Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
the best is most renewable companies are set up as investment trusts. As shareholders we get inflation proofed dividends. The people who gain most now are the advisers, those either finding the farms to buy or maintaining them. Their charges are costs pre-tax. My guess is there won't be big profits to tax, and adviser fees will simply increase.
The Government would be better forcing them to become plcs, or capping adviser fees in line with dividend increases. Which won't happen.
Goodbye extra windfarms.
Nuclear will always be much more expensive. Will they have an annual windfall tax on wind and solar energy if gas is replaced by nuclear? Perhaps nuclear companies will suggest this when they see they see how much cheaper green energy is in comparison.
remember the candle makers asking for a tax on sunlight, to reduce the price advantage. This was used in class as a ridiculous example. looks like the Treasury et al haven't learned it
Plymouth
This is a return of capital, which is tax free. The Company has sold some of its assets. Some monies it is keeping for the new business, and the monies it doesn't need it returns, thus reducing its capital. Because the capital is reduced, it reduces the number of shares to reflect this
Yes MJ
Scotland is focussed on green hydrogen, driven by windpower. At the moment when there is excess, the turbines are stopped, and windfarms paid to do so (madness). Hydrogen is a way of using excess windpower, but may never be enough and on some days, when the wind doesn't blow an alternative supply would be useful Inverness has plenty of waste plastic and I would think a standalone DMG would be useful. The problem with Peel is they are selling a complete waste disposal solution which will cost far more than a standalone DMG added to an existing waste disposal site.
The official objective is to lower the price in local market. This will happen quickly as exporters redirect supplies into local market. Hopefully this export ban will be short-lived, as the refiners will bear the brunt of this ( they have to keep their refineries going, or lay off staff) so in future will ensure the local market is supplied. Hopefully growers won't be affected, but that depends on how long the export ban will stay in place.
Pernix
I am a Which? subscriber and agree with you. If the reviews are true, they are easily corrected and just needs better quality control. The product is highly priced and I would have thought the margins are high too. So I don't see this as a major problem, and can't understand Fraine's (Shore) comments. Perhaps he is not aware of these products.
GLG has increased its short, so we are likely to see more price volatility until the results come out.
I am a long term holder
since March 2021 Shore has consistently rated Strix a sell. In Shares 24/3 21, Shore's Fraine is quoted as saying that although water category is expected to grow strongly, "we would expect the category to generate a significantly lower % of operating profit.....given its lower margins.
Unfortunately Strix latest RNS does not specify expected PBT, but rather PAT which includes some kind of tax reduction from China linked to the new factory. And they didn't say what that tax reduction was. Clearly it was a one-off.
Hi Pernix
I am quoting this week's Investors Chronicle which shows two shorters and total 2.1% of stock being shorted. If you go on to www.shorttracker.co.uk you will see the official Government site which shows two shorters, BennBridge and GLG Partners with a total of 2.2% as the former increased their short on 20/1/22, probably after IC got their information. Shorters can short on behalf of other Companies who wish to increase their shareholding at a lower cost. So they don't necessarily go after overpriced Companies.
The one question in today's RNS is how much of a tax reduction did Strix get in China. I would have preferred to see actual sales (based on their computation I calculate £123 million), with PAT at £31.4, I calculate PBT at £35 - £38 million with a reduction of between £1 and £4 million from Chinese tax. But that is an estimate.
if you take the food and beverages business and assume annual pre tax profit of £170 million, then tate is trading on a p/e of about 18.
Tate would have been held mainly by income institutions, who have been getting out, but growth funds will want more details of the agreement on the core business being sold. 49% holding means Tate isn't in control. Is new owner focused on cost cutting to improve profitability, or more new investment? Has Tate agreed to contribute 49% of any new investment to maintain its shareholding? Or give some of its shares instead? If its a mixture of the two, will dividends be taken out initially or not? Has the new owner agreed to buy Tate's remaining shareholding? Are there pre-conditions like rate of return?
Let's hope more information comes out about these things to know what valuation to put on the rump. And have clarity on how Tate will switch out of it completely, how long it will take, and plans to expand the growth food and beverages business.
Barchid
I was making two different points that were largely unrelated.
The second point on Unilever having regional hubs refers to regions of the world, like West Africa's based outside Lagos, Nigeria. Very big factories, lots of capital invested, requiring continuous supply of raw materials ,then the movement of finished goods to countries in the region.
You are right the UK market is small in terms of importance to Unilever. The link between the two points is that UK was part of the EU region, and now is not which is diminishing its importance to Unilever and is forcing changes to the way UK is supplied, no doubt adding costs.
From a purely commercial perspective, Brexit has forced changes to assumptions in long term plans, and will add costs to products sent here. Unilever has a huge presence in the far east, including China, as well as globally and is unlikely to see any benefits from any new Trading Agreements Brexit may bring.
That's my opinion, not Unilever's
our politicians who drove Brexit knew the consequences. Redwood, through Charles Stanley, advised clients to shift investments overseas, and Rees Mogg's Somerset Capital moved its office to Dublin. They wanted to shift the power from Europe to themselves. Power is what politicians crave.
Having worked for Unilever, if they manage their logistics well, and they should, they will be able to raise prices to cover inflation as they have strong brands. This applies to developing as well as developed countries. So for me the real question is managing the disruption to supplies of raw materials and equipment linked to shipping problems. Their factories are now Regional, not national and depend on continuous supply, given the large volumes produced
When a director leaves for truly personal reasons, and it's his decision, a date in the future is given as his date of departure.
When a Director is pushed out, the Company must agree a suitable sum with him to leave, unless its gross misconduct, when he is sacked.
The term "for personal reasons" can be part of the negotiated agreement.
I agree superbarnet. Peel referred to the whole site, not Powerhouse (I think) when they referred to 2023. We are in their hands, except that now the SPV is up and running, we should be given accurate dates since it's a Peel man that is leading it.
Additionally once the Powerhouse plant is commissioned, it could introduce waste (like old tyres) to show a working plant to customers, before Peel's whole site is operational.
In the meantime we can complain to FCA about Tim Yeo's misleading statements which created a false market price for the shares. Additionally, had he issued the 2023 date a week prior to the AGM, he might have been voted off. The question is proving when he knew, but it's likely it was shortly after the Peel announcement a few months ago, as he should have queried it with them, since it differed to his own statement.
Toneman
As a retired exporter I agree. But Dave Ryan was an engineer, who must have received bad advice.
The problem is Peel is selling the concept of a "total waste solution", focussed on recycling when possible with the remainder turned into hydrogen, to power waste lorries.
PHE could have been stand alone for tyres, (I believe) or in countries where bin collections don't exist, a solution for waste plastic.
That's how it is. Negative information leads to market makers dropping the price whilst looking for buyers. They agree price with them, but will keep pushing down price to sellers to increase their own profits. First clue of change is when more buyers come in and spread then widens, as is happening now.
Dr A
Can't agree more. And the Whites, who hold a lot more shares, will be well down and may even be buying on the side as i write. Peel and the whites and Yeo will want the share to rise, and am convinced they will now be doing everything possible to get this done.
I am holding