View Single Post
Old 10-12-2022, 23:06   #1815
1andrew1
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 15,247
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
Re: The energy crisis

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
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.
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
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.
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.
1andrew1 is online now   Reply With Quote