National Grid Share Discussion Threads

[utyinv] 23/5/2019 00:21

Gershon (Chairman) buying shares in National Grid. Confident that the current price is undervalued.

[newbank] 22/5/2019 17:07

Tomorrow OFGEM should deliver its decision and NG will decide weather or not to go to the CMA. Ofgem need to get real. How on earth can NG projects be low risk and capital easy to raise with the threat of Labour.

[1carus] 21/5/2019 21:40

Labour have no chance. To many people around who remember old labour. To many old people who have pensions who actually understand what it would mean if Corbyn got half a chance to re-nationalise. Nothing worked!

[curriedquaker] 21/5/2019 21:19

I think we might get a rise in the share price next Monday morning when the EU election results show Labour getting a pasting in the polls.

[doggle] 21/5/2019 19:07

Bit of Common Sense here Guys!
Labour’s plans to renationalise the energy networks by paying investors less than market value will fly in the face of international treaties, according to two legal specialists.
Speaking to Utility Week Dan Neidle, a partner at Magic Circle law firm Clifford Chance LLP, said that the party’s plans to take public ownership of Britain’s energy sector as unveiled yesterday (15 May) are “silly, even childish”.
Specifically Neidle expressed concerns at Labour using the case of Northern Rock as a precedent, which was nationalised by the government following the financial crash in 2008.
He said: “Labour thinks Northern Rock is this fantastic precedent that says the government can set any price it likes when nationalising a business, actually it is not like that at all.
“First of all, an obvious point, Northern Rock was bust with a market value of zero so any application of that to the very ‘not bust’ profitable utility sector is silly, even childish.
“More fundamentally if you look at the legislation which nationalised Northern Rock it required that market value compensation was paid.
“There was an independent valuer, he conducted a proper evaluation, he had to do so on the assumption that there was to be no further government support and on that assumption he said that the market value was zero.”
Plans from the party suggest it aims to take ownership of Britain’s water and energy sector by paying investors well below the market value. Neidle adds that this may well result in an international arbitration panel intervening.
During a recent interview on Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics programme, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer John McDonell rejected the suggestion that his party’s public ownership plan would be successfully challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
Such a case could be mounted on the grounds that failure to pay full market value would represent an interference with property rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, according to an analysis published by Clifford Chance last year.
Neidle added: “It is a bit sad to see the Labour Party not taking the European court of Human Rights seriously. What is maybe less surprising is that they’re ignoring the UK’s many bilateral investment treaties.
“The fastest and easiest way for a foreign investor to sue isn’t the European Court of Human Rights, it’s going to an international arbitration tribunal under the Energy Charter Treaty or one of the UK’s bilateral investment treaties under which you are entitled to prompt, full market compensation.
Labour has never engaged with that point when it has been raised because there is no answer to it.”
Furthermore, Neidle said, in “every single previous UK nationalisation̶1;, market value compensation was paid in “every case”.
“That is not because of absurd generosity on the part of previous governments, it’s because that is what you have to do”, he added.
Echoing Neidle’s concerns Katharine Davies, partner at Pinsent Masons, said: “At a time when the UK needs more private investment to improve its infrastructure and combat climate change, this would scare investors off for a generation and could drive energy projects into bankruptcy.
“Nationalising energy networks would trigger years of litigation from both domestic and international investors impacted by broken contracts.
“Foreign investors might look towards pursuing action through the Energy Charter Treaty that binds signatories to rules on energy and arbitration, but UK investors would need to seek other avenues.”

[davr0s] 20/5/2019 21:25

Agree it has fallen over many months but "tanking in the US" implied something else. Share price will do what it wants to do - no one can predict where they are going to go. I can't trade opinions

[utyinv] 20/5/2019 21:15

DavR0s

Newbank’s comment IMO is spot on as any fall is concerning when it should be rising instead!

This share was £11.65 less than three years ago and when investors reinvested their divi from the sale of the Gas Distn networks they did so at a price well above £10.50.

On talking to investors who did reinvest in NG shares to maintain their holding after the consolidation, it was based on the claims made by Pettigrew that the Gas Distn networks were too heavily regulated and the Company wanted to focus on lucrative businesses that had a bigger return. That unfortunately hasn’t happened and Pettigrew is to blame IMO for his mis-management.

