Member Info for ethical

i can't believe anywhere on earth is still putting down coal fired generation plant, given how clearly bad it is for every single one of us...and especially bad for those living in threat of sea levels rising - this is comedy short term thinking (if it wasn't so sad)! lets hope sense prevails and they DONT build a power plant and leave this dirty carbon in the ground! Especially when there are much cleaner alternatives I'm ashamed to stay i used to be an investor in this terrible company.

Rav your comment - resent being expected to subsidise those who simply can't be bothered, are too idle or are just too thick to change supplier. I agree with u. but the problem for the cna share price is that size matters, and if cna keeps shedding customers at this rate, it will lose value elsewhere e.g. In its midstream capability and ability to sell gadgets and boilers. These customers who are too stupid, too thick etc are the people that are paying high prices and supporting the share price...people and businesses that move get cheaper prices and don't help the share price. As time goes on more and more people will be mobile, thats why centricas long term share price will head south. I repeat the yield is high, because the market experts and people.like me who have worked in the industry see this...and won't buy the shares even at this price...take the divi out and this would be below 1gbp and the divi can't be maintained with these numbers - something drastic needs to happen to justify the share price. Whilst they may be zero profit customers, they help the volume @ 1.4m customers lost that a lot of GWh of energy!

there is no way cna can afford to keep paying this divi - there is a reason why the yield is so high! i love conn's comment: A combination of "political and regulatory intervention in the UK" and the profits slump in North America had �created material uncertainty around Centrica�, he said. the fact is that cna will continue to shed customers, and profits and revenue will fall. I'm assuming conn was hoping that the politics and regs would leave them alone, so that they could continue to rinse those that are scared/can't be bothered to change supplier. Problem is, once momentum kicks in (which it clearly is), stopping this decline is impossible! you might get 12p this year, but i'd bet my house that you won't get it next year!

Natural regen will not work if the habitat has already been ruined. When decimating forests happen, agriculture/other development - maybe monoculture planting of pines moves in...but rehab doesn't happen. As for your revenue figures, I very much doubt those numbers will be hit - to go from next to zero revenue to 85m in 2 years is cloud cuckoo land. Ebitda won't be close...that's a massive margin. When you are asking the ceo how many tree seedlings (not seeds) are being replanted, you might also ask him how the 488/m3 is broken down, I expect a very large slug of it is in cutting licenses - due to low productivity, high waste and vast amounts of trees being felled. The line about largest 5% can't be measured and doesnt say anything about sustainability. It's like saying it rains some days - doesn't mean how much rain there is...It's just waffle and designed to confuse and hide the fact that they are decimating tropical forests By processing this volume of timber (actual deforestation will be far far greater) obt will be decimating the forests...there is no way around this. And the share price continues to fall....I wouldn't hope for much in q1 update - there will be no revenues! Expect to keep falling, 8p you say...MM? so it's a questionable business model, working in tough geographies and a track record of delivering failure - what can possibly go wrong with this investment? Let's hope that the environmentalists don't get hold of them!

Mustapha, as any investor with half a brain knows, revenue is vanity....my point was they need to get their revenues above this because the costs would be very close if not above this, i can't recall where the 350 figure was from - i think it was some muppet's guess...but it could have come from the company. timber is cash intensive - all costs up front, and they are massive costs on this scale. revenue only comes when the timber is landed - which could be months and months after cutting. What market value on a massively unprofitable operation with huge pref share liabilities, with lots of leased land and no proven business model....you make a judgement, but it could be zero! This is without proper investment in a proper replanting programme. Regardless if its even slightly profitable, its still an environmental disaster!

So like the backwoodsman, you know nothing about forestry...why do bozos invest in things they no nothing about? added to which you are obviously a pretty odious person. I do use paper, but paper isn't being produced from these tropical hardwoods - that would be really, really stupid. Not all trees are the same - maybe you don't have the brains to understand that... Your other comments are also stupid and wrong, there are plenty of trees that are close to endangered and some on the CITES endangered list - chopping a CITES protected tree is EXACTLY like killing a rhino or elephant - with the same harsh penalties (which might impact your precious pennies). As far as just planting seeds and letting them grow, once a forest is destroyed it often can't grow back - they need particular shade and humidity ecosystems to grow. you may not care about this, but i suspect plenty do...i wont stop commenting about this, and i suspect i wont be the last to bring this up....

