Premier Eng. Share Discussion Threads

[aleman] 14/3/2014 09:48

Just a little background to yesterday's post about energy mix. It shows the other countries that are pushing cheap coal generation, giving them an energy cost advantage that will encourage UK industry to move abroad, destroying jobs.



Country Capacity/MW Proposed No. Coal-fired plants

1 China 558 363
2 India 519 455
3 Russia 48 48
4 Turkey 37 49
5 Vietnam 35 30
6 S Africa 23 8
7 USA 20 36
8 Ukraine 14 14
9 Poland 12 13
10 Germany 12 10

What Obama is saying and what they are doing in the USA seem to conflict. I suspect that all the politicians and their buddies who have been making money out of green scams are keeping up the global warming show until they can extract their money. They are probably now all buying up coal reserves and investing in distribution and generation while they dirt cheap. Once it's all in place, all the publically funded bodies will probably switch tac and say they now think the planet is actually cooling due to the sun's weak cycle 24 which is expected to bring colder weather around 2016-2020.

[praipus] 13/3/2014 10:27

Aleman sort your life out and come along to the Investor Day:-)

Why not leave the kids at Lego Land Creche (not far away great hotel) or Thorpe Park?

Happy kids and three companies in one visit that has to be good value:-)

Also I think most of the PI's there would benefit from hearing your questions aired and responded to by the manager.

[aleman] 13/3/2014 10:02

I did, a year ago. They didn't let me speak to him. I think my comments about them running up the revenue reserve ahead of a winding up being against the aims of the company and its distortion of shareholders' tax positions led to the extra 0.75p per quarter. This increase looks rather cautious with hindsight - unless they are planning to extend past the winding up date, of course! They wouldn't commit on that, citing market conditions at winding up date, but I'm putting 2 and 2 together to get 6. I think they're hoping to extend, although I'm wary about having too high a proportion of zeros and offering them too high a return when markets are starting to look less cheap than they did. Still, getting good income is becoming harder so I'd likely be in favour of a continuation. The caution in running up the dividend might be because revenue per share would fall a little if they take the same line as me and extend with a lower proportion of zeros.

[asmodeus] 13/3/2014 09:28

Why not phone the fund manager and ask him these things, Aleman? He's very approachable and might give you the answers rather than us guessing?

[mozy123] 12/3/2014 21:10

haha yes aleman! must be testing the water to drum up more capital for another venture

[aleman] 12/3/2014 20:42

Not really, but that's enough of that.

Anybody think the investor day is pretty keen for a company that is supposed to be winding up next year? ;-)

[asmodeus] 12/3/2014 20:18

Well at least the AGM is in London, which must be easier to get to than Guildford?

[asmodeus] 12/3/2014 18:36

Unfortunately I shall be walking the Kennet & Avon Canal (towpath) then, so can't attend, much to my regret. Hope plenty of others do,though.

[praipus] 12/3/2014 17:21

Investor Day 15th May, 2014



CEO of REG and CFO of OPG scheduled to speak. Free breakfast and lunch:-)

[asmodeus] 12/3/2014 16:54

No problem, Aleman. A very interesting and enlightening contribution IMO.

[aleman] 12/3/2014 12:45

I'm actually a huge fan of energy efficiency and conservation. I had low energy bulbs through my house in 1987, before most people even knew what they were, and I had 8" loft insulation when the norm was 4". However:

1. I don't believe CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. There is evidence that CO2 absorption of infrared radiation is already saturated and more CO2 will make no difference. CO2 effect is dwarfed by water vapour anyway and water vapour is believed to produce a strong equilibrium effect that CO2 can't overcome.

2. Man only produces a tiny amount of the Earth's CO2 so cutting back a small % of man's CO2 makes no difference.

3.We are due to re-enter an ice age soon. Any additional warming we can produce should be welcome.

4.Raw data suggests a slight cooling globally for about 15 years. (Global sea ice levels have been rising and are currently above the average since they started measuring them, with slightly low Arctic ice more than balanced out by record Antarctic ice.) It's only "homogenised" data being put into dodgy models by climate scientists that need the continued funding from taxpayers that get outputs that suggest recent warming. They say these outputs tie in with sea levels and humidity and the like but forget to tell you that these are "homogenised" as well. (That does not deny warming over centuries since the "little ice age" when they had winter fairs on the Thames. It's just we can't do anything about it and warming WILL end soon due to longer term natural cycles.)

5. Wind farms are a blot on the landscape and only return about 1/3rd of the revenue they need over their lifetime to be viable without very large taxpayer subsidies.

6. Windfarms don't produce on those bitterly cold winter days when you need the extra power the most so you still need back up from other fuels. It's very expensive to have spare capacity to cover wind's idle moments.

