A

Reference benchmarks

are indexes to measure

whether the financial

product attains the

environmental or social

characteristics that they

promote.

are sustainable investments

with an environmental

objective that do not

take into account the

criteria for environmentally

sustainable economic

activities under Regulation

(EU) 2020/852.

129 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Appendix – Principal adverse sustainability impacts statement

The Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Fund (“SEQI”, “the Fund”) does not consider the principal adverse

impacts (“PAIs”) of its investment on sustainability factors.

The Fund does not commit to make “sustainable investments” per the definition of Article 2(17) of Regulation

(EU) 2019/2088 (SFDR) and, as such, does not calculate or report the PAI indicators for the Fund.

Nonetheless, the Fund recognises the importance of considering PAIs and is taking reasonable steps on

making progress in the measurement of these metrics at the Fund level. The Fund’s ability to measure and

thus consider the adverse impacts is highly dependent on the availability and accuracy of data from third

parties. We request relevant data from our investee companies upon origination and annually thereafter and

embed covenants into loans, where possible, to mandate the provision of certain datapoints.

However, we invest predominantly in private debt with a skew towards smaller and mid-sized companies

and a sizeable proportion of the portfolio is US based. Given the asset class and nature of our investments,

the collection and reporting of PAI data at our investee companies are limited.

The integration of PAIs is further impaired by the current absence of reliable benchmarks or external data

sources that could be used to reliably generate estimated data specific to our portfolio to comply with the

PAI technical reporting requirements.

We cannot yet commit to a date by which we will be able to adequately consider such PAIs.

130 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Contacts

For further information, please contact:

Sequoia Investment Management Company Limited

+44 (0)20 7079 0480

Steve Cook

Dolf Kohnhorst

Randall Sandstrom

Anurag Gupta

Jefferies International Limited (Joint Corporate Broker & Financial Adviser)

+44 (0)20 7029 8000

Gaudi le Roux

Stuart Klein

J.P. Morgan Cazenove (Joint Corporate Broker & Financial Adviser)

+44 (0)20 7742 4000

William Simmonds

Jeremie Birnbaum

Teneo (Financial PR)

+44 (0)20 7353 4200

Elizabeth Snow

Faye Calow

Apex Fund and Corporate Services (Guernsey) Limited (Administrator)

+44 (0)20 3530 3667

Aoife Bennett

About Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited

The Company is a Guernsey-registered closed-ended investment company that seeks to provide investors

with regular, sustained, long-term distributions and capital appreciation from a diversified portfolio of

senior and subordinated economic infrastructure debt investments. The Company is advised by Sequoia

Investment Management Company Limited.

LEI: 2138006OW12FQHJ6PX91

131 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

Notes

132 Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025

Company review

Strategic review

Governance

Financial statements

Additional information

The FSC label on this Report ensures responsible use of the world’s

forest resources

This Report has been printed on Nautilus

SuperWhite, made from

100% post-consumer recycled waste, Compliant with ISO 9001, ISO

9706, ISO 14001 This product is made of material from well-managed

FSC

-certified forests, recycled materials, and other controlled sources.

Printed by L&S using vegetable-based inks and is certified carbon

neutralfor scope 1&2 under the PAS 2060 standard.

Designed and produced by

www.lyonsbennett.com

1 Royal Plaza

Royal Avenue

St Peter Port

Guernsey

GY1 2HL

www.seqi.fund

Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income FundAnnual Report and Accounts 2025