Masuzoe won the election. You're grasping at straws here, pal.
Pretty much exactly what marty said. The pro/anti nuclear debate has little to no bearing on existing reactors, it's about whether new ones are built.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone is eventually "going green." That's not a particularly new insight. The problem is that reliable green energy technology is still grossly cost prohibitive to be put into mass production at the level that Japan needs. And in all reality, according to the experts, green technology prices and efficiency are about 20 - 30 years away from where they would have to be for Japan to replace 35% of its energy sources (which is what nukes made up prior to 3/11) with them.
What's the source of that poll? Last numbers I saw about a week ago had about 40% favoring none, 30 % favoring them, and 30% undecided. Are you lumping together the undecideds with the against? Should go work for Frank Luntz.
To be fair, conservativerules is clearly DrStone, so he's been posting for a bit more than 1 month.
I just figured after almost 2 years of the same shtick, he'd get tired of it. What's truly great is how he thinks he's so clever that because he doesn't use his DrStone alias anymore, people won't recognize it's him. It's actually really sad.
I ran the numbers, and basically for the current stock price to be within the realms of sensibility (A P/E between 15 and 15), they have to both TRIPLE their current TV rights fees from $140M to $420M (seems very unrealistic) and increase their net profit margin from the current 2.2% to a more reasonable 8% (which prior to 2011, was typically between 9% - 12%). As soon as any of these two assumptions fail to materialize, the current valuation is absurd.
When you're receiving loans at 1% interest and under, there's no need to issue more shares.
A holding company would mean that each of TEPCOs individual businesses, such as power generation, transmission, etc. would be spun off into their own firms, with the TEPCO holding company owning shares in the new individual firms.Turning TEPCO into a holding company would mean that current common shareholders would receive a proportional share amount of the new individual firms. This won't happen for two reasons:
1) The govts. preferreds, which were issued mainly to "take control" of the firm, are convertible into commons. If TEPCO was turned into a holding company, a third party (not the govt. or TEPCO) would buy up control of one of the individual businesses, such as power generation, leaving the government unable to "control" that aspect of the firm.
2) Building on that, if each of the businesses were spun off individually, it leaves open the possibility that someone else could come in and buy up a majority stake (or a significant proportion), thus greatly influencing a major area of operations. Were this to happen, it would greatly impede the ability to continue producing a "stable electricity supply," which BOTH the govt. and TEPCO have made clear is the paramount goal, to which everything else is subservient. Neither party can take the risk that this would occur.
Thus, there is zero chance of any conversion to a holding company. Restarting all the reactors at Kashiwazaki, however, is excellent news.
You're not a U.S. citizen, so it's not as if you know about "what it means to be an American" either.
And I'm sure the fact that this"holding company" nonsense, which was being reported at the same time as their earnings, has NOTHING to do with the fact that they just turned a profit for the second quarter in a row. None whatsoever. Nope. Not even a factor.
ROTFL at the notion that the utility which supplies 25% of the Japanese population with power to becoming a holding company. Consider the ramifications for the other nuclear power utilities with a move like that, and you'll realize why it'll never happen. And if such an unlikely scenario were to occur, it would've happened 2 years ago, not after a direct 12B taxpayer injection and the massive amount of roll over debt that their creditors have been issuing over the past several weeks. If you believe this will actually happen, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn I might be able to interest you in.
9/11 was an inside job + Invasion of Iraq = NYT bad investment in 2013. All those M1 Abrams tanks were the obvious reason as to the Times' increase in operating expenses.
Your logic is impeccable.