Member Info for karv1

Thanks, Jawt

I have a question on p29 on the half-year report if anyone wants to answer it ........
Shareholder Solvency II coverage ratio
Total 10.8 billion
£3.2bn debt at nominal value
29.6% Solvency II Leverage ratio
Other Own Funds , including: £1.1bn
£(1.8)bn TMTP 2 risk margin ..........all add up to 7.5 billion
Present Value of future Shareholder Transfer (PVST) from WithProfits Fund 3.3 billion
Total 10.8 billion
198% £5.4bn Solvency ratio surplus Own Funds
Against
5.4 billion requirements
0.5b Sectoral
3.5b Shareholder Annuities & Other
1.4 Capital requirement on PVST 3
On page 29 on presentaion pdf on
https://www.mandgplc.com/investors/results-reports-and-presentations
My questions are in the real term are the 1.4b capital requirements the actually required coverage required from the 10.8 billion. Why is 3.5b Shareholder Annuities & Other also counted against the 5.4b list?
Also is the 2.2b self-generating funds the difference between the 5.4 billion surplus and the 3.3 billion debt that is counted?

We need some news to give this stock a confidence boost, we are in the long void of nothing .
I know John foley brought 100k worth of shares in august but we need him and others to really put some money in, the guy is sitting on $2.5m of MNG stock while still holding $7.5m of PRU If I have read correctly, though there may be locked in reasons. while also earning a 3.8million total salary package which makes that 100k investment look like a token buy.
Also, this would be a good time with the stocks 20% of their highs to do a medium size share buyback say 100m to 200m.

A relative of mine phones me the other day to ask me if i am still in that dog of a share, that i suggested he buy but he sold out for a loss.
I have held and debated the pros v cons of How i thought it was safe, dividends, and so on, but like many others, He sees a 20% drop from the highs and thinks could it get worst.
It is a confidence issue people lack confidence in MNG and in the void of no information and a lack of history leads to fear, only MNG board or time can cure this,

At least the run was good for a while, I always find it amazing how 100k cash worth of share transaction can knock 1.3% or 60+ million of the value of a company in 10 mins of trading.

Anything is possible when you consider the dividend is 9.1% and that the FTSE has only gone up 8% in 5 years compared to dow which is up 100%/SP 120% in the same 5 years.
If the dividend was compounded over 8 years you would make 100% of your original value plus your original investment. with this, in mind 250 is very possible.

Probably going to jinx myself, but I get the feeling that MNG is holding up fairly well, a month ago we would have been one of the worst-performing on a day like this, and on the last few down days it's been the auction that has done the most harm. Maybe this could be the tide slowly turning time will tell.
On a plus note, the clock is ticking down to the next big dividend which should start to help as the month's pass.

We just need to be patience , You have to ignore the spikes and drops over the next 5 years and you will make 45% to 50% in dividends plus hopefully in time profit on your position if you are willing to hold that long
With a 5.2billion surplus, I would say the future is looking fairly safe with good returns unless the MNG news/results are ultra bad, but without an update, we are all in the dark on how well or bad the company is doing, from what I have seen a lot of other companies have added funds, I am hoping this is a good sign.

It seems to be 1 step forward 2 steps back lately
My dream on how this is going to play out on share price and returns out over the next 6 months including announcements.
A+) Inflows increase more than outflows because then all the options below become far more realistic.

A) 220+ price 750m buyback with a 10% increase to dividend.
B) 240+ price 500m+ million buybacks 10% increase to dividends.
c) 250+ price + 10% increase to the dividend
D) 300+ price + 10% increase to the dividend.
E) A takeover at 260+
F) Takeover a bigger target to make MNG a far stronger company.
G) Merger. is my least favorite option long term might be a great fit with better growth but will probably be a low yield dividend stock. The current MNG yield would not be affordable for the new 10 to 12 billion pound company.
All of these are possible with a lot of luck one can dream.

If it ever hits 297 I would be popping the champagne I would be happy with 225 for now.

Gas futures are up another 12% currently for the next 6 months if I have understood it correctly now at 276p/therm if companies like bulb were struggling when it was 160 it must be near game over for many at 276.

Dividend is one
surplus is two
The growing self-generating target of 2.6 billion is three
A stable company is four.
Which major holding is selling?

I guess the biggest unknown factor is how long these contracts for gas are that suppliers have. I suspect the big companies are really long which means they get the higher cap tariffs prices while buying wholesale on old contracts at lower prices is probably why the Ofgem is not budging. Spirit enegry might be trapped on the other side of this coin who knows.

