GSF would do well to set out its buying process.
I suspect the cash was a payment to acquire the 49% of Mucklaigh, in order to move from project plan to land buying, permissions and construction. The monies will have been paid to Grid System Services (Low Carbon and Irish Independent Developers), based on early phase DCFs. Once the construction phase is ongoing, the DCFs and costs will be
refined and GSF will buy the remaining 51% . The cash will pay the builders (Irish Independent Developers) and Low Carbon for their work done. The second phase (51%) will be in shares to Low Carbon who maintain their interest in GSF. These are dilutive. So the 9,700,000 shares to buy the Porterstown and KIlmannock will dilute the share price by 1.3 to 1.4p. Which is roughly yesterday's drop. I assume that all these shares will have gone to Grid Systems Services as there is still construction work to be done and batteries purchased and installed. Some could be sold to pay the builders, but I suspect Low Carbon will keep them if they see more benefit from holding them long term. That does depend on prices chargeable and battery usage. But Ireland and the EU seem to be more reliable than the UK for anything linked to renewables and sticking to plans. As Alibaba says, Ireland is the right place for investment
From Financial News last December "Rio has pulled the start trigger on copper/gold mine, Winu, 75 miles from Telfer".
and in same article
"Newmont boss Tom Palmer hosed down speculation that Telfer/Havieron would soon be up for sale, describing them as valuable assets"
There is a difference in the Newmont RNS, between "expects" to divest Havieron and "seeking" to divest Telfer. The first, to me means discussions about Havieron are progressing positively. But seeks to divest to me means an indication that it wants to, but hasn't found a party to start discussions.
Shaun's RNS is about the attractiveness of Havieron.
So possibly Rio want Havieron, but not Telfer
Hi Tibbs
I find almost the whole of the financial sector, with its focus purely on making money, a waste of human talent and effort, that could better be spent on dealing with the earth's problems and making a better life for everyone.
Of the three schools of thought in the article, I support the third, which basically says that all the resources are finite, which poses a problem for the future, especially as population keeps growing. Common sense suggests that if we don't all get together and plan a future, there will be an all out battle over dwindling resources.
What's missing from this is that FTSE 100 companies, bought back £57 billion plus of shares in 2023.
The Chancellor wants growth in the Economy, which comes from investment. If that £57 billion had been ploughed back into investment, instead of buying shares (which increases eps, as well as share prices which supports short sellers), then the Chancellor would get his wish.
ORR report out and they have shot themselves in the foot, complaining of prices being 10% higher than elsewhere. 14% of retail sales going in rent to rail network/stations. The average across UK is about 7%. So large % of higher price is being paid to network rail/stations in rent, not being taken by retailers as profit.
If they were to try to force prices down, rents would decline with even less for rail network/stations, and demand for higher subsidies to compensate, or higher rail ticket prices.
Rollins, the main US competitor, last night announced 3rd quarter sales up 15.2%, margins 21% and with EPS up 18.2% compared to same quarter 2022. No signs of the slowdown that Rentokil management talked about.
Superficially looks like the Rentokil management in US have a lot to do to turn Terminix around, and Board here are not getting the correct information
Several things
1. EPS at bottom of range (maybe)
2.'24 forecast reduced bottom end to £305 million (v this year £280 million)
3. High capex suggests focus on growth of sales revenue, when market wants focus on debt reduction and profits to allow share buyback (share issue during Covid resulted in 50% more shares and we don't know if management promised temporary increase).
4. GLG increased short on 21st and again on 24th September (see shorttracker). Will have to wait to see accounts in terms of debt reduction/ forex and eps
5. P/E still about 30 and GLG seem to have the bit between their teeth and could be aiming for 200p, but I am holding as expect better forex resulting in better eps. And hope debt has been reduced further and share buy-back will be called.
Hi goldgnome
There is no history of China wanting world dominance. It's trading prowess pre-dates the Romans, extending throughout Asia and west to Europe. If you read Menzies book 1421, you will see it appears they went round Africa and possibly further, with a view to trade world-wide. Probably as you say, to acquire the food and materials required by a large and growing population. But China was a proud, orderly and inventive nation. Until the Europeans arrived in the 19th century, with all their weaponry and forced concessions which started as trading ports but then expanded to transferring their factories, religious and political practices. Christian converts often won property disputes over local peasants as local officials were either bribed or persuaded not to upset foreign powers. This led to the breakdown of Chinese society and the Boxer rebellion as depicted in the film 55 days at Peking. The weak Chinese Government disowned the Boxers but secretly backed them. The Chinese were shamed by the Western Governments, which included the US, and have probably been years planning to how regain the prominence in the world they once had. The US as you say, handed this to them on a plate when Nixon agreed that the two countries should be allowed to trade. The Americans probably viewed the Chinese as backward, and saw only the agreement as one-way trade. But the Chinese knew that greed had surpassed 19th century Christian values and played the West. They were years behind technically, but made the transfer of IP a pre-requisite to manufacturing locally. They built their exports quickly by devaluing their currency, but got away with it by buying US debt. They still send their people to universities in the West, many more now as post-grads, to determine what we are working on for the future. All will be transmitted back to China, but our Government is happy as it depends on China for much university funding. They convinced the west that they would move to the same kind of democratic system, but all the above development, had been centrally planned. Now China has caught up, it has proved that central planning, or autocracy, is the correct system. South America, most of Africa and even part of South-east Asia consist of former colonies, and as such sent raw materials back to the colonial powers. China will not colonise these countries, but will want to ensure that they get priority for these materials. They will give a fair price and will adapt to local requirements to do so. To achieve that, they will have to be as strong or stronger than the West militarily, have to offer a different currency from a different economic system, not inflict their own laws, but rather accept those that exist, and certainly not propound democracy.
