Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

3 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 >   
 
  
Reply to this topic

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - Winners-Losers
flower
post Posted: Sep 6 2012, 10:40 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,991
Thanks: 1105


In Reply To: nipper's post @ Sep 6 2012, 10:37 AM

QUOTE
lawyers,


You could re-spell that!



--------------------
Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
 
nipper
post Posted: Sep 6 2012, 10:37 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 6,429
Thanks: 2240


In Reply To: flower's post @ Sep 6 2012, 10:34 AM

miscalculation! - singular? only one of many

but I agree; lawyers, not practical people, mainly




--------------------
"Every long-term security is nothing more than a claim on some expected future stream of cash that will be delivered into the hands of investors over time. For a given stream of expected future cash payments, the higher the price investors pay today for that stream of cash, the lower the long-term return they will achieve on their investment over time." - Dr John Hussman

"If I had even the slightest grasp upon my own faculties, I would not make essays, I would make decisions." ― Michel de Montaigne
 
flower
post Posted: Sep 6 2012, 10:34 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,991
Thanks: 1105


Julia's monumental miscalculation!---RESIGN biggrin.gif
-------------------------------------------

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=...9-lGseZu9zucbKg


Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power stations are up to $1 billion better off because of the Federal Government's carbon tax package, according to new analysis by a private economic forecaster.

The figures may shed light on why talks aimed at closing down five of the country's highest polluting stations ultimately collapsed because of a disagreement over compensation.

According to Frontier Economics, brown coal power stations are between $400 million and $1 billion better off than they would have been if the government did not go ahead with the carbon tax package.

"If the objective of the carbon tax was to reduce greenhouse emissions and to discourage investment and high emission generation, you've got to believe it's been an abject failure," Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price told ABC Radio's AM program.

"It's a sick joke really on the environment."

The new analysis has been revealed just a day after the Government shelved plans to pay high-emitting power stations to close down.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said talks between the Government and power station operators failed to agree on how much the assets were worth.



--------------------
Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
 
veeone
post Posted: Jun 20 2011, 11:40 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 5,055
Thanks: 1115


Carbon tax: stocks to win and lose, from Virgin to Bluescope
Subject to parliamentary approval, the Labour/Greens government’s proposed two-stage plan for a carbon price mechanism will commence this year. The plan is for a flat price to apply for three to five years, before moving to a market traded price.
A few dozen of Australia’s highest-emitting polluters are expected to pay a whopping 75 per cent of the government’s proposed carbon tax-take between them. This means identifying those companies likely to suffer most at the hands of a carbon price should be patently obvious.Electricity generators will be the worst affected and are expected to pay 56 per cent of the carbon price directly between them. But a carbon tax is also forecast to deliver a net-negative to myriad listed stocks across different sectors.
As a case in point, stocks that export to global markets or that compete with imports domestically, may be less competitive with global rivals that aren’t yet subject to a carbon price. Similarly, many local manufacturers may struggle to pass on the costs of a carbon tax onto customers.
Up to 20 listed stocks are included within Australia’s top 50 carbon emitters, but there’s no correlation between volume of the carbon emission and the EPS impact. For example, while Santos (STO) and Rio Tinto (RIO) are among the country’s biggest emitters, the impact on their EPS is only expected to be -3 and -2 per cent respectively.
By comparison, rival aviators Virgin Blue (VBA) and Qantas (QAN) will both be hit hard. It’s not clear whether or when aviation will receive any compensation. But assuming it doesn’t, Elaine Prior analyst with Citi estimates Qantas – which also has non-Australian related emissions – to incur a carbon cost of around A$74 million or $12.9 million net profit in full year 2013, rising to around A$150 million in full year 2020 or $26.2 million net profit.
Based on her ‘most-likely-case’ carbon tax scenario, its heavy industry that is most exposed to a carbon tax. She expects the biggest carbon impacts to be on Alumina (AWC), Caltex (CTX), Adelaide Brighton (ABC), CSR and Macarthur Coal (MCC) - accounting for a 5.4, 5.1, 3.3, 2.7 and 2.4 per cent respectively of net profit in full year 2013. Even after passing on around 75 per cent of the carbon cost to fare-paying customers, JP Morgan expects Virgin Blue and Qantas to incur the biggest carbon price EPS-hits of -28 per cent and -12 per cent respectively over full year 2013-2015.
The magnitude of any carbon tax depends on both the cost-per-tonne, and the level of compensation that trade-exposed industries receive. Much of the devil will be in the policy detail, notably around the level of free permits to “emissions intensive trade exposed” industry (EITEs) like steel, cement and aluminium, since prices are set on international markets. According to a recent analysis of power supply contracts, the energy market is pricing in a 50 per cent chance that a carbon price will not be in place by the middle of next year as planned.
But assuming a carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) is implemented similar to that proposed under the former Rudd government, industries like steel-making will receive compensation for around 95 per cent of the carbon tax. Without compensation, rival broker UBS estimates that a $25/tonne carbon tax would shave $1.60 off Bluescope Steel’s (BSL) net present value (NPV) and $.075 off OneSteel’s (OST) NPV.
Assuming the compensation is similar to that proposed under the CPRS, UBS suggests the EPS impact on BlueScope, Australia’s seventh largest carbon emitter - and the largest emitter among listed stocks - is expected to be in the vicinity of -5 per cent. The total estimated cumulative cost to BlueScope for the first eight years of the scheme is expected to be at least $450 million.
Assuming coalminers are able to hand-ball on the cost carbon, Bluescope’s chairman Andrew Purvis says the cost could be as much as $1.2 billion. Equally concerning to Bluescope and other casualties of a carbon tax is where the price of carbon will rise to over time – with some analysts speculating a price of $70-$100/tonne over the longer term.
The market has been quick to vent its fear over carbon tax uncertainty, with the Bluescope and OneSteel share price down by around 30 per cent since Prime Minister Gillard announced a carbon tax consultation process last February. Currently trading at less than a fifth of the $9.95 it traded at in May 2007, Bluescope Steel was our Bear of the Week four weeks ago - and it has dropped a whopping 20% since then.
Explosives and chemicals group Orica (ORI), ranked 36th in Australia’s carbon emission-stakes - can expect an ESP hit of a similar magnitude to Bluescope. Assuming the carbon price is set at $25/tonne, Orica’s 2.3 million tonnes of annual Co2 will shave around $60 million off the firm’s $6 billion in annual revenue.
Over the last five years, Orica has cut its carbon output by 57 per cent, and is expected to continue doing so in the wake of a carbon tax. But the jury’s out on how much of Orica’s carbon tax cost could be passed on to customers, especially given that much of its product is sold on three-year contracts.
As long as mining tax continues to take centre stage, investors won’t turn their attention to the impact of a carbon tax on the mining sector’s cost structure. Amongst miners, some analysts expect mineral sands miner Iluka (ILU) and Macarthur Coal (MCC) to be worst affected - with EPS hits of -4 per cent and -3 per cent respectively.
While the carbon tax will be a more significant factor for these sub-sectors of mining, the net impact on industrials is expected to be much more evident. Based on JP Morgan estimates of $25/tonne, the carbon tax will deliver a negative impact on EPS of an average 2.4 per cent, with big retailers like Woolworths (WOW) expected to take -2 per cent EPS hit.
But not all stocks are casualties of a carbon tax, with energy companies Origin Energy (ORG) and AGL Energy (AGK) expected to see their EPS rise by 1 and 2 per cent respectively over the first three years. Both AGL and Origin stand to profit handsomely from the extra demand for gas-generated power.
Origin's Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) joint venture in Gladstone recently signed a $90 billion deal with Sinopec of China to export gas. What’s expected to make this and other LNG deals look even more favourable is a strong likelihood that government will stump-up with an even better deal to assist LNG producers than initially offered under the former CPRS. The LNG industry argues that’s it’s deserving of such deals, especially given that for every tonne of LNG-related Co2 emissions in Australia there’ll be up to seven tonnes saved globally - because the gas is essentially substituting for coal.
To see the list click http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/20618...-bluescope.html