7. Too many politicians have consultancies and investments in green energy such that they are vested interests passing on biased views

I couldn't give you an overall strategic best mix of energy but I see nothing wrong with "clean coal" technology as I believe CO2 regulations are a big scam for politicians and their buddies. (Conspiracy theorists reckon the green energy racket is a tool to help introduce a stealth global government for an unelected elite but that's another story. There are, however, clear democratic accountability issues about the international QUANGOs that run the show globally.) Numerous large countries, including China, Germany and Poland are building coal stations because coal is cheap. Their lower energy costs are enticing our industry and jobs abroad and reducing UK growth. (UK per capita GDP is flat over 10 years and energy costs are a major reason why.) More windfarms are not the answer to our problems.

Even more distortion of energy markets by government regulation are not the answer. Smaller government and less intervention should be the objective so that investment can respond naturally to the requirements of energy markets. The lights out scenario is an exaggeration to push current energy interventions. The demand side has plenty of room to adapt to short-term issues with capacity. Free markets have problems but government interventions generally make them bigger. We're having these problems now because of previous excessive government intervention. More intervention is not the answer. CO2 is not the problem it is made out to be. Take away CO2 regulations and let the market decide more.


Sorry for the intrusion of politics onto the thread but you did ask for it!

[praipus] 12/3/2014 11:55

Aleman, no problem, pleased to unravel confusion. Other posters correcting misunderstandings is probably the strongest characteristic in favour of BB's:-)

Would be interested to hear your "Windfarm economics" thesis :-) And how to:-
1.) deal with government intervention/tax and
2.) how to handle oil/gas/coal volatility.
3.) Should there be an energy resource mix to make supply to consumers robust and affordable?

[aleman] 12/3/2014 10:55

Results are out. They make interesting reading. Revenue reserve actually rose fractionally despite the extra 2 x 0.75p in dividend payments last year. This is despite revenue possibly being slightly curtailed by the strong £. There is still 14p per share in revenue reserve so that will probably still be about 8p at the company's winding up date at the end of next year.

[aleman] 12/3/2014 08:56

Thanks for that Praipus. (Slaps forehead.) That makes things a bit better as it pays a higher dividend and looks more reasonably valued, with some scope for progress. Shame I'm not keen on the poor economics of windfarms and hate the vast taxpayer subsidies they need! I'd never invest directly myself so I'm not too keen when somebody does it for me. I'll leave that for now though. Thanks again.

[praipus] 11/3/2014 20:25

"Aleman 11 Mar'14 - 15:56 - 174 of 177 0 0

Thanks

The Company's investment objectives are to achieve a high
income from its portfolio and to realise long term growth
in the capital value of the portfolio.

Are they doing this if 20% of the fund is in low or no yield shares?

RNWH didn't start as a small holding. They've just waded in at 7.7%. Over 2/3rds of RNWH shares were purchased around 212p on Feb 17 and they're now 240p+. What's worrying is I can't see why their shares are shooting up and they don't look good value like OPG. I can't understand why somebody would treble their holding in shares that had just doubled if there is no news. It's odd. Also, is it relevant that James Smith used to be a non-exec on the board of RNWH?"


RNWH is the symbol for Renew Holdings PLC and is not held by PEW

The RNS in the header refers to Renewable Energy_Generation AKA REG Symbol AIM:WIND
And here is the WIND RNS corresponding to PEW purchase

[aleman] 11/3/2014 17:27

RNS 25/02/2014 in the header.

[praipus] 11/3/2014 17:14

Aleman I think you've got the wrong company. Don't you mean WIND?

[asmodeus] 11/3/2014 16:49

AGM will be in London on 8th May, Aleman, so I hope you will be able to attend and tackle him about that! (probably best to wait for official announcement before you take my word for it.)

[aleman] 11/3/2014 15:56

Thanks

The Company's investment objectives are to achieve a high
income from its portfolio and to realise long term growth
in the capital value of the portfolio.

Are they doing this if 20% of the fund is in low or no yield shares?

RNWH didn't start as a small holding. They've just waded in at 7.7%. Over 2/3rds of RNWH shares were purchased around 212p on Feb 17 and they're now 240p+. What's worrying is I can't see why their shares are shooting up and they don't look good value like OPG. I can't understand why somebody would treble their holding in shares that had just doubled if there is no news. It's odd. Also, is it relevant that James Smith used to be a non-exec on the board of RNWH?

[asmodeus] 11/3/2014 11:55

O.K. - I phoned Premier just now and James Smith (Investment Manager) phoned me back and explained that certain shares, such as the two above, are bought for capital growth, with the intention of taking capital gains in the future, to be used to buy more income-producing shares. Also, that sometimes shares grow into large proportions of the portfolio having started off smaller. (I haven't checked as to whether this applies to the above). And in answer to my last question, he says they have always just had the convertibles, for the income, and did not want to buy the ords. of other trusts in similar fields.

[asmodeus] 10/3/2014 21:00

It does seem odd, Aleman. I understand the AGM is coming up soon, and perhaps an explanation will be forthcoming then - unless anyone phones them first? By the way - do they only have Ecofin convertibles now - not the ords?