Octopus Tracker

Doc_N

bristolleedsfan said:

SJMALBA said:

Qyburn said:

SJMALBA said:

bristolleedsfan said:

SJMALBA said:

Tracker is not hedged, it's based upon day ahead wholesale prices to which Octopus applies its own formula to arrive at the retail unit rate charged to customers (which covers their costs and, presumably, some profit?).

Screenshot posted either on this thread of another tracker thread of a DM reply from Octo chief along the lines that Ofgem have required energy companies to hedge virtually all customers energy.

How do you hedge Tracker?

That's the point, Octopus has already committed to hedging, it is paying the hedged price for energy bought months in advance. Tracker customers are being supplied from that hedged advance purchased energy supply, which is costing Octopus that hedged price. 

Maybe someone can explain clearer.  But it seems to me that they can't do both, can't bin their committed supply arrangements, defaulting on those contracts, just because lots of people have joined Tracker and Octopus can buy their energy on the day ahead market.

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

SJMALBA

In conclusion, Tracker doesn't work the way that it is supposed to (or the way that Octopus says it does) because of the Westminster government and ofgem?

Sounds about right... 

masonic

Doc_N said:

masonic said:

Doc_N said:

masonic said:

This is the part that I simply cannot fathom. Suppose that it is loss-making as Octopus has claimed. It has been consistently lower than the average Agile rate, so not implausible that this is the case, and there have been good explanations earlier in the thread about the true cost to Octopus. A number of fixed costs are added to the wholesale rate to arrive at the unit rate and these may require adjustment.

It is within their power to adjust the formula to address this. It is completely normal for a supplier to adjust a tariff to reflect changes to underlying costs. So to a large extent this is a problem of their own making. If they didn't want to adjust the tariff, they could move it to their historic tariffs list and phase it out. Evidently it is not doing them any good running a waitlist and offering the tariff to 50 people a day. It simply isn't worth the aggravation of all of these disgruntled customers, some of which seem to be on a campaign of hostility due to their wait.

Firstly, I just don't accept any claim that it's a loss maker.  But secondly, they now appear to be using it as a means of luring new customers into their standard tariffs on a half-promise that they might at some point be moved to the Tracker - or indeed might not.  Such practices have very questionable legality.

If it is a fact that it is a loss maker, then your failure to accept it doesn't make it any less true. There isn't sufficient information for someone outside of the business to make such a judgement.

I'm not aware of any law preventing an energy supplier from putting a customer on a tariff and allowing them to register interest for a gated tariff which may or may not be offered to them subject to future availability. If you know of any such legislation, would you mind sharing?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/schedule/1/made

Paras 5 & 6 - subject of course to the particular facts of each case.

Yes, agree that could be arguable in the case the Tracker tariff has been promoted to a customer by Octopus (rather than HUKD) and the tariff gets pulled while the customer is on the waitlist. It seems to me that Octopus has always kept this tariff relatively hidden, but there could be instances where it was suggested to a prospective customer by Octopus, rather than an existing customer telling Octopus they want to move to it and then being informed of the current situation regarding the waitlist.

Qyburn

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

Doc_N

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

bristolleedsfan

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

masonic

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

Doc_N

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

Thanks. I’m well aware of what their reps have been saying on Twitter, but so far, despite searching for it, I’ve not been able to find one single authoritative statement from a company official.

Twitter is notorious for inaccurate statements from companies who can then blame junior call centre staff for errors. I’m still left wondering why the company has never confirmed these Twitter comments, despite all the publicity. I suspect it’s because they can’t be substantiated.

It’s a simple but common tactic.

70sbudgie

masonic said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Doc_N said:

Qyburn said:

Doc_N said:

So Octopus effectively aren't allowed to buy DA for Tracker (even though they base the UR for Tracker on DA), but have to use hedged energy instead?! That's crazy!

If that is the case, why haven't they removed Tracker as an option?

Octopus consistently say that all its beta tariffs are loss making and that they offer them to show they can be done.

Just out of curiosity, have they made an official statement to that effect? All I can find is vague comments by their CS people on Twitter. It’s very easy to put about an unevidenced story about making losses, when what constitutes a loss has considerably more to do with accountancy practices used than actual income and expenditure. It’s very easy to create a theoretical loss if you want to.

OK that's fair enough, nothing will convince you. Even though you have no evidence at all for your opinion it's clear that nothing will change your mind. 

I was and still am genuinely open minded on the matter. But so far I've not seen any evidence that this company is taking the highly unusual step of offering contracts which it knows will make it losses. That's just not normal business practice. 

Neither for that matter have I seen any official statement from the company suggesting that Tracker is a loss maker.

None of this is believable to you ????  https://twitter.com/search?q=betA tariffs loss making&src=typed_query&f=live

It's clear from that one of the following is true:

1. The tariff is in fact loss-making
2. Octopus is publicly and provably making false and unlawful statements that should result in Ofgem taking enforcement action against them, and opening the door for customers to bring individual legal claims against them, putting their very existence under threat

Surely anyone who believes (2) has a duty to make Ofgem aware of the situation, and would probably be wise to switch to another supplier to avoid the fallout.

I didn't read all the comments in the Twitter link, so could have missed something that prompted point 2. Because I really can't see how you've come to that conclusion?

I am an existing Octopus customer and have recently signed up to the wait list.

I have come to the conclusion that I must be a loyal Octopus customer - I have always understood (and am attracted by) their aim to be an industry disruptor - demonstrating how things can be done differently. The fact that they have weathered the recent flush of failing companies and have also significantly grown their customer base, such that they are no longer niche, suggests that they must have a good financial base. I would imagine that things like increasing the size of the generating part of the company to subsidise the loss making supply company, restricting access to the most loss making tariffs are all part of the reason why they can weather this storm. (The negotiations for the Bulb customers must have been very interesting)

I did a quick calc - 50 new registrations a day over 6 months is about 6,500 new sign ups. Not particularly significant if the total customer base is ~5M (I think someone posted that number above?), but pretty significant if the previous total customers on the tariff is <100.

I believe that the Government involvement in energy pricing has lead to all supply companies making a loss. So increasingly, there are only suppliers that are part of groups of companies, where the other companies in the group are financially supporting the failling supplier. British Gas is another example that springs to mind.

tlcgrantham

Delighted as today my Gas Tracker V2 has been rolled over for another year just as my Go Faster was last July. Octopus didn’t have to do this and must be doing so at a cost to them. Their loyalty to customers surely inspires similar in return?