who's going to pull them up in 50years? - todays profit is far more important to them than what the forests look like in 50 years. they have already said they are only planting 10,000 seeds.... what do you not get, are you really that dim? can you not do basic maths? even if it was 1 tree per m3 which it isn't by a long way....if you can't divide 150,000 by 10,000 you really shouldn't be investing and certainly not commenting they can pretty much say what they like on their website and some dimwits will believe it....talk is very cheap

I have read the website and it is the same utter waffle you have repeated here. Your comment "I don't see any problem here", shows a level naivety and myopia that is hard to fathom. Put your cards on the table, you don't give a toss for the environment and only care how much your shares are under water, as I suspect and hope they will stay. So your basis of understanding of sustainable forestry seems to be the obtala website (who obviously aren't at all conflicted on this matter) and your own narrow view of your of backyard temperate woodland.go and do some proper research and stop repeating the same rubbish. Have you actually ever been to Africa? Do you even know why there is break in the cutting season? Do you know how permitted cuts are defined? The 5% comment is pure guesswork, no one will have measured all the trees and worked out how many are over 40cm;.everything over 40cm will be cut (and probably quite a few below) and 40cm isnt that big. Start commenting on sustainability when you have answers to these questions and done some research. The facts remain: 150,000m3 of tropical timber = 500,000+ trees + collateral damage in access the timber. Obtala are planting 10,000 seeds, most of which won't result in replacement trees, this is tropical deforestation on a massive scale for a few extra pennies in the directors pockets, other shareholders might get a few pennies too. I repeat this sort of deforestation of tropical timber is tragic and akin to ivory trading, and whale hunting - both are kind of legal in different parts of the world, but do you really think they are acceptable things to do?

I have read the website and it is the same utter waffle you have repeated here. Your comment "I don't see any problem here", shows a level naivety and myopia that is hard to fathom. Put your cards on the table, you don't give a toss for the environment and only care how much your shares are under water, as I suspect and hope they will stay. So your basis of understanding of sustainable forestry seems to be the obtala website (who obviously aren't at all conflicted on this matter) and your own narrow view of your of backyard temperate woodland.go and do some proper research and stop repeating the same rubbish. Have you actually ever been to Africa? Do you even know why there is break in the cutting season? Do you know how permitted cuts are defined? The 5% comment is pure guesswork, no one will have measured all the trees and worked out how many are over 40cm;.everything over 40cm will be cut (and probably quite a few below) and 40cm isnt that big. Start commenting on sustainability when you have answers to these questions and done some research. The facts remain: 150,000m3 of tropical timber = 500,000+ trees + collateral damage in access the timber. Obtala are planting 10,000 seeds, most of which won't result in replacement trees, this is tropical deforestation on a massive scale for a few extra pennies in the directors pockets, other shareholders might get a few pennies too. I repeat this sort of deforestation of tropical timber is tragic and akin to ivory trading, and whale hunting - both are kind of legal in different parts of the world, but do you really think they are acceptable things to do?

bottumzup - absolue twaddle. That forestry page is total waffle - its says nothing of any substance....words are cheap, replanting half a million trees + is very expensive... the government of mozambique and many other african countries are desperate for tax revenue (and kick backs) its nothing to do with sustainability. when obtala say they are replanting all the trees they cut for access and timber production i might start to look positively...anything less than this and you as an investor are propagating forestry destruction, akin to ivory harvesting and whaling. Oh and the semi-tropical forests of Mozambique are more fragile than the amazon forests - the timber grows way more slowly...

oh and i dont think pythagoras theorem is guesswork :) there are plenty of very bright people that would differ

backwoodsman, not a guess - quite the opposite...What species are these numbers based on? - i would guess fast growing softwoods in europe - where much of the tree is usable - unlike tropical hardwood, even temperate hardwoods have greater recovery - but as a forestery expert i guess you already know this????? even if its 10trees per 5m3 thats still 300,000 trees being harvested and turned to timber (and doesnt include the other 300,000 trees being felled to provide access) and obtala are only planting 10,000 seeds - most of which wont survive. take a good look at yourself and ask yourself does the cr@p spouted about sustainability stack up...the answer is clearly no. i repeat there is not a cat in hells chance of you getting 5m3 from 10 trees - nowhere close and if you are investing here you are paying someone to destroy tropical habitats akin to whale hunting, rhino horn harvesting or ivory poaching... seriously why would you want to support this? other than for selfish greed - even then your judgement is questionable given the dire performance of these shares over time

