National Grid Share Discussion Threads

[spud] 15/4/2019 20:33

51% in US I believe. The Company will simply close their UK head office & relocate across the pond. Simple. spud

[pete160] 15/4/2019 19:24

I agree that the threat seems overdone but Labour dont need to nationalise it, they can just windfall tax it to oblivion

[catbarley] 15/4/2019 18:53

Think this is a company not so easy for Labour. 50 pct revenue and assets in USA , any possible nationalisation could go on for yrs, or USA assets split off for shareholders, think gloom over share price been overdone.

[utyinv] 14/4/2019 00:06

Bounty,

Utilities are being stitched up both ways!

The regulator expects Utilities to run with high debt. Stating that the businesses are secure with little risk. If you recall in 2006 the regulator called on NG to raise money via its shareholders and debt in order to fund much needed capital projects. Their argument was rather than the customers pay for it ( as directed in the Privatisation agreement), ultimately the shareholder will benefit from a higher share price because of a greater Asset base.

But this so called secure, no risk investment stance by the Regulator is a load of bull. With Labour waiting in the wings and their constant iterations on Nationalisation is depressing the share price as well as damaging pension funds.
If Labour did take over a Utility, after debt, shareholders would receive worthless paper. That is why McDonnell refuses to state how much Nationalisation would cost.

He is hoping the shares crash to next to nothing, pay debt and the shareholder shafted!

[bountyhunter] 13/4/2019 18:01

Thanks for the link spud but all that the BBC is saying there is that in the event of Nationalisation of Thames Water by Labour that investors would receive government bonds. MacDonell said that months ago so another cras news story by the BBC more akin to a history lesson!

[newbank] 13/4/2019 13:01

It's the Left Wing Unions that are pushing this philosophy.

I recall working in the Industry as a young Engineer undertaking training. The industry was full of Union officials who pontificated around not doing any work but causing issues. Unfortunately in those days it was obligatory to join one of five Unions.

Once Privatisation took place the lazy union officials had to do some work and tea and biscuit meetings were reduced dramatically. Employees became shareholders overnight enthusing a 'part of One Team philosophy'. We all had a stake in running the Company efficiently.

Across the Country the Unions lost millions of Members, and those that remained only did so because they were part of a collective bargaining arrangement. However, the Unions representing the New Employees had to change too and become more business like and think about profit and loss etc.

This infuriated the militant Left Wing Union Leaders and now they can see that Corbyn is offering them a possibility of regaining their egotistical self importance.

The efficiency improved overnight at Privatisation. Staff were motivated, enthused and wanted to go to work because not only were they professionals but they held a stake in the success of the Company.

Prior to that some workers were of the opinion 'well if I do half a job or not turn in at all, I will just get told off but my pay will be protected because the unions will call a strike if I am reprimanded'.

In a Nationalised industry the only people who benefitted lucratively were the Union Officials and the Civil Servants who were on the Board of the Nationalised industry. In those days if you wanted to be promoted into a better paid job despite any competency requirements all you had to do was to become a Union Official and fit in with the Marxists. Then even if you were promoted to a level well above your competence there were others that would cover you because it was overstaffed and they didn't want to 'Rock the Boat' so to speak.

[loganair] 13/4/2019 08:49

Under Nationalisation all the Utilities infrastructure were greatly under funded, water pipes leaking upto 30% of the water going through, the rail network etc.

[spud] 13/4/2019 08:35

Interesting:Thames Water outlines 'nationalisation refund' if Labour enacts policy https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47918253spud

[1carus] 12/4/2019 09:40

If bought in at anything under £9.00, 5% divi and long term upside of share price. Easy income stock, beats the banks but could do better elsewhere. Nothing to see here really.

[spud] 12/4/2019 09:18

Going forward, the two main Parties will splinter into smaller groups and ruling coalitions will be the norm, resulting in no one Party dominating. NG is undervalued and paying an increasing yield as the Market frets. I'm buying more, confident in my analysis. What's not to like?spud

[utyinv] 12/4/2019 08:37

This share price is being manipulated. Should be £12/ share.

But I imagine Pettigrew likes it low as they get more shares in their bonus.

It’s a bit fishy that on 28th March the BBC published a news bulletin regarding a paper that Labour was putting out to explain how they would take control of NG. That bulletin was pulled because of an excuse that Labour weren’t quite ready to publish??? A slight delay.

Or was it a strategic move to keep the share price low? Why hasn’t there been more news to elaborate and clarify their thinking / intentions. Could it be the Shadow Chancellor saying “we cannot allow utility share prices to rise because it would make it harder to take control”.

