Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
There is not a successful business that doesn't have a profit - every operating company, even charities have to have an income over expenditure, they can't run at a loss, at least not for long.
Giving people - individulas, a part ownership in these utility companies was a great idea and an opportunity to make some money too; how many who bought those original shares, still have them ? worth a lot more money now.
I do think it wrong though that the users have to pay solely for improvements; the companies should pay, not the users; it should come out of their profits.
They'd still be very profitable companies.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
thats some of the problem roger
they get greedy
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Keith #15
BG Group, the British gas explorer, has agreed to buy Australia's Queensland Gas in a deal worth A$5.6bn (£2.2bn) to expand its reach into the Asia-Pacific region.
Why are British Gas not making the same investment in their own country, creating 1000's of job's and boosting the UK economy?
BarryW.
Yet again you have completely ignored the meaning and content of my thread and gone off on your own tangent.
Of course you have the right not to agree with my views but please have the decency to read my threads properly.
Roger.
As stated I am 100% behind profit and well aware of the need of it.
I am not talking about who created this problem, I am talking about the current situation that we are in, and how we deal with it.
Your comments below are exactly what I am referring to and I totally agree with you.
"I do think it wrong though that the users have to pay solely for improvements; the companies should pay, not the users; it should come out of their profits.
They'd still be very profitable companies".
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
garyc,if you could afford to do so,buy some of these enrgy company shares and get the divi paid into your banck account.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - I was directly responding to comments from others including the two 'Keiths'
All threads go off in tangents and you might be better to address what people say rather than your own tangent attacking posters rather than what is actually said..
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
The networks are in need of 20 billon, in order to play catch-up.
And who do you thinks is going to pay?
Under non profit for shareholders, the profit would have been returned to the Infrastructure
Barry, its reinvestment, instead of the asset striping we have at the moment.
When the network collapses in extreme whether because of lack of backup supply, and you're sat in the dark laptop on battery thinking of the wonderful pension investments you have,
Think on about the size of your next bills, to correct the investment moneys
That has been stolen.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - it is not asset stripping. I realise that it is a difficult concept people to understand but profit generates the ability to invest and to pay the dividends that attract investors. Nothing is stolen at all - you invest your money that provides a business with capital and in return you get a dividend. Without that investment a business has to borrow and pay that back with interest to the bank. Sometimes both options are used and often are. Your bills are lower than they would be because of that system.
Everything, Keith, absolutely everything you have and the income you receive are all there only because of profit, it is not a dirty word. The profit motive provides the food on your table, the clothes on your back and the computer you type this on. It is taxes on those profits and the salaries generated as a result of profit that generates the tax revenues that pays state pensions and public services. Everything depends on profit ultimately.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Barry I have no problem with profit, but I do have a problem with theft from the taxpayers.
If you own a car, and you sell it to me at 1 third its value, says £100
Then I charge you £300 to use it. Is this value for money considering when it's knackered I charge you even more to update it and maintain,
So I can charge you some more.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
summed up rather nicely keith most people are up to the back teeth with ever rising bills due to people like brutish gas expecting us to fund their "improvements"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
BG and others raise cash on the markets from investors both in equity (shares) and loans (bonds) for capital investment. Profits provide them with the means to do this. Ultimately they are no different to any company, customers always pay or, indeed government, taxpayers always end up paying. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
This 'theft from taxpayers' is absurd. If we still had the old nationalised monopolies make no mistake prices would be a lot higher as indeed they were when we had them and we would be paying and would have no choice other than to cough up what they demand. Now you can change suppliers if you don't like their service or if they put there prices up too much. Ultimately all utilities are subject to the prices on the international markets, private or nationalised.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The stability of the utility companies is, I think, the overriding factor in attracting investment of any sort, monumental profiteering is but icing on the stability cake.
True, when the utilities were national assets price hiking was commonplace;we 'dare not' benefit from North Sea Gas at that time simply because of the probable harm done to the Electricity Industry. [Thatcher]
But,
Nationalised utilities would be less likely to have tankers milling around off-shore waiting for an expected/hoped for rise in the basic commodity price. (a price fixed/set/dreamt-up by devil-dealers for whom money is all)
It is also a fact of privatisation that we do not buy our energy directly from the wholesaler. Many, if not all (most likely all), of the energy companies purchase the commodity via a wholly-owned subsidiary company. This artificial break in, or link in, the supply chain is not for the public/customer benefit.
The 'choice' spoken of with regard to energy supplier is the same 'choice' offered across the board in modern politic-speak, it's just another way to stick two-fingers up to the public...nothing more.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Stability - yes. But it is the stability of the dividends that is the attraction. These stocks are an attraction to managers operating a 'value' style or have an equity income mandate. Their 'stability' is not attractive to managers with a growth mandate who are looking for tomorrows Microsofts and Apples.
The utilities remain a 'national asset' as private companies and it is a strange view that suggests that the old inefficient, expensive loss making utilities were any kind of asset. Now they are truly under public ownership through their share holding from which everyone who has a pension, stocks and shares ISA of other equity investment benefits, not just direct shares.
It is also strange to imagine that a nationalised company is in any way immune to the same market conditions and practises as utility companies, they would be just less good at it. There is an international market in which these companies operate and the profits they generate are to our benefit both as customers and as investors.
Choice? I have changed my supplier a few times, though not recently as the one I have is providing an excellent service at a good price. We can all change and that has to be better than being locked into a monopoly that has no reason to provide such a service or be competitive on pricing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
You are the master of "rubbish the poster and to repeat blindly"
I started a thread called "Fairness?" because you keep repeating define "fair"
Not one reference to fairness from you on that thread. As per usual you waited your time to start your boring political bashing yet again.
Brian #24
No spare money for company shares, I watch sky tv.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
wrong thread but who cares
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#34 - GaryC. You prove my point.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
and what point is that barry.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
And you prove mine BarryW, everytime.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