backwoodsman, crikey...40 cm diameter is not very big - with a little algebra (maybe i'm not bang on here) gives a max square of around 25cm x 25cm x 4m height = 0.25m3 per tree of 4m.....and there is not a cat in hells chance you would get anywhere close to a full 25cm square of usable timber from a 40cm diameter tree....so say recovery is a generous 50% (its going to be much more like 15-25%). that means there are 8 trees per m3 of sawn timber using trees 4m high. 150,000 m3 is a HUGE amount of actual trees being cut down...there is no way round it - you are utterly delusional if you think this isnt mass deforestation. I cant see obtala doign a proper replacement job - if they did it would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds each year - maybe a million or two, would be interested to see what this does to profits. i have no idea you get to 10 trees for 5m3 - its nowhere near that - but even at your rate obtala aren't even planting 10% of what they should be to replace the trees - at my calcs its way less than 1%...even assuming all seeds germinate and grow to maturity - i suspect those seeds actually equate to something like 0.05% of replanting ie next to nothing... I suppose you might be that type that worries about poachers hunting elephants for ivory or rhinos being killed for horns, or maybe plastics in the oceans - what is being done here isnt much better - its destroying precious habitats for large and small fauna and fragile ecosystems. If you are fine investing in something that is blatantly destroying the planet for the sake of a few quid, go for it. but please don't pat yourself on the back when you give to charity or pity distressed wildlife or take your reusable bag to the shops....

Backwoodsman, Page 22 says absolutely nothing (much like the rest of the presentation), its just waffle. if that gives you confidence - god help your decision making. you and whoever recommended you are utterly delusional. Let me explain... To process the amount of timber they are talking about, will mean decimation of fragile ecosystems. Obtala have talked about planting 10,000 seeds - whoopee! Annual cut is 150,000m3 acording to slide 3. Perhaps you need to be educated a little on forestry? to extract a single m3 of timber (which might come from felling 2-5 large trees), you need to access the tree (they don't all stand together), which means felling more trees. Also chopping trees down kills other trees as they fall. Then this development opens the forest for more development (which cuts more trees)... and Obtala is planting 10,000 seeds - a large proportion wont germinate, and most wont survive, whilst the remainder will take decades to get to a point where they look anything like proper trees. i would guess obtala ought to be planting something like half a million SAPLINGS, each year if they really were worried about the forests and doing this sustainably the irony of the content in slide 22 following slide 21....where it states african forests are being decimated - perhaps a good way of reducing that decimation, might be to stop commercial forestry on the scale Obtala is talking about? 10,000 seeds is barely a drop in the ocean. make no mistake if you are investing in Obtala, YOU ARE investing in mass deforestation of some of the worlds most fragile forests...don't kid yourself on anything else.

"Before this however it can be turned in to even more profitable veneer... " Do you actually know how be veneers are produced? Or even how export grade timber is produced...and sold? I'm guessing not by your comments. I'd stop trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes. As for 10k seeds(!) that's not a lot/next to nothing...given the land area they are harvesting... As for changing plans, on the agri side it changes every season...each year nothing gets produced. But these aren't the main reasons for staying clear...the corporate financing structure is a massive red flag

Note its 3500m3 of timber PRODUCED not sold. you have to hope that they are getting a lot lot more than $350/m3 - the licences and production costs will be much more than that - especially given the poor recovery. I hope they are replanting those slow growing hardwoods 11,000m3 is a vast amount of trees - my guess is they are doing ZERO/close to ZERO replanting....wait for the NGO's to take notice! this is definitely a baregpole stock - and thats without any environmental pressures. They keep changing plans and haven't produced anything in years despite loads of promises and investment....that and the very odd/complicated investment structure - they clearly can't cover those loans with revenue (let alone profit) - my 5 year old could see this. As for the mou - its very very easy to get an mou with an african government - its just more smoke and mirrors

Lets hope they have a blockchain angle to the new investment :-) so we can get the shareprice up to something approaching breakeven (for me at least). anyone know when they need to make a decision on investment, before woodford et al get their money back (im assuming i wont get mine back)? or have i missed something and investments are already decided

Thelix, you are very much mistaken if you think Woodford had no control...he would have been heavily involved in the decision to separate this out...him and another major shareholder, given their stakes. He might not have been a NED himself or consultant and could have been taking a light touch until he needed to..which is now. That money belongs to shareholders (ie the major shareholders) not the BOD, an investment will be found and if the BOD aren't right for that investment then the BOD will be changed. Personally I think this is a good move and not at all a surprise.

Surely this is now valued less than cash???

I have read the report......the discount rate is way to low for the risks, hardman also shows the impact of small changes in discount factors - demonstrating currently over valued....