They are so bitter that the Privatisation of the Utilities have been a success and that many many workers are now shareholders in the Companies. They don’t like the ordinary man in the street embracing the benefits of capitalism and working in harmony with the Company bosses.

Marxism never works but it sure does destroy Economies before the plonkers who vote for them realise that the promises made were just lies to get them ( Labour) elected.

[gbh2] 09/4/2019 07:32

Turned out to be my worst buy of the last financial year, must dump it today!

Good Luck.

[newbank] 08/4/2019 16:46

Those at the helm of this Company have seen £11.66 billion wiped off the Market Cap of this Company since J Pettigrew took over, (not including the period of six months Steve Holliday remained to hold John's hands).

That is 2 1/2 years. Instead of the market cap increasing as one would expect from a Company with 52% of the business in the US with a republican President, Interconnector businesses licensed to print money (partly foreign owned), and a UK business whose revenue is guaranteed, our 'Board' have managed to lose a 1/3 of the Company's wealth due to sheer incompetence. They are running a Private Blue Chip Company like a shoddy Labour Run Council.

It's time we had a 'Board' that knew its priorities and started putting shareholders first by running a Private Company lucratively.

Unless, as it has been said, they are prepping themselves to run a Nationalised Company with state run Final Salary pensions (along with secured lucrative protected Private pensions).ie capitulating to anything that threatens the Company's well-being.

After all they (The 'Board') DO have a great Record for Capitulating!

[utyinv] 08/4/2019 15:30

Yanks have spoiled the recovery.

Also, Nora Mead-Brownell (US)non exec Director has quit with immediate effect as she quotes that she didn’t realise the involvement / time required she had to dedicate to the role. She has just Joined Pacific Gas & Electric.

Where do they get these non-execs from? Complaining they have to work for their remuneration.

Leaving with immediate effect .... more to the story than meets the eye ‘me thinks’!

[gbh2] 05/4/2019 10:04

Company Directors are the pits of the earth but we're stuck with them due to the iron clad contracts that their "unions" have developed this last decade!

[utyinv] 05/4/2019 10:00

NG has lost nearly 7% in less than 2 weeks. What is the Company doing to promote confidence in investors?

Newbank mentioned in post 6896 that Pettigrew appears to have turned his back and ignores investor concerns. I am inclined to agree.

Maybe he is not interested in the share price or how it performs as he still gets his £5 million pay packet and bonuses irrespective of the fact that since he took over the price has fallen 30%.

Any of the Employees who are entitled to bonuses based on delivering results would be facing the sack never mind losing the bonus. Why should it be any different for a CEO?

[gbh2] 03/4/2019 18:26

1carus; I've been in and out of NG for the last year and made a few quid up to now.

However I'm keen to diversify my investments because I've had far too much of my cash in just two companies.

Today I halved my TW & LLOY and now picking up a few K in companies that are close to releasing Results.

I don't expect to be here long if Labour get in, in fact should they ever look like winning the next election my cash will in another Country along with me :)

[jonnycash1] 03/4/2019 16:31

No idea Uty. My interactions with the younger generation at work only ever make me grateful I was born in the 70s.

[1carus] 03/4/2019 16:08

gbh2, I might put a sell on these at 800 as it has crashed through that on the dips before, which might give me a rebuying oppo if its just general noise. But it would also protect against a big drop if labour were to get in or an election pop up. Which is my main worry for holding these, and I have a fair number. Without that threat these would surely be higher in my opinion.

[gbh2] 03/4/2019 14:54

Purchased a few today so share price was bound to drop :)

[utyinv] 03/4/2019 07:16

jonnycash1,

Yes, but how many of the youth 18 - 20 will understand these facts / economics?

How many 16 - 17 year old who will vote next year or the year after, understand how the economy works until it’s far too late.

[jonnycash1] 03/4/2019 06:41

UK government issues Gilts, only the yanks issue government bonds. The socialists argue that we can currently borrow at low rates (historically) and use the money to nationalise industry and create jobs through government funded projects. The price of Gilts starts at par, or 100p and is adjusted according to interest rate prevailing. Rate and price are negatively correlated, so as rates rise the real value in pence of each gilt correspondingly falls. Thus it is cheaper to buy the gilt back in the future.
Unfortunately, this theory never seems to pan out, with future generations lumbered with the debt mountain for generations to come. We will be paying off Gordon Browns little stint in office until about 2040 for example.