foolish learner
26 May 2017
Re: Dividend cut by 2.1% It would have been nice to have seen a better rise in the dividend, but they are clear it is based on November to November inflation rates. Perhaps with rembering for next year or reviewing the last annual report
BILLFISH
25 May 2017
Dividend cut by 2.1% HI Guys, Pretty disappointing set of figures, full of buzz words and a disingenuous statement on the dividend which was cut 2.1% in real terms.The RPI figure for March was 3.1% not 1.1% as stated.While the more creditable utility companies have increased their dividends by the year end RPI figure and done some work to achieve this, this company who style themselves as having "strengths in transparency and reporting", are anything but.Rather than pay a dividend increase of 3.2% which is the minimum investors are entitled to expect from a company who is both transparent and who can afford it, this cheeky lot cut the dividend by 2.1% by hiding behind the following statement "The board has proposed a final dividend of 25.92 pence per ordinary share in respect of the year ended 31 March 2017. Taken together with the interim dividend of 12.95 pence per ordinary share, paid in February, this produces a total dividend per ordinary share for 2016/17 of 38.87 pence. This is an increase of 1.1%, compared with the dividend relating to last year, in line with the group's dividend policy of targeting a growth rate of at least RPI inflation each year through to 2020. The inflationary increase of 1.1% is based on the RPI element included within the allowed regulated revenue increase for the 2016/17 financial year (i.e. the movement in RPI between November 2014 and November 2015)"So the multi million earning BOD make no effort to protect the shareholders from the ravages of inflation rather leaving their "target" to be delivered or not by the machinations of the regulator.The multi-milionaires who infest our board room need a sharp lesson in honesty and integrity which is best delivered by an appropriate vote on the futures of all members of the REMCOM I would suggest.GLABF
EVPorated
25 May 2017
Results Not very exciting results, with the minimum increase in dividend. We don't know if the JV Waterplus will contribute or not to any future profit, so overall not that good looking forward. It seems that the Directors need to be doing a bit more to justify their almost £2M each in salary,share options and additional options based on notional dividends for share options. It has to be said that this is a monopoly business with no risk of customers actually taking water from anywhere but UUW's distribution system although they may lose the actual retail income which is low margin, and from which some water companies have decided to withdraw.More is needed. .
Happy Rabbit
25 May 2017
Re: Results Well that was a quick change of mind, based largely on the recent run-up in sp. I have sold out too, and bought into Legal and General. A company that I have been looking at for a couple of years. Might just put the rest into house builders. Who knows. I know I don't!Regards,Happy (happier)
Happy Rabbit
25 May 2017
Results Pretty low key set of results as far as I can see, with revenue flat (well, slightly down), but reported profit up 7% and underlying profit up by 3%. That is all good.I am slightly disappointed that the dividend is only increased by 1.1% to 38.87p giving a yield of 3.7%. I think that they could do better than this! It is after all the only real reason for holding utility shares!Uncle Doug is probably correct and I should sell, but a safe income stream means I will probably hold.Regards,Happy (but not very)
Uncle Doug
25 May 2017
Re: Nationalisation Sold out. Not sure where this is going but had a pretty good run lately and banked profits at 1060. I'll be back in later when SP offers better value. Now ... where to put that dosh?
foolish learner
24 May 2017
Re: Nationalisation There are very similar questions on CNA and NG board but it does not seem to stop the prices rising, Not worried about Jeremy but not buying either at current prices, thinking more about when to take my capital gains as the divi is not looking very high since the value shot through the 1000 markFL
roadhog
24 May 2017
Re: Nationalisation ...unless of course they could manufacture a bail out in a way that the government ends up owning most of the equity e.g. HBOS/RBS and robbing the exisiting shareholders.
roadhog
24 May 2017
Re: Nationalisation Anything other than the government paying market value for the shares on day of nationalisation would make UK a basket case like Venezuela/Zimbabwe.... who would want to invest in the UK after that?
Over Rover
23 May 2017
Re: Nationalisation I have no more idea than I suspect Labour have as to how they would actually nationalise shareholder owned private companies. What I do suspect however is that Corbyn would not have any concern what so ever for all the 'rich people' who are shareholders and he is far too economically naive to work out that the vast majority of shares are actually owned by pension groups etc.
Saturn 777
23 May 2017
Nationalisation Hi All,Can anyone tell me in the off chance if Labour got into power and they nationalised energy, transport companies, what this means for shareholders.I have emailed and rang the investor relations department, who say we have no idea.I have emailed the local labour councillor, who does not know so is asking someone higher up she says.Does this mean shareholders loose 100% of their money/shares orthe present prevailing share price minus 2-3% (for admin of selling shares)Or ??Thanks,
EVPorated
17 May 2017
Re: nationalise The truth is that water companies spend too much money on financial engineering than they do on real engineering, much of it to meet with Ofwat's over-managing attitude . CEO's and associates are vastly overpaid, why pay them £1.5M+ with share options to match when in reality they are managing a monopoly business that only grows when developers give them new customers.They would do well to concentrate on what they are in business to do, rather than trying to constantly defend their reasons to overcharge and failing to properly operate their networks.the way I am a substantial shareholder and also spent 15yrs in middle management of a water company, Re nationalisation is an unlikely outcome but price pressure is a possibilty on all utilities whatever colour of government. we have.
Callun
17 May 2017
Re: Renationalise. Even so, there was a negative market reaction yesterday. Perhaps there is some concern that Mrs May is on the lookout for some more labour policies to add to her shopping basket? Probably not full blooded nationalisation, but why stop at interfering with the 'leccy and gas when there's water to play with?
Happy Rabbit
16 May 2017
Re: Renationalise. Batteryman,I think that there is a lot, lot less chance of them winning than "not much".Read some of their manifesto this morning and talk about utter nonsense. Fully costed, with not a penny set aside for nationalisation. Listened to some spokesman yesterday saying that as the franchises on the railways ran out, they would take them back into public ownership "so that won't cost anything"! Wow!!!Regards,
batteryman15
16 May 2017
Renationalise. I know there is not much chance of them winning the election but...........What planet are the Labour party on saying that they will renationalise the water industry???What affect do they think this would have on the stock market and investment and pension funds?Also renationalise the power industry. How, when most of it is now owned by overseas companies. What are they going to do, just take it back.also....If UK Gov had backed up Railtrack instead of letting the company fail, the rail network would now be running far better. So they refused to give grants to the old Railtrack because the Gov said that what they were asking for was too expensive, and then spent over four times the amount Railtrack wanted setting up and backing up Network rail. What a joke all this renationalisation talk is!