Said 'Thanks' for this post: Alethia  
 
mrbear
post Posted: Mar 27 2011, 08:30 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 787
Thanks: 152


In Reply To: wolverine's post @ Mar 26 2011, 08:01 PM

He could have a point there wolver as our backsides are bound to be sore after this ridiculous new carbon tax reams us along with the myriad of other taxes.

I am sure in a few years and countless billions in tax collected from we suckers it will end up like the propellant gas changes a few years ago in relation to the ozone layer with the scientists saying it is a natural planet cycle,cheers mrbear

 
wolverine
post Posted: Mar 27 2011, 07:03 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 10,059
Thanks: 878


In Reply To: arty's post @ Mar 27 2011, 06:30 PM

...and long stop



--------------------
TOO MANY CHIEFS

NOT ENOUGH INDIANS
 

sentifi.com

Share Cafe Sentifi Top themes and market attention on:


arty
post Posted: Mar 27 2011, 06:30 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 13,078
Thanks: 3381


In Reply To: wolverine's post @ Mar 27 2011, 06:11 PM

... that's why I suspect there is no "keeper" anymore sadsmiley02.gif



--------------------
I trade daily, but I am not a licensed adviser. Whether you find my ideas reasonable or not: The only person responsible for your actions is YOU.
I follow two rules: (1) There are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. (2) Whatever is inconsistent with observed facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Market as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. (inspired by Carl Sagan)
 
Smartman_plc
post Posted: Mar 27 2011, 06:23 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 404
Thanks: 17


In Reply To: arty's post @ Mar 15 2011, 07:33 PM

You could have gone further there Arty. Isn't Australia suppose to reduce its CO2 emissions by 5%.

So 5% of 0.18 milimetres is 9 micrometres (or 9 microns if you prefer the older terminology).



--------------------
Cheers,
Smartman
 
wolverine
post Posted: Mar 27 2011, 06:11 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 10,059
Thanks: 878


In Reply To: arty's post @ Mar 27 2011, 04:58 PM

Beats me arty, I alerted the mods yesterday and it has gone through to the keeper.



--------------------
TOO MANY CHIEFS

NOT ENOUGH INDIANS
 
arty
post Posted: Mar 27 2011, 04:58 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 13,078
Thanks: 3381


In Reply To: wolverine's post @ Mar 26 2011, 08:01 PM

Has the change of ownership changed the moderator function?
There used to be a time when such an obnoxious post was removed within seconds of it being reported. An "Alert Moderator" would send messages to about a dozen mods, one of whom would always be on roster.
Now? Nothing. Seems only one moderator is left, and of course no single person can be on duty 24x7.



--------------------
I trade daily, but I am not a licensed adviser. Whether you find my ideas reasonable or not: The only person responsible for your actions is YOU.
I follow two rules: (1) There are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. (2) Whatever is inconsistent with observed facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Market as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. (inspired by Carl Sagan)
 
 


3 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 >

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING