09-12-2022, 13:15
|
#1801
|
Architect of Ideas
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,529
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Loans which will have to be repaid.
Shows that the suppliers are NOT making profits.
|
|
|
|
09-12-2022, 13:22
|
#1802
|
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,276
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
So what? They are still separate companies, where one is not allowed to subsidise the other.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Loans which will have to be repaid.
Shows that the suppliers are NOT making profits.
|
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
|
|
|
09-12-2022, 13:50
|
#1803
|
Sulking in the Corner
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: RG41
Services: 1 Gbps; Hub 4 MM; ASUS RT-AX88U; Ultimate VOLT. BT Infinity2; Devolo 1200AV
Posts: 11,955
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Loans which will have to be repaid.
Shows that the suppliers are NOT making profits.
|
But that part of Shell that supplies another part of Shell is making profits from what they sell to Shell. If you get my drift.
__________________
Seph.
My advice is at your risk.
|
|
|
09-12-2022, 14:13
|
#1804
|
Dr Pepper Addict
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nottingham
Age: 61
Services: Flextel SIP : Sky Mobile : Sky Q TV : VM BB (1000 Mbps) : Aquiss FTTP (900 Mbps)
Posts: 27,907
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
some image
|
Please use text, its annoying to have to quote an image.
What was the point you are referring to ?
__________________
Baby, I was born this way.
|
|
|
09-12-2022, 15:00
|
#1805
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,182
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
But that part of Shell that supplies another part of Shell is making profits from what they sell to Shell. If you get my drift.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
They may have got customers who are willing to take the risk and pay less for their fuel. The risk is that you could face much bigger increases if things don't work out.
Companies could have offered a higher rate but will some sort of guarantee to buffer future rises and protect against the company folding.
If you choose to take the risk you need to be willing to face the risks too. Same with any other purchase. You can buy top end stuff knowing you will get support and good goods, or take a risk with some cheap label sticker in China from a market stall in cash. You may be OK with the cheap version, it may all be fine but you don't know and if it fails you will be out of pocket.
|
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.
Last edited by RichardCoulter; 09-12-2022 at 15:07.
Reason: Spelling Fac Hgr.
|
|
|
09-12-2022, 15:46
|
#1806
|
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,276
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Please use text, its annoying to have to quote an image.
What was the point you are referring to ?
|
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…
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
|
|
|
09-12-2022, 19:12
|
#1807
|
Sad Doig Fan!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Barry South Wales
Age: 68
Services: With VM for BB 250Mb service.(Deal)
Posts: 11,690
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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…
|
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.
|
|
|
09-12-2022, 19:30
|
#1808
|
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,276
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
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.
|
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.
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
|
|
|
10-12-2022, 10:52
|
#1809
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,343
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
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.[COLOR="Silver"]
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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…
|
Agreed. It's annoying when people do that.
|
|
|
10-12-2022, 11:57
|
#1810
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb,
V6 STB
Posts: 7,867
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
10-12-2022, 12:05
|
#1811
|
Trollsplatter
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 37,105
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
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.
|
A loan isn’t. A loan that is repeatedly deferred and eventually written off is.
|
|
|
10-12-2022, 12:33
|
#1812
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb,
V6 STB
Posts: 7,867
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
A loan isn’t. A loan that is repeatedly deferred and eventually written off is.
|
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.
|
|
|
10-12-2022, 16:53
|
#1813
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,182
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
10-12-2022, 18:18
|
#1814
|
Architect of Ideas
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,529
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
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.
|
|
|
|
10-12-2022, 23:06
|
#1815
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,343
|
Re: The energy crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
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
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.
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37.
|