Utilitywise Share Discussion Threads

[bennywin] 09/11/2016 08:50

Nice one Trumpy.:)

[hanfofjohnson] 08/11/2016 09:16

Non-profitable PR exercise, luring gulible idiots into thinking 'this is how we make money.....honest'. Love how they've hyped up BeMS as if they invented it and it's not installed in every new office building circa 2005!!! 'Wow the lights turned off by themselves, must be them new fancy motion detectors'....i'm out of here, last post, as i'm bashing my head against a brickwall. 66% wiped off the share price and you still defend it.....sake

[bennywin] 08/11/2016 08:43

We're nominated for Retail Energy Project of the Year @EnergyAwards for our work with @IcelandFoods hubs.ly/H055kKy0 pic.twitter.com/36ISi3CBU8
2:30 am - 7 Nov 2016

[hanfofjohnson] 08/11/2016 01:40

Qvg- ref first point; suppliers issue pricing books at regular intervals based upon several factors, the main two are geographical location and consumption/useage. The price book is effectively the bible to the suppplier and is set in stone. At times suppliers will actually withdraw their price books (such as today due to earhquake in oaklohoma which is a hub for oil pipelines) to protect against market fluctuations. Whilst the pricing book is in place it is used and sets the base price in all transactions. Due to the volatile nature of the market this price is invariable. Whilst I agree with your commercial reasoning that 'if you buy more you pay less' utilitywise never purchase or own any units of gas or electricity so this does not apply. The supplier will already have a pre-determined budget/volume for a given period. Simply contact utitywise and then contact the supplier for comparison. As I mentioned the real value of a broker is to be independent and save the customer time in a fluctuating market.

Point 2 iceland; firstly we have to bear in mind that this success story isn't particularly objective as it's taken from the utilitywise website. The story also states the deal has been in place for over a year so any profits would be included in the latest figures. As this would obviously come under the corporate division, based upon the financials (comparable to enterprise division and previos years corporate accounts) it hasn't had any financial impact. Whilst there is a business model that exists where the broker is paid a % of the customer saving, this is not generally used and does not fit the utilitywise model due to their large overheads. The first issue would be payment being residual which causes cashflow problems. The next issue is the variables in place that the broker is unable to control e.g. opening for longer hours, changes in equipment, staff and customer behaviour to name a few. It is unfortunately not rewarded by suppliers in anyway near as much as the uplift model, which is unfortunate as it would certainly be environmentaly beneficial.

[hutch_pod] 07/11/2016 22:38

Interesting regarding your research on big six. It is a big step though to then say - it is known that none of the six deal with UTW.

[qvg] 07/11/2016 22:22

Hnafofjohnson
2 observations on your post:
"The fundimental point to all this is the customer would get the pre-uplift added price if they contacted the supplier directly and so are financially worse off by using utilitywise as they are not under any circumstances given cheaper rates than the if the client contacted directly" How do you know this? its a fairly standard commercial principle that a large buyer gets a better price. maybe not contractually, but in effect, Utilitywise are acting as that buyer. seems to me there is every reason to believe they can expect lower prices.

"The ideal utilitywise customer is thetefore not a large company like Iceland who will already be able to negotiate incredibly low rates and will indeed have staff in place purely for procurement issues. The likelyhood is no profit would have been made on the unit rates whatsoever and that any profit (assuming there is any and it wasn't a pr exercise) would be from the dashboard controls and t-mac. That would cost between £5-10k." It seems clear to me from the case study that the Iceland savings are about using less electricity, and using it at cheaper times. see below.

