Recieved by many, and contrary to perceived wisdom, highlights a good BG deal
Energy alert: E.on backdoor price hike
British Gas & Ovo cheap deals
Special British Gas £260/yr cheaper 1-year deal, and even existing customers can get it. £876/yr with typical use incl MSE cashback.
This special tariff is not available direct from British Gas, by phone or online. To get it you have to go via a comparison site such as our Cheap Energy Club. Use our special 'Big name suppliers' comparison to see how it compares against other names you've likely heard of (and then use the filters to see whole of market).
- It's dual fuel only, fixed till 31 Mar 19.
- You'll need to get a smart meter fitted by 31 Jul 18 (if you can and you've not already got one), which helps ensure you only pay for what you use. They can go 'dumb' if you switch again, but it just means you'll need to do meter readings yourself.
- You'll need to pay by monthly direct debit, have paperless billing and sign up for the free British Gas Rewards scheme.
- It has £60 early exit fees (but you can take it with you if you move).
- Existing British Gas customers can also switch, and any exit fees will be waived, plus you'll get cashback.
New. Or Ovo, mid-sized firm with TOP CUSTOMER SERVICE for the same price (on average). £875/yr with typical use incl MSE cashback.
Which end of the telescope do you use when assessing the business performance of Centrica? Customers are being lost at a fast rate and with them the share price has also collapsed. So far I see no compelling strategy from the company to stop or reverse the situation.
This is a story of a big company taking its customers for granted and ripping them off something rotten. As a result the company had no incentive to be competitive and efficient in its operations. It has become a fat old man who is being done over by younger, fitter rivals.
Before long Sanzan, it is not a telescope you will be using, you will be reaching for your microcope.
The market has failed to deliver value for money from the Big 6.
ESSEN, Germany (Reuters) - Plans to carve up Innogy between parent RWE and rival E.ON added 4.3 billion euros (£3.8 billion) to the market value of Germanys three largest energy utilities on Monday.
Germanys power companies are reshaping as they look to boost green energy output, shift away from fossil fuels and prepare for Germanys exit from nuclear power in 2022.
The changes will turn RWE into one of Europes largest renewable players and at the same time create one of the continents top grid and energy retail groups under the aegis of E.ON.
Overall, we view the planned transaction between RWE AG and E.ON SE as positive, from a strategic as well as a financial point of view, municipal shareholders in RWE, which together hold about 23 percent in the group, said.
We think that this transaction gives significant thrust to the successful implementation of Germanys energy shift.
Before striking a deal with E.ON, RWE held talks with European peers Enel and Engie and came close to a deal with Spains Iberdrola before Christmas, people familiar with the matter said.
Shares in Innogy closed up 12.1 percent at 38.70 euros after Sundays proposed deal from RWE and E.ON, which plans to offer Innogys minority shareholders 40 euros per share, or 5.2 billion euros, a 16 percent premium to Fridays close.
Two bankers who have worked on previous Innogy deals put the chances of a rival bid for the German energy company as very low to zero, since RWE has already explored alternative deals with other candidates.
RWE is being advised by Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Citi on the deal, E.ON has hired Perella and BNP and Goldman Sachs is working for Innogy, the people said.
I sometimes wonder which end of the telescope you use Frog
The trouble is that, as usual, the privatisation was botched by politicians with a rather optimistic, or unrealistic, views about the benefits of a competitive market. What they effectively set up was a cartel that had every incentive not to compete but instead to collude in profiteering from an essential service.
Correct - although when the little guy goes bust - the supply doesn't get switched off, just mandatorily goes to another supplier - which could well be the big 6.
We have enough competition. It takes less time to switch than the average facebook user spends on that site per day and a damn site easier than switching current account or away from a SVR mortgage - oh - I might have given the government other ideas.
Distributed Centricas Play for North American Energy Dominance
Jeff St. John March 08, 2018
The new company, Centrica Business Solutions, is selling combined heat and power, solar, battery energy storage and standby generators, along with the software and services to put them to use.