Hi contrarian123 I am no expert but from what i have read the 500 pounds per person per year at this price is not refundable from what I can read and this is out of date. the amount that they can claim is any cost of taking over the contracts, but the difference between the variable tariffs with price cap and the buying price of wholesale gas they can not. Suppliers have to rely on their own existing long-term contacts still in place that are probably ticking down day by day.
BG just lucky the board was not able to sell Spirit energy. BG losses will be made up from the other Centrica sections.
The price cap was pre august where the wholesale price was 528 pounds when the price per gas therm which was under 95p
it is now £2.40p Longer this stay at this price worst it will get.
This would make around £1250 wholesale gas price versus the 528 pounds of the bill they can charge which equals £750 pounds per loss per average customer per year or 60 pounds per month at these current prices for any supplier.
The government can not expect the suppliers to keep biting the bullet on these costs but from what I have seen they are not budging yet and that is why people are going bust plus the smaller ones do not have long-term contracts.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/record-gas-prices-drive-price-cap-ps139-customers-encouraged-contact-supplier-support-and-switch-better-deal-if-possible
I do not think Centrica is in a WIN /WIN situation I think it going to be a win/lose as with the other big supplier's none of the smaller ones will survive unless the government moves fast, this will be the biggest win for BG less competition.
Just lucky Centrica was not able to sell off all the parts otherwise BG would just be a richer version of bulb

Far as i understand this is still the board's goal to become a slimline version service only provider what happens next year or the year after if this was to happen again that my last 2 pennies worth.

That is kind of the point I was trying to make in a long-winded way this board wanted to sell the kitchen sink to anyone and everyone if they had maybe there would have been a special payout maybe not .
BG would have been in a far weaker position being more of a 3rd partly of buying gas and electric and reselling praying for prices to drop while governments keep them restricted on selling price, while their long-term contracts with suppliers start to tick down. I suspect they would try to hold off buying new supplies hoping for the price drop.
rather than a producer/seller which gives you that safety net.

If you ignore the pension/ trade liabilities/borrowing/intangible assets then yes technically they have 3 billion cash.
Anyway, as I s said spirit energy will keep them afloat so they should be fine.
At 500 pounds per hit, how many more customers can BG absorb 1m 5m 10m?
I think BG will be fine and will probably come out ok but I think a lot of this is due to holding on to assets unsold otherwise I think BG's future might not look so rosy. I hope the board has come to this conclusion selling assets is not always a great long term decision.

BG is not huge anymore, there has been too many short-term selling of assets decisions. if the gas prices were to stay high all winter BG could be in real trouble with those government CAPS .BG does not have deep pockets anymore compared to a few of the other large suppliers like shell plc.
Most advance contracts are probably 6 months to a year at a guess.
I read somewhere that every new customer will cost 500 pounds more than they can charge on current prices.
If this goes on BG will face huge losses the only thing saving it is that 69% share in the spirit energy which will make Centrica a fortune.
Centrica could be saved purely by the virus that stopped more short-sighted selling of assets ie spirit energy that will save BG from going under if this was to carry on.
This will all depend on how long Russia wants to strong-arm the west until everyone signs costly long term contracts

Thanks, Jatw it is the current plan of action to take the dividends with the bonus of a possible share price rise in time.

Thanks, Jatw So I guess it depends on how much was short-term fluctuations and how much were derivatives hedging, out of that loss, I try to google the information, every time I think I understand something it leads to 2 more questions.

On Schroders half year 304m after tax x 2 would only equal a 6% return if they paid out everything, it looks like they pay out 50% for a 3% dividend 10 billion value sounds expensive. I am guessing long-term shareholders must be after SP growth.

When you compare the likes of SCHRODERS with a very basic look
Schroders Total Equity 4.08b profits 6 months pre-tax 400m valued at 10b
Mng Total Equity 5.5B profits 6 months pre-tax 320m, IFRS loss after-tax, of £248m if you are able to look past this then should we only be valued at 5.2b compared with Schroders 10b

IFRS loss after tax of GBP248 million; impacted by short-term fluctuations in the fair value of the surplus assets in our annuity portfolio and derivatives used to hedge the Solvency II balance sheet caused by increasing yields and rising equity markets.

A question beyond my knowledge a 500m drop to a loss from 327m to-230m can go 2 ways?
Can the short-term fluctuation get back that 500million and even go by more to where we could see a technical profit of 500m+ profit in the final 6 months with some imagination? + another normal 327m profit?
or am I living in a fantasy land of not understanding?