"We worked closely with Iceland to provide an optimised lighting control system to be rolled out across their 850 stores. This bespoke IoT/controls solution was designed and implemented by our engineering teams who worked alongside key stakeholders within the supermarket chain to ensure the technology fulfilled their requirements. This technology now provides Iceland with automation of store lighting to optimise the energy consumption based on occupancy and trading times. The lighting has been split into zones and is controlled via a combination of timed outputs, alarm interfaces, and presence detection. Some stores have also seen the connection of AHUs allowing for remote control of internal environmental temperatures and remote fault-finding for maintenance purposes. The implemented BeMS has achieved a 15% savings in Icelands lighting bill across 850 stores in the first year alone. Additional opportunities are also being investigated to identify further savings. Our team are working closely with Iceland to implement load shedding and load shifting activities to reduce electricity charges at peak DUoS and TNUoS times. By programming additional logic for the lighting and AC systems, Iceland can shift load from these time bands and reduce their bills further. This activity is expected to deliver a further saving of up to 10% of their energy bills."

this is not a cheaper rates proposition. models for sharing savings for schemes like this are fairly standard - my assumption is this is how UTW makes revenue from iceland

[hanfofjohnson] 07/11/2016 19:09

Fair point. In the article of 16th april it actually states it is now 3 suppliers not 2 they have this agreement with, hold my hands up on that. The point stands that 53% in still huge considering the number of suppliers and that the agreement had only been in place for 3 months at the time of figures. The problem for me is around transparency as they imply they are whole of market to customers. As for the 'big 6' i called utilitywise as a potential customer and ssked for prices and who they were from. I then asked specifically if i could have prices from all or any of the big 6 and it was not forthcoming. I then contacted the big 6 independently and received information on how they deal with brokers and if they dealt with utilitywise. British gas used to do a fair level of business with them but would not agree to new terms. Eon will not even aknowledge their SME/enterprise division but have recently begun to deal with there corporate division only. I know engie are one of the 3 and i'm 90% sure on the other 2.

[hutch_pod] 07/11/2016 17:54

In fairness you did open by stating UTW placed the vast majority of its business with two suppliers - but this only covered 42% as per y/e. A significant % but not a vast majority.Another point - where do you see stated that the big six do not deal with UTW?

[bennywin] 07/11/2016 17:41

I'm going to filter your posts now my little brat as your posts are complete drivel and I don't have a need to read any more of them.
Goodbye !

[hanfofjohnson] 07/11/2016 14:50

I do not infer, I unequivocally, undeniably, insist you must be 'stupid' as you so elequentaly put it if you vote or support donald trump. Quite what your point is around that statement in comparison to your childlike attacks is once again aimless and incomprehensible. I hate to sink to your level but I genuinely don't believe your capable of interpreting the level of information being provided. The only irony (which you obviously don't know the meaning of) is that you accuse me of being an ex-employee when you have been accused by others of being a current one!

[bennywin] 07/11/2016 14:11

Well, its quite simple.

Don't invest. Its obvious you don't like the business model.

Points considered and ignored as I don't agree with them, so I will retain my large holding .

Thanks for trying to help.

Maybe you can see the irony in your Trump comment as you infer that if I had voted for him I would be stupid.

It seems that not agreeing with your point of view incurs a penalty of your vitriol.

Ironically, the same kind of childish bullying as you refer to.

UTW are perfectly capable due to their large infrastructure of adhering to any regulations that may get put in place.

And yes, I think you are talking out of your rear end ! Possibly an ex employee with a chip on his shoulder.

[hanfofjohnson] 07/11/2016 13:19

Refering to my username as 'handjob' and 'talking through his rear end' really negates any inteligible discussion you may have and is frankly embarassing. I really didn't think keyboard warrior/trolls such as yourself would be on such a forum. Should you not be off bullying a 13 year old on twitter or vehemently campaigning for trump? I'm slightly disappointed in myself for engaging at all, however I wished to clarify my motive.

I initially looked to purchse shares in utilitywise last year when price had dropped fron 3.47 to 2.20. As the company operates in a market that is unregulated and relatively new to the AIM I chose to conduct my own research. Having done this I chose not to invest, yet it has remained on my watch list and I again considered investing when it reached 1.27. At this point they released info on new supplier contracts and I looked further into how they actually make money, which you and others really don't seem to have grasped, hence not understanding that the icelabd deal will not be profitable, but a good headline. I believe the deal has actually cost money but has achieved good publicity, thus slightly increasing share price which is currently their ultimate objective.

The reason I initially went against my instinct to post was looking through this forum and others and realising there was an incredible ammount of poorly informed investors. On this forum alone there were posts stating the cash owed from future deals is 'as good as cash in the bank as it's owed by the big 6'. This obviously is incorrect and one of many examples.

The real issue in investors no longer do their own leg work but merely rely on investment fund managers (such as woodford) or read a quick 2 page editorial review. This is not normally a huge issue when dealing in established, regulated markets, however this is neither. The big difference of course is the impact of an investment going south to a large diverse fund vs the impact to a single investor. If woodford were to sell his stake in utilitywose today he would lose millions.

Utilitywise make money on the uplift on a unit of gas and or electricity. The uplift is the difference between the cost of the unit issued by the supplier and the cost to the customer. E.g. supplier price is 12p kwh utilitywise add 1p. Cost to customer 13p. On average they make £3000 per customer. The customer pays utilitywise not the supplier which is why regulation will be paramount as this commission is currently not disclosed. The reason utilitywise use certain suppliers over others is the benefucial payment terms received e.g. most suppliers will not pay any amount upfront, but will only 'drip feed' in arrears either monthly or quarterly and more importantly will only begin this process when the customers current contract ends and new one begins. This does not fit utilitywise' business model as it causes huge cashflow issues predominantly due to staffing costs. These suppliers are large blue chip companies and they operate on their non-negotiable, established terms. Several smaller and new suppliers have obviously decided to operate differently in an effort to grow their customer base. They take on more risky business' such as pubs, takeaways and restaurants, and as they do not have the purchsing capacity of the large corporate suppliers the price is higher to the consumer. These are the suppliers utilitywise use as they will pay a) 80% total contract value before the contracts are live and b) pay upfront rather than in arrears. The fundimental point to all this is the customer would get the pre-uplift added price if they contacted the supplier directly and so are financially worse off by using utilitywise as they are not under any circumstances given cheaper rates than the if the client contacted directly. The only reason for using utilitywise or any broker, is not for a financial saving but for the time saved contacting suppliers and obtaining prices which can fluctuate daily. A broker is therefore only as useful/valuable to a client as the number of suppliers they have access to. With 53% of utilitywise' business going to just 3 suppliers and increasing, there ethics and morale standards have to be considered.
The ideal utilitywise customer is thetefore not a large company like Iceland who will already be able to negotiate incredibly low rates and will indeed have staff in place purely for procurement issues. The likelyhood is no profit would have been made on the unit rates whatsoever and that any profit (assuming there is any and it wasn't a pr exercise) would be from the dashboard controls and t-mac. That would cost between £5-10k. The ideal customer (and bread and butter to utilitywise) is an SME that has little understanding of the marketplace, is very busy and sure as hell doesn't have a procurement specialist. As an example an average restaurant would use 60,000 units per year in gas, if they can get 2p uplift on a 5 year contract that equate to £4800 upfront with £1200 risidual and of course the electric still to come. As the vast majority of business' in the uk is SME or 'enterprise' this is where the profit is made, they do not require or need t-mac or dashboard technology. These huge profit margins are acquired from customers and business' who usually can't afford it and as a small business owner, is one of the reasons I am fairly passionate about this. It could be the diference between a business staying afloat or having to lay someone off. I hope my motives have been explained and you will consider the points i have made.

[bennywin] 07/11/2016 11:55

Regarding the negative post concerning the Iceland contract, I think readers should inform themselves of the complex offering that UTW have agreed on, so that they might realise a certain poster is talking through his rear end !

In fact he tries to belittle what is in fact a fantastic achievement.


hxxps://www.utilitywise.com/case-study/iceland-a-utilitywise-case-study/?utm_campaign=Generic%20Brand&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[bennywin] 07/11/2016 08:22

Leechan.
I noticed the same thing about the new users on both forums.