Last month, U.K.-based Centrica announced it was joining the ranks of European utilities like Enel, Engie and EDF in seeking a piece of the North American distributed energy market -- with a little help from the fact that it also owns one of the continents biggest retail energy providers.
The new company, Centrica Business Solutions, is actually a combination of acquired and home-built business units with significant existing market share in the U.S. and Canada. Backed by the promise of $910 million in investment through 2020 by its parent company, its selling combined heat and power (CHP), solar, battery energy storage and standby generators, along with the software and services to put them to use.
This package will be marketed and managed by Direct Energy Business, the commercial services arm of Direct Energy, which is owned by Centrica as well. Direct Energy serves than 4 million customers in the 14 U.S. states and western Canadian provinces that allow for retail competition in energy markets, making it a significant channel partner for the new business.
In fact, Direct Energy is already operating some significant amounts of demand response with its customers in the Northeast U.S., Stephen Prince, senior vice president overseeing North America commercial operations for Centrica Business Solutions, said in a Wednesday interview. This portfolio, and the software behind it, will now be part of the new company, he said.
The companys presence is heavily weighted toward the Northeast today, as well as Texas. Were expanding rapidly [and] organically in those markets, he said. Centrica is also active in other states, through the customers of several companies acquired over the past few years, he added.
The first is Panoramic Power, which makes tiny wireless sensors that clip onto the circuits in a buildings circuit panel, along with the software to collect and analyze the data to provide energy efficiency and management insights. It was bought by Direct Energy for $60 million in late 2015, and has a significant customer base in North America, he said.
The second is Ener-G Combined Heat and Power and Rudox Power Generation, which provide CHP systems and backup generators, and were bought by Centrica for $212 million in May 2016. Rebranded as Ener-G Rudox last year, the business sells, rents and supports both CHP and standby generation, mainly natural-gas-powered units, in sizes from 30 kilowatts to 2 megawatts, he said. We have units on top of the U.N. building -- were a very well-known brand in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other Northeast competitive energy markets, said Prince.
REstore, which Centrica bought for $81 million in November, wasnt mentioned in Centrica Business Solutions' press release last month. But Prince noted that the Belgian companys technology, which controls building energy loads at split-second intervals to meet grid operator and energy market needs, will also be part of Centrica Business Solutions rollout in North America.
Their virtual power plant capabilities, their aggregation capabilities, their remote control capabilities behind the meter -- all of that software -- has become part of the backbone of our solutions offering in North America," he said. At the same time, We have our own platform, we have our own operations, we have our own intellectual property around our software. Were serving customers with Panoramic and integrating it with REstore.
The solar part of the business will be covered by Direct Energy Solar, which last year retreated from the
The loss in market share is affecting the Big 6 and not just Centrica. City a.m. reported:
"The Big Six energy suppliers have been forced to loosen their grip on the sector as their combined market share fell to a record low, according to fresh data from the regulator.
Ofgem said one in five energy consumers are now registered with a small or medium supplier, sending the market share of the Big Six firms down to 79 per cent for electricity and 78 per cent for gas in December 2017, from 84 per cent for both at the end of 2016.
Last year, 5.1m electricity customers and 4.1m gas customers switched supplier, the highest number in nearly a decade, and more than a third switched away from one of the six large suppliers which include Centrica's British Gas, SSE, E.On, EDF Energy, ScottishPower and Npower.
The shift away from the largest energy suppliers has been a quick one: just five years ago, challenger firms had a market share of 4.7 per cent for electricity and five per cent for gas.
Lawrence Slade, the chief executive of Energy UK, said the news was "further evidence of a highly competitive retail energy market".
The government on Monday introduced legislation to place a cap on energy prices of default tariffs to fix the "broken" market, but Kevin Pratt, a consumer affairs expert at Moneysupermarket, said Ofgem's new data "makes a mockery of the constant claims by the government and some industry commentators that the energy market is broken".
