MSE News: British Gas owner posts £1.3bn profit, so why the price hikes?

backfoot

magyar wrote: »

I don't work for Centrica, am a big critic of the big six and I can promise you this is rubbish - for exactly the reasons stated in this thread.

I didn't say you worked for Centrica. I know you don't. I think the report is poorly written as well.

I happened to briefly comment that miliscent's post was relevant as the Business has a generation arm as well.

These threads tend to divide people into two camps and go round in circles. All I said to Milliscent was to avoid and then some poster has a right go at me in an agrressive tone.

Ah well.

p.s. I wondered where Smidgey's attack on me came from?

It seems he gave advice regarding BG's Termination Fees and I said they weren't payable following the price increase. I suspect he's smarting as BG have now decided to waive the fees.

SwanJon

Ah, nothing like making things up to make your point.

MillicentBystander wrote: »

a product that the human race relies on for its very existence

You honestly think that without gas and electricity the human race would die out?

This is very similar to many of your posts - say something inflamatory without any effort to back it up, then repeat.

Enjoy.

eurmalian

backfoot wrote: »

I happened to briefly comment that miliscent's post was relevant as the Business has a generation arm as well.

Well, I am one of the hated Centrica employees and even I'll admit that the exploration and generation arm appears to be making a rather substantial profit at the moment. Almost definitely more than it really needs to.

The question is in what way that relates to the British Gas price rises that the article also bangs on about, given that the two sections must be run seperately and cannot subsidise each other.

If the article had just stuck to one side or another it would have been fine, but mixing the two stinks of 'did not do the research' or at least 'ignored the research in favor of tabloid style sensationalism'

ihateyes

eurmalian wrote: »

, given that the two sections must be run seperately and cannot subsidise each other.

This is the point...... generation cant subsidise retail.

I think thats as far as this arguement goes.
I dont mind stickin up for companies when people are being fed drivel by the news.
At the same time, il jump on the companies when i feel they are pullin a fast one.....

backfoot

eurmalian wrote: »

Well, I am one of the hated Centrica employees and even I'll admit that the exploration and generation arm appears to be making a rather substantial profit at the moment. Almost definitely more than it really needs to.

The question is in what way that relates to the British Gas price rises that the article also bangs on about, given that the two sections must be run seperately and cannot subsidise each other.

If the article had just stuck to one side or another it would have been fine, but mixing the two stinks of 'did not do the research' or at least 'ignored the research in favor of tabloid style sensationalism'

I don't hate you or any BG employees. I happen to think you are an excellent poster on a wide range of subjects.:)

As I said, the report is poor. As I also said and is now proven, that the thread will contain many contributions from BG employees.

The fact that cross subsidy should not occur is correct. I haven't looked into the overall position and it would take a lot of time to analyse it properly. I used to do it for a living but can't be bothered now.

I did have a look at Centrica's broker rating though and it shows that 15 out of 21 have them as a strong buy/buy. So if you have a few bob, we could hedge our bets and invest in them, so if they are fleecing us,we can have a bit back.

smidgey

You commented on something that wasn't relevant. You snipe at the company and it’s employees.

The article written is very poor and does nothing but try and stir people up about something without reporting the true facts.

It's true the wholesale arm has made a substantial profit and I am not disputing that but it cannot be used to subsidise the residential arm. In the same tone the residential arm cannot be run at a loss.

The other issue you highlight I still stand by regardless of which energy company I get my supply from. If I sign up to a variable tariff with an exit fee then that is my choice. I know what i'm signing up for at the time and know that my prices can go up and can go down but I take that gamble knowing the tariff is the cheapest one the company offers at that time but I will be happy not to pay them if I decide to move to EDF's 3 year fix

VT82

MillicentBystander wrote: »

I'm sure you weren't intending such a thing but this post just illustrates the absolute folly of selling off the industry in the first place. We've been left with a farcical situation where an industry which supplies a product that the human race relies on for its very existence can only talk about shareholders, bondholders, share prices, leverages blah blah blah, affiliate commission, door knockers offering their WORST deals etc etc. Maybe I'm just an idealist but IMO an industry which supplies a basic human need should never ever be entrusted to people who think in these terms.

Privatisation gives incentives to improve efficiency. If publically owned, there would be no incentive to keep prices low, as there would be no competition. There would also be no incentive to improve efficiency, as all managers would know their jobs were safe and the business would always be propped up by taxpayers. We would then either be paying for this inefficiency through higher bills or higher taxes.

backfoot

smidgey wrote: »

You commented on something that wasn't relevant. You snipe at the company and it’s employees.

What wasn't relevant? It was to me.

Not really, I think you are exagerrating re BG.

Maybe occasionally but only where I think they deserve it. Not the employees usually but I do make exceptions....;) I think NP and EDF are far worse on personal experience.

It's true the wholesale arm has made a substantial profit and I am not disputing that but it cannot be used to subsidise the residential arm. In the same tone the residential arm cannot be run at a loss.

I think that was what Milliscent said in a round about way.That was the relevant bit,which you then jumped down my neck and now suddenly agree.

The other issue you highlight I still stand by regardless of which energy company I get my supply from. If I sign up to a variable tariff with an exit fee then that is my choice. I know what i'm signing up for at the time and know that my prices can go up and can go down but I take that gamble knowing the tariff is the cheapest one the company offers at that time but I will be happy not to pay them if I decide to move to EDF's 3 year fix

On the Termination Fee issue, I wouldn't go on repeating that view in your role as a BG employee as it is in breach of their License Conditions. :eek:

eurmalian

I think that the worst part is that if the author had bothered to read her own sites forums she would have found all of what we've pulled her up on already explained there. That's just incredibly lazy, not to mention more than a little arrogant...

MillicentBystander

VT82 wrote: »

Privatisation gives incentives to improve efficiency. If publically owned, there would be no incentive to keep prices low, as there would be no competition. There would also be no incentive to improve efficiency, as all managers would know their jobs were safe and the business would always be propped up by taxpayers. We would then either be paying for this inefficiency through higher bills or higher taxes.

Hmmmmm...not really sure this is a valid argument. What do we have now that we wouldn't have if it was still nationalised?

1. 5 hugely expensive IT systems (BGs alone reportedly cost £500,000,000 and worked so poorly they sued the contractors!)
2. 5 Customer service centres.
3. 6 Sales Depts.
4. 6 lots of [STRIKE]paid liars[/STRIKE] door knockers.
5. 5 incredibly well paid CEOs.
6. Millions of shareholders taking dividends, including foreign shareholders who presumably spend their dividend income/profits from selling shares in their own country.
7. Actual foreign ownership - profits going overseas.
8. Countless commission based switching sites (this expenditure is clearly recouped from the customer in the end).
9. OFGEM??

I'm sure there's more. And as a fairly recent EDF customer I have to laugh about the alleged efficiency argument.