As for the new desperado on this forum, you only need to ask yourself why anyone would spend so much time and effort to post such negativity on a share he does not own ?

I'm all for views from both sides of the fence, but on occasions like this, will readily discard handjobs opinion, as I doubt his intentions are entirely honest .

[nw99] 07/11/2016 07:16

Good enough for Neil Woodford it's good enough for me.Great company totally undervalued

[hanfofjohnson] 06/11/2016 21:08

Leechan- of course they are assumptions as believe it or not I do not write this from the future. They are assumptions based on fact, figures and independent resesrch. I note you are not able to discredit such assumptions or provide alternative theories, I find it strange that anytime a critical post of a share appears the immediate reaction is a conspiracy theory or an overly personal, protective and emotive defence. The failing of many an investor is an acute inability to objectively and retrospectively evaluate a purchase.

Bennywin_ not quite sure if that was directed at me as it was fairly incoherent, however looking at posts you have made on other shares it certainly fits a pattern. I also note it has previously been suggested on this forum you have an overly personal stake in utilitywise and were geoff thompsons secretary.

[hutch_pod] 06/11/2016 18:46

Risk balanced against getting better terms as they build up more business with key suppliers perhaps.

[leechan] 06/11/2016 18:36

Lots of "assumptions" in those 6 posts - yes supplier concentration is a risk but that is reflected in the continued low p/e.

Funnily enough, a poster also registered on the LSE BB only to post on UTW just a few days ago. Draw your own conclusions...

[bennywin] 06/11/2016 17:20

Talking of desperation ,
Why not try looking ino the mirror ,?

[hanfofjohnson] 06/11/2016 15:51

Hutch_pod - that presentation was dated 31st july 2016, the article stating new supplier terms;[...]

Is dated 16th April 2016, not enough time to be a huge factor in figures prodoced 3 months later.
Having said that the figures in that presentation are still worrying especially from a customer perspective as it still shows they placed 53% of business with only 3 suppliers (out of 30+). They sure as hell aren't 'whole of market' and aren't getting the best deal for their customers. Regulation is coming and a likely requirement would be that they would have to state to the customer, the uplift per unit they are receiving from the supplier. In many cases this is above 3p per unit which a simple cslculation would show that even a micro business will be paying thousands a year to utilitywise. Of course the risk to the company/shareholder is the massive impact just one of the 3 suppliers mentioned in the presentation that make up 53% of the business could have if they recognised their own influence and decided to renegotiate terms.

[buffetteer] 06/11/2016 11:07

Steve Attwell showed me around at last years agm. He had only recently started and seemed v confident of improving the enterprise division . They all knew what the issues were - guess he was wrong !

[hutch_pod] 06/11/2016 10:17

Regarding suppliers, the presentation accompanying the latest annual report shows a breakdown of revenue. 24%, 18%, 11%, 7%, 6% and the rest 34%. This seems a reasonable split to me.

[hanfofjohnson] 04/11/2016 12:16

Possibility, yes, probability, no. 27 years at sage, appointed to board of directors at utilitywise with a lot of press and then resigned 16 months later. Hardly enough time for him to of been held accountable for anything negative or positive.

[bennywin] 04/11/2016 12:09

Perhaps Steve Atwell was pushed.

Have you considered that ?

[hanfofjohnson] 04/11/2016 11:48

Wasn't going to say anything else however.....search 'brendan f utilitywise' and the next direct result is 'steve attwell'. Steve Attwell was a director at sage and worked there for 27 years (compared to brendan's 25 years)......steve jumped ship to head up utilitywise SME division......and resigned 18 months later. Just a point for consideration. Also as I mentioned in my initial post the 'additional offerings' you mention are only applicable to corporate customers whom constitute l0-15% revenue!no use to SME market. Take your chances as again mentioned you may get lucky with outside investment/takeover from one of the 2 suppliers that essentially run utilitywise, i wish you luck