Even Institutional Investor Analysts are quizzing Pettigrew why he hasn’t as yet listed the US business separately. Unfortunately he like Teresa May has been digging his head in the sands and in his case not challenging OFGEM robustly enough (capitulating every time). As a CEO his main focus should be to maintain, protect and grow investor capital and IMO he has failed royally.

[davr0s] 20/5/2019 20:32

You mean -0.8% Lol

[newbank] 20/5/2019 19:53

Looks like Buywell is the kiss of death :)

Tanking in the US

[newbank] 20/5/2019 10:56

Buywell are you trying to short this stock ?

There is talk of NG listing the US business separately. Also, the Interconnector business owners (NG only Have 50%) have said they will challenge any Labour Gov in the International Courts if their ridiculous ideas every come to see the light of day.

[buywell3] 20/5/2019 09:40

My call for this is 700p by the end of 2019

If 700p breaks ... 650p in early 2020

This chart does not look good

650p is a critical level IMO

That goes then its 500p

[gregsc] 20/5/2019 09:28

carlsagan1
I moved from Barclays to AJ Bell as Barclays were going to charge me £1500/year.
AJ Bell charge is only £7.50/quarter and excellent service so far.

[bountyhunter] 19/5/2019 19:04

I saw that ...talk about sitting on the fence!

[gateside] 19/5/2019 17:44

After reading about Corbyn on Marr on TV this morning. I think NG. shareholders have little to worry about!Prime Minister material.... I don't think so!

[gateside] 19/5/2019 17:40

The Share Centre are excellent.They have great customer service.

[carlsagan1] 19/5/2019 16:01

ii have decided to up there fees again from june 10th its £9.99 a month up from £22.50 a quarter.

Any recommendations?

Considering going to iweb-sharedealing(Halifax) for a fixed £5 a trade or X-O(Jarvis) for £5.95, neither have monthly, yearly, or inactivity fees like ii...

[bountyhunter] 17/5/2019 16:07

Yes W-8 form as Uty mentioned, but that's only for 15% of the 30%, the remaining 15% is still deducted.

[action] 17/5/2019 14:37

You can sign up via your broker to avoid 15% divi tax in USA

[bountyhunter] 17/5/2019 09:31

I agree 100% UI and if NG split and relisted there would be an immediate rise in the combined capital value due to reduced political risk, which would more than compensate for the 15% we would have to forfeit on the US dividends.

[utyinv] 17/5/2019 08:50

Catbarley,

What they should do IMO is to List the US business, the Interconnector business and U.K. business separately.

Holding US listed shares is easy and often lucrative. The only issue is having your dividends taxed at source even if it’s in an ISA. The tax is 30% but if you are a Brit living over here by filling in a W-8 BEN form the tax rate is 15%.

The ROE in the US is often higher than the U.K. so I can see the dividends paid from the separated business to be higher pro-rata than to the combined U.K. listed Company.

Then Pettigrew must use Court action using International and EU courts to put the Marxists back in their box if they were to gain power. However, I would go further and sue any Labour Gov for loss of growth, hassle and concern as many PI’s are employees, pensioners and professionals, subsidising salaries, pensions or University fees for off-spring , or general pension provision.

The Labour Party haven’t a clue what they are suggesting, the amount of PI’s and II’s who use income stock like NG to subsidise pensions or in the case of II ( Institutional Investors) where NG income forms part of Group Pensions.

The ramifications of their ( Labour) proposals are really quite extraordinary.

The only reason why Labour have taken this stance is because they are still very bitter about Maggie Privatising the industry in 1990 and how it’s been very successful for everyone including unionised members of staff. They are trying to undo history. Oh how it grates them to know Once Labour voting staff who are part of a union are enjoying the benefits of a capitalistic venture.

[catbarley] 16/5/2019 22:26

Strongly think shud delist usa business and give option to uk investors to sell or hold

[bountyhunter] 16/5/2019 20:31

They won't do it as TM will be replaced by a stronger leader who will beat Corbyn at the next election. The only danger is that Corbyn is replaced by someone more electable. All imho!