Re: The energy crisis
 

:rofl:

Re: The energy crisis
 

Re: The energy crisis
 

Re: The energy crisis
 

Please use text, its annoying to have to quote an image.

What was the point you are referring to ?

Re: The energy crisis
 

Exactly. It's similar to how pub chains say they have to increase prices because their supplier has increased prices to them
..

...bur the same company owns the beer supply company and the pub chain.

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------

If things didn't work out and higher increases were proposed, their (price sensitive) customers would simply switch to another supplier and, again, they would face going bust. This would serve no purpose other than to stifle competition.

The cost of paying for energy companies that fail is borne by all customers via a levy on their bills. If a 'risky' company had to charge a levy to protect it's customers, it would most likely wipe out any savings offered, making their business plan unworkable.

I like the Labour idea of a people's energy company. People would still be free to use any supplier, but the non profit peoples supplierwould be the cheapest.

Other companies would either end up going bust or try to compete with things like better customer service.

This idea also has the advantage of not needing the taxpayer having to pay our to nationalise the existing companies.

Re: The energy crisis
 

He previously said that the Parent Corporation (Shell) couldn’t subsidise the subsidiary company (Shell Energy) - I posted some information showing that this in fact was happening, and he pivoted to say it showed that the Energy Suppliers weren’t making a profit, which wasn’t the original point…

Re: The energy crisis
 

Didn't he also say that Shell and others should be subject to a windfall tax?
That could be used to offset the cost of the payouts the Gov is making to everyone.

Re: The energy crisis
 

Not that I can find in this thread.

Even if he did, that doesn’t validate his assertion that the Parent Companies couldn’t subsidise the subsidiaries.

Re: The energy crisis
 

That's not really true:

1. Most pub companies are no longer owned by brewers. The largest pub companies - Stonegate, Mitchells & Butlers and Wetherspoons are all independent. Only Greene King owns a sizeable estate still and most are operated as stand-alone businesses by landlords. Fullers, Whitbread, Young's and Marston's divested their eponymous breweries.

2. Even Greene King beer purchases account for just some of its pubs' costs. They have to pay for staff, business rates, energy, Sky TV, food, other drinks, maintenance etc.

---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

Agreed. It's annoying when people do that.

Re: The energy crisis
 

A loan isn't a subsidy. In their future accounts, you will see payments for those loans being paid to the parent company. Same as can be seen in various companies.

Re: The energy crisis
 

A loan isn’t. A loan that is repeatedly deferred and eventually written off is.

Re: The energy crisis
 

And that would attract adverse attention from the Competition and Market Authority, as well as the Financial Conduct Authority, and ultimately Ofgem.
Why should one supplier (of anything) be able to charge lower prices simply because they had a "sugar daddy" to pay part of the costs.

Re: The energy crisis
 

It is true as, to get around the Monopolies & Mergers Commission ban on breweries alsi owning pubs, companies were created that owned the buildings. Those who rent these buildings are required to buy their stock from these companirs at inflated prices.

Re: The energy crisis
 

:rofl:

Re: The energy crisis
 

If the loan is not at market rate then it's a subsidy by way of lower interest. And if it's not below market rate, why not go to the market?

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------

I think Ofgem would be happpy that Shell is supporting its subsidiary. It saves them going to the wall and being rescued by Ofgem.
Shell is not trying to charge lower prices aka "unfair competition" so CMA is not interested. And this does not come under the FCA's jurisdiction by any stretch of the imagination.
Nothing wrong with vertical integration. It can strip out costs and make companies more responsive to their customers' needs.