"Quite simply there has never been a better time to be a domestic energy customer in the UK, with over 65 suppliers and all types of different tariffs to choose from," he said.
The government's price cap plan has been criticised by some consumer groups over its potential to backfire by allowing consumers to become complacent and thus less engaged with the market.
"Any widespread price cap must not hamper this increasing and welcome level of competition," said uSwitch's energy expert Claire Osborne.
According to Ofgem, more than half of consumers (57 per cent) are still on poor value default tariffs, which can be as much as £300 more expensive than cheaper deals.
There are still too many consumers who are paying too much for their energy, which is why we are introducing price protection whilst we reform the market, to make competition work for all consumers," said Dermot Nolan, the chief executive of Ofgem, which will be in charge of setting the cap."
I suspect that it is mostly fixed term customers that are switching leaving CNA with a higher proportion of customers on SVRs. With HMG promising to clamp down on the SVR scam something will have to give. When will Centrica come up with a genuinely competitive strategy?
They are not the views of Motley Fool but the views of one of their many writers whose ever changing opinions they are keen to disassociate their own views from. The views of the authors, which change too frequently for my liking, differ from the official recommendations Motley Fool make in their subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. So if one wishes to accurately quote the views of Motley Fool, one should subscribe. Do you, Frog, honestly think Motley Fool are going to give there genuine opinions to non-subscribers?
By the way, Frog, you should have considered this difference before giving your recent strong advice to Centrica shareholders to sell up based on a random article by another author Rupert Hargreaves, which you portrayed incorrectly as being advice from Motley Fool. Motley Fool's advice to their subscribers may differ from that of the author.
Les (Berkeley) - Frog's mentor , but will he ever learn?
Its hard to explain but I have had personnel experience with the legal department of Centrica What irritates me more than anything Is the people that run this company have no interest in the shareholders. They are not interested in producing value for money as long as they are OK. Try contacting any of the directors I guarantee you wont get a response I would like to talk to the CEO or any of them please do not invest your hard earned money in this company and please do not believe the buy recommendations sub 50p this year IMHO
In response to the suggestion that I'm 'trying to discredit a forecast just because I don't like the answer'.
My reply is that the answer (conclusion) is immaterial imo. What totally discredits the DEXEU forecast, is not the conclusion, but the total lack of any transparency over its methodology.
This has nothing to do with being for or against Brexit, it is simply unacceptable, and unethical, for an incomplete report, with preliminary findings, with no explanation of what assumptions were made to input into the whatever methodology they have used, to be paraded as if it has any legitimacy at all.
It would be the same if the impact results were highly positive for Brexit.
It matters not how many people say otherwise, there is no getting around this fundamental point, the forecasts can NOT be examined for data inaccuracies, poor methodology or dubious assumptions as we know nothing of the data used, methodology or assumptions.
This is why the forecast should be viewed as highly suspect until such information is released.
Finally, I have not blamed anyone for being worried about Brexit, it is a worry as any big change will be, but imo the worry is over hyped and not helped by dubious reports such as the incomplete DEXEU report.
The only known fact about Brexit is that nobody knows.
As has been pointed out before, half the predictions and models have been made by people or organisations that/who have previously been very wrong so why should they be right this time?
Both sides only put forward facts and figures that suit their own arguments, understandably.
Consequently it is extremely difficult for the average person to make a balanced judgement without a huge amount of independent research and most of us have better things to do with our time.
Temujiin, trying to discredit a forecast just because you don't like the answer isn't sensible IMO. Sure you could argue that government forecasts are usually too pessimistic but you cannot deny that we have the conclusions of an impact study and it predicts the UK will be worse off after Brexit. You can argue that it won't be that bad. But we will see a decline in GDP relative to other economies due to Brexit.... Mrs May's speech all but said that.....trade with the EU will be more difficult afterwards.....the impact study just reflects the inevitable IMO. Perhaps the report didn't model the benefits of FTA's but since those are an unknown entity they may not be enough to make up the Brexit hit.
To rubbish a government forecast is similar to saying you don't believe anything the government tells us. Perhaps you don't believe that HS2 will create the economic forecasts that were used to justify the scheme....perhaps you would be correct.....but you cannot ignore the forecast. Indeed if government forecasts were so easily manipulated why wasn't the Brexit forecast massaged to support the Brexit argument (or is there a secret cabal of anti-Brexit economic forecasters in government?!?).
People have also said that we haven't seen the economic hit post Brexit that was predicted. Perhaps some of the doom laden predictions were a little absurd (same as the £350m per week for the NHS) but our economy hasn't performed as well as other economies after Brexit. some would argue that we haven't experienced a downturn because the rest of the world is doing rather well and dragging us up by the bootstraps. Economic performance is relative and we are lagging behind and more than likely that is due to Brexit uncertainty (and we haven't even left yet!!)
So try not to blame people for being worried about Brexit.....perhaps we just don't believe the 'forecasts' of the economic nirvana that awaits us. But we know that Brexit is inevitable.....we just want to make any potential economic pain as small as possible.
Oh yeah...and I don't believe that "No deal is better than a bad deal"...in this respect anyway.
I don't think that the recent impact assessments on the various potential forms of Brexit can be called discredited. You might not trust them but that is not the same
Frog, why would and sensible person trust a forecast that is
3. Shows no methodology
4. Has no explaination of conclusion findings
It would be laughed out of the scientific and academic worlds. I wish it was published so it can be publicly examined.
If the Norman Lamont produced a forecast saying GDP was going to rise post Brexit by 4% more on WTO rules but the finding are incomplete, authors anonymous and no detail of methodology used, would you accept them as reasonable evidence? No, again, no sensible person would.
Re why no bespoke deal, well the anonymous civil servants didnt know if we would get a customs union, EFTA, WTO or the bespoke, but they decided not to model the most positive model. I wonder why.
Your answer is as unsatisfactory as the uncompleted, leaked and unethically secret report itself, which btw, also did not model the scenario of a bespoke deal being agreed!
The report was secret because the GOV wanted it to show positive for brexit and like most others it showed the opposite, so they made it secret
IF you simpy rubbish every report eg economist, these Impact studies etc because they dont give the result you want that shows the weakness of you argument.
I really hope some sense comes in UK politics soon as I dont really want to be saying I told you so in a few years time..
I am leaving this board as am selling CNA so you can have the last word..
Can I suggest that one reason why no forecasts were made for a "bespoke deal" is simply that there is no clarity of what a bespoke deal would include since May has been very unspecific about what she wants. Assuming that it is some sort of "cake and eat it" scenario it is very unlikely that the EU would agree to it anyway.
With regard to forecasts, I don't think that the recent impact assessments on the various potential forms of Brexit can be called discredited. You might not trust them but that is not the same. We have to give some thought to potential outcomes and all of us know that these are best guesses made by persons with appropriate knowledge and experience.
I reather think that the outcomes of Brexit are likely to be so negative that you Brexiters rather not risk the public being informed of this.
I really don't mind the off topic stuff. Sometimes I find it interesting, sometimes not, in which case I don't have to read it. It's a simple concept!
Sooner or later the main topic comes back to the stock in question when something interesting happens, but if there's nothing much going on - no news - minimal sp movement - then it's not surprising that people talk about something else - much as in real life. C'est la vie.
I was surprised that Brexit debate came onto the CNA board. It is interesting to see the characters involved in the discussion. I don't know if it is my imagination but the gulf between the two sides seems to be narrowing. Perhaps sense will prevail and Mrs May's 'middle of the road' approach will work.
Brexit has been a topic on the Lloyds board for a while. It died down over Xmas and the new year but is getting 'noisier' again. That is probably the place to go and not CNA. Although some on the Lloyds board are annoyed by it all.