Personally I believe that they need, and have planned for a gold-backed currency.
two interesting articles in today's Times, indirectly linked to the price of gold.
The first entitled "alliance of Autocracies leaves US out in the cold" and the second "Chinese bribed Nigerian militants for access to mineral reserves" which are smuggled out.
The first refers to the Arab world coming together with Iran (an ally of Russia), the second shows China exploiting other countries' wealth, whilst keeping the politicians happy.
So the first is about autocracies and self-interest/ self-preservation. The second about trade, bribery and corruption, in short self -interest trumps legislation. Timothy Snyder interview 19th February on Putin gives you the autocrat's thinking, as well as fear of the law and order in the West. But he misses the Chinese argument that Western laws are made for the good of the people, but then exceptions made which negates them. So Free Trade is circumvented by patents, copyright, import duties and controls etc. Laws on monopolies and monopoly pricing, but no laws on restricting supply, and exceptions for brands and packaging etc, laws on taxation, riddled with laws covering exemptions and get-outs for those who lobby. The one thing the exemptions have in common is to preserve and protect the status quo. China believes it has to ignore the these laws, and has done so. Now it wants to break the US dollar, which has allowed the US to borrow and spend beyond its own means. China has persuaded UAE and now Brazil to accept Chinese currency for their exports. It's likely that it has promised two things. Stability in volumes and prices for a certain time. And guaranteed the strength of the Chinese currency. The first appeals to a country that has seen fluctuating volumes and prices thanks to "Free trade". The second had to be done, given the Chinese grew their Economy by depreciating its currency. It can only guarantee its currency if it is underpinned. probably by gold It really might have "promised to pay the bearer".
So it is amassing gold, through its own mines, Russia's, with Nigeria being an illegal example, though the article suggests that there are others in Africa as it has sought the help of Blackwater Security's Erik Prince to protect Chinese companies in Africa.
I am happy he is going. Totally focussed on sales, which is why he is going. New CEO more focussed on profitability and costs (based on time with Tesco and Co-op). Admin costs have mushroomed (by over £50 million), suggesting no focus on integration cost savings. Hopefully there have been reductions in some costs (shipping), but all protein costs have risen except for vegetable, so focus has to be on reducing admin costs. Lower processing costs from new equipment should also help. Would have been good to hear more information on first quarter, but I assume from dividend being held that there is some progress, but resignation suggests not enough.
I asked HL about the possibility of holding dollars in an account, rather than converting them into sterling. This is not something that they are looking at.
But they did list fx charges when dealing and I quote "when receiving dividends in a foreign currency, we'll convert the currency to pounds sterling at the prevailing exchange rate and apply a flat charge of 1% to the conversion".
depends on claims. If December's freeze had come a couple of weeks later, the claims would have been in 2023 numbers. They will have bumped up their expected claims for 2023, on the back of last year's . If they don't materialise, there will be money to spare at the next interim. Plus car prices are reducing and hopefully with the stronger £, spares won't rise in price. Let's wait till we get more information.
Aussie
The story is in the November update. Car and Home sales down. Commercial up 13%. So they were increasing Commercial as we were heading for a recession. Suggests to me they were under pricing to expand in this area. How many small businesses are closing now. And how many forgot to leave the heating on to find premises and stock flooded after the freeze. You don't expand into a declining area. The freeze was unfortunate for Insurance Companies, but a godsend for those about to close. We'll see if they break the losses out between Home and Commercial, so far they haven't.
savings not paying final dividend about £195 million ((divi at 15p/share)
Costs above plan:
Home and Commercial £67 million
Property loss (paper loss) £45 million
Motor not declared.
So not paying final dividend more than covers above losses.
The real question is did they deliberately under-price to grow home and commercial, to provide work for their employees. If so that was the mistake.
Climate change will hit Home and Commercial, probably more than Motor.
They need to accept lower business, and cut cloth accordingly.
A
Premier Foods sells mix of brands and own label. Brands require high marketing costs. It is also carrying a lot of debts, hence high interest payments. It's pension funds are negative so is contributing to stabilise them. But it now looks as if both these latter costs are falling. If their brand growth is successful, and once debts and pension deficit disappears, they will have higher PBT and share price will rise. If HFG sells its fish at higher margins to supermarkets or overseas, its profitability and share price will recover.
I am a long term holder, but weep at the lack of progress. Hui is making progress getting the product known, which tells me that sales people, not directors, are required. What is there to direct?
Yes they should have have got their own full scale plant up and running long ago, instead of just a pilot one. But there is nothing to stop them approaching Chemicals manufacturers, other LA's, manufacturers producing lots of plastic waste, even supermarket chains who collect waste plastic bags, lorry distribution companies, who want to switch to hydrogen etc.
If you don't sell the idea, you will never sell the product.
I haven't gone back to the Accounts, but my memory is that SSE makes a lot of its profits from building and selling windfarms. Some more from transmission and distribution, which is regulated, some more from selling off other bits of its business as well. So there will be some problems separating it all out
Was anybody else on the Board given the ridiculous example of the candle makers asking Government (some time ago) to put a tax on sunlight, because of their cost disadvantage. Looks like the Treasury hasn't heard.
The nuclear industry will now ask for an annual windfall tax on all green energy, for the same reason as the candle makers.