National Grid Share Discussion Threads

[bountyhunter] 27/5/2019 10:50

A hung parliament is looking more and more likely the way things are going, although it does feel as though we have one already since TM's faux pas!

[beckers2008] 27/5/2019 10:13

No chance of a Labour majority government.
Next election in 2022 will show hung parliament so nationalisation threat will never materialise.

[poikka] 27/5/2019 10:05

JC and MadMcD joined at the hip, I'd say, bounty, so they both go - hopefully.

[bountyhunter] 27/5/2019 09:37

JC's days could be numbered, the big danger being a more electable replacement!
McD is probably the most dangerous from the Utility shareholders point of view.

[poikka] 27/5/2019 09:31

Labour trounced - might be a good day for equities tomorrow.

[bountyhunter] 27/5/2019 08:36

I'm invested here however it's the political uncertainty of the 'foreseable future' which is the problem holding the share price down.

[beckers2008] 27/5/2019 08:24

W,
£4.5b investment last year. £5.0b this year. No growth?
The largest amount of investment goes to the USA again. This has been the case for a number of years.
Dividend to grow by RPI for the foreseeable future with div cover of at least 1.2 times.

[wskill] 27/5/2019 07:46

Yes I was thinking the same at present the fall in revenue will only effect 50% of the present business the US side is not changed.

But still the dividend will be unable to grow until NG.can increase its presence in the US not a bad thing I would have thought.

[beckers2008] 26/5/2019 22:03

M,
Quarterly the UK business is getting smaller by NG. policy and the US business greater where the ROE is over 9%. NG. policy.
NG.is only investing in regulatory obligations as the ROE is so poor.
In 2021 the US will account for 60% of total business so your 4.3% ROE wide of the mark.

[muffinhead] 26/5/2019 20:11

National Grid... Ofgem 24/5/2019

Ofgem wants return on equity of 4.3% and lower allowed return on debt would reduce costs passed to consumers by £6bn over five years to 2026.


Set that against current double digit ROE 18.85%

PE of 10 based on lowered ROE set against current 2021 analyst forecast of 62.5p = shareprice 625p....could go lower as current dividend cover only 1.3.

Current dividend may not be covered with ROE of 4.3% in 2021


Current tangible NAV 366p

Going lower imo as 2021 comes into view
Quarterly chart


free stock charts from uk.advfn.com

[atlantic57] 24/5/2019 07:41

Imv Robert Peston summarises in 5 minutes the current political situation.
The BBC with an army of editors deputy editors chief reporters spend hours waffling on
And on

It seems clear here a new Tory leader makes no difference to the numbers in the commons.
Of course the hard brexiteers insist that the new leader will demand xyz and the eu will accept this.

I f they do fine.If the don’t then a general election is the likely outcome.

For utilities political uncertainty plus operational challenges at this time are not a great combination

[m100] 24/5/2019 07:10

The share price in the past few days showing yet again OFGEM are as secure as very leaky bucket...a bucket without a wall, or a base, or a handle.

[hydrogen economy] 24/5/2019 06:44

Sounds like some grounds for hope here


RNS Number : 1038A National Grid PLC 24 May 2019


Ofgem's RIIO-2 sector specific consultation update

Ofgem today published a detailed update following the RIIO-2 sector specific consultation that concluded in March. Today's publications are a step in the regulatory process for the new price control that will start in 2021, with final determinations on all key financial elements expected in November 2020.



Ofgem has published several comprehensive documents this morning which we will be reviewing in detail. Initially, we are pleased that Ofgem has refined their approach to incentives, including the option to allow bespoke Output Delivery Incentives.



On cost of equity, we recognise Ofgem has made some corrections to its calculations and continues to consult on the outperformance wedge. We remain disappointed with the proposed range, which we believe does not fairly reflect the level of risk borne by networks. In the context of the role that networks will play in enabling the transition to a more efficient and decarbonised energy system, we believe this is not in the long-term interests of consumers.



We will continue to engage constructively with Ofgem to reach an appropriate RIIO-2 outcome for the benefit of all stakeholders.

[bountyhunter] 23/5/2019 16:23

For that reason I was half expecting a rise here today but maybe TM's tottering on the edge has negated that.

[utyinv] 23/5/2019 11:51

When markets fall NG usually rallies as a safe haven. So much damage caused by Marxists

[utyinv] 22/5/2019 23:21

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

[newbank] 22/5/2019 16:07

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 20:40

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 20:19

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 18:07

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 20:25

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 20:15

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.