For me the issue comes down to the volume of the O/T posts. If there are smallish number you can just look past them. My problem comes when the whole board gets swamped with these posts, as has happened on the Lloyds board and is now happening here as well. When that happens it completely turns me off and I just lose interest in those boards.
Its not that I dont accept that the discussions are valid, and clearly to some interesting. For me it is that they are just in the wrong place and what was needed was a Brexit board board where people could discuss this stuff. To me it has no place on a stock specific board like this, or even Lloyds where brexit is perhaps more business relevant.
Thats it from me. If the board stays like this I shall not be back,
I dont see any harm in a bit of off topic discussion from time to time as long as its done in a good natured manner. I rarely contribute to it but it is interesting to gauge the feelings of other people with whom I have other interests in common.
This occurs on many boards, notably RDSB, BP and other major FTSE companies.
. We know they came from DEXEU, but who wrote them, what qualifications have they? More importantly, can you tell me what methodology was used to come to these dire predictions? No you can't, nobody knows, it remains a secret.
Pro Brexit Gov commissioned these and would have given a brief. The civil servants put the data in a spreadsheet and out came the results. The Gov had a look and hid them (democracy?) only released when they were leaked. If the results had been positive it would have been on tabloid front pages and BBC.
I don't know how much extra we will sell to Japan Australia NZ, Canada, India, China, USA, Indonesia, Brazil, etc etc.
neither does anyone, the idea of us selling manufactured goods, cars etc from the Uk to those countries is ludicrous and Banking and Finance will result in jobs abroad and taxes paid offshore. Even your Brexit backers Dyson and JCB manufacture in Malaysia and India
I do not expect to see a significant drop in trade after Brexit as they sell us many 10's of £Billions more than we sell them. It's one thing to play hardball in negotiations, but imo it's another thing altogether to see profits reduced, jobs lost, factory's closing and political unpopularity, solely because of EU ideology.
lets hope your right if things so wrong it will be very painful for an economy with weak manufacturing and dependancy on banking and finance easilly controlled.
I think though the only way we get a deal to see no drop in trade is If we accept EU laws Pay exit fees and ongoing fees and as TM was asked "whats the point".
Thats why the Pro EU Govs Impacts studies showing GDP loss of between 3% and 8% in any deal is not in any of you calcs, and creates a massive loss for Uk PLC.
I see you again have reference the dodgy leaked DEXEU forecasts. These **estimates of the impact of Brexit in 2030 were between minus 2% for EEA membership & a loss of 8% for no deal and a reversion to WTO. Tell me PTN
1. We know they came from DEXEU, but who wrote them, what qualifications have they? More importantly, can you tell me what methodology was used to come to these dire predictions?
No you can't, nobody knows, it remains a secret. No details are available on how the figures were arrived at. Many would regard this as completely unsatisfactory and unethical. And yet you always come back to these Mystic Meg predictions.
Pre referendum project fear forecasts came thick and fast from the Treasury, OECD, IMF, also from academic and commercial forecasters. All have been **proved** badly wrong, as they were with the ERM, and the Euro.
2. Why do you put so much faith in such discredited forecasts given their past failures?
To answer your question. I don't know how much extra we will sell to Japan Australia NZ, Canada, India, China, USA, Indonesia, Brazil, etc etc. But I know we would strike trade deals with the growth economies of the world a lot quicker out of the EU, than in it.
As for EU trade, at the risk of repeating myself, I do not expect to see a significant drop in trade after Brexit as they sell us many 10's of £Billions more than we sell them. It's one thing to play hardball in negotiations, but imo it's another thing altogether to see profits reduced, jobs lost, factory's closing and political unpopularity, solely because of EU ideology.
PS Looks like the populist, Eurosceptic far-right that has swept through Europe, will be gaining ground again in Italy. Well done the EU, another vote of no confidence! Will they ever learn?
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.