|Bid||0.00 x 0|
|Ask||0.00 x 0|
|Day's Range||17.93 - 18.09|
|52 Week Range||13.78 - 18.09|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||0.91|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||37.12|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.67 (9.25%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||May 20, 2019|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
The approach will test the appetite of Ameresco's 72-year-old chairman and chief executive, George Sakellaris, to cash out. The sources cautioned that there is no certainty that Engie's interest will lead to deal negotiations and an agreement with Ameresco. Engie and Ameresco did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Now all eyes are on SoftBank, which reports earnings later this week. Elliott Management publicly called for changes at Masayoshi Son’s conglomerate. Activism, private equity and M&A are on the agenda at our Dealmakers and Dealbreakers conference in Tokyo on March 19.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Wanted: Knowledgeable and experienced CEO, preferably female, to take over the running of a $42 billion utility from a knowledgeable and experienced CEO, also female. No strategic shift necessary — the last CEO got things broadly right. Close ties with Emmanuel Macron a plus.That may well be the kind of job ad France’s Engie SA has in mind as it begins the search for a candidate to replace Isabelle Kocher, the only female chief executive officer in the CAC 40 blue-chip index. Her firing, barely four years into the job, says a lot about the consequences of trying to turn a fossil fuel-dependent energy utility into a greener, pro-renewables ally of sustainable, inclusive capitalism. Kocher’s strategy was broadly on target, but she ended up paying the price for the political, governance and financial problems that ensued. It’s a warning for her successor, and the industry.The seeds of Kocher’s downfall were probably sown early in her tenure. Her appointment in 2016 was a landmark for several reasons: She was the first woman to run a CAC 40 company; she was pledging to sell 15 billion euros ($16.5 billion) of Engie assets and to exit coal and oil; and she was the first serious counterweight to the power of Gerard Mestrallet, who after more than two decades in Engie’s driving seat became chairman. Thus began a series of struggles between the two over strategy, management and style that never really subsided. (Mestrallet was replaced as chairman by Jean-Pierre Clamadieu in 2018, but the latter’s relationship with Kocher deteriorated too).It’s always hard to make friends inside a company as you set about shrinking it. But Kocher’s revolution seems to have made enemies everywhere. Resentment built up among top managers, and she reacted by wielding the ax. Mestrallet, meanwhile, despite having groomed the CEO for the role, was reluctant to give her breathing space. In a clear example of “one rule for the boys,” she failed in her bid to take a joint chairman and CEO role — a position Mestrallet enjoyed for years. While Kocher’s style sometimes rubbed people the wrong way, Mestrallet’s sprawling Engie empire wasn’t easy to revamp. On the financial front, analysts endorsed Kocher’s plan to push deeper into renewables and services, reducing the risk of being lumbered with “stranded” fossil fuel assets. But the trade-offs of this kind of approach can be brutal in the short term. They mean selling unloved assets that still generate lots of cash, and buying pricey assets that don’t. Engie’s cash flow from operations has fallen from 9.8 billion euros in 2015 to 7.3 billion euros in 2018; Ebitda has fallen from 11.3 billion euros to 9.2 billion euros. Its shares have performed worse than its peers.Yet brighter days might not have been far off for Kocher and the company. Analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg suggest that Engie increased revenue and operating profit in 2019, and that its shares are about 7% below their 12-month potential. Engie’s board is reportedly mulling a spin-off of its regulated gas assets, which could bring in about 10 billion euros at market prices, according to UBS analysts.Unfortunately, nobody was prepared to wait and see. Politics proved to be the final decider on Kocher: The French state owns 24% of Engie, and the rift at the top was starting to make things awkward for President Emmanuel Macron. The government’s Engie stake has been marked for sale as a potential source of renewable energy funding; selling at an underwhelming price would be bad for taxpayers. Worse, Kocher’s allies in Paris — including Socialist Mayor Anne Hidalgo and several pro-environment politicians — launched a very public lobbying campaign to keep her in the job, which probably ended up hastening her demise.Before making the final decision to oust Kocher, French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire declared earlier this week that the state would use only “economic criteria” when settling her fate. That’s hard to believe, given that the clashes were mostly about personality and governance — and whoever replaces her will probably stick to the same strategy. Nevertheless, Kocher’s case does show the difficulty of mixing shareholder capitalism and the pursuit of purposeful profit.To contact the author of this story: Lionel Laurent at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Brussels. He previously worked at Reuters and Forbes.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
In order to justify the effort of selecting individual stocks, it's worth striving to beat the returns from a market...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The long-threatened U.S. sanctions against Nord Stream 2, Russia’s $10.5 billion natural gas pipeline to Germany, will finally take effect next week, but their timing and design can only slow down the project’s now-certain completion. Even so, Ukraine, the primary injured party from the new pipeline, is grateful for small favors from Washington.The sanctions — crafted by Senators Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat — have been attached to the 2020 National Defense Appropriations Act, which already has been approved by Congress; President Donald Trump has promised to sign it. The State and Treasury Departments will have 60 days to present to Congress a list of vessels involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2 and another Russian pipeline, TurkStream, and of people and firms that provided these ships. Those people and entities will have 30 days to wind down their business or they will be barred from entry to the U.S. and could have their assets frozen.The sanctions come too late to hurt TurkStream, which runs under the Black Sea to the western area of Turkey. The underwater part of the pipeline is complete and even filled with Russian natural gas. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the pipeline would be operational in early January.Nord Stream 2, a twin pipeline running under the Baltic Sea that allows Russia to avoid shipping gas overland through Ukraine, is another matter. Gazprom, the monopoly exporter of Russian pipeline gas, originally intended to complete it by the end of the year, and still had a chance to do in late October, when the Danish government gave permission to lay pipe in its waters. But inclement weather has played havoc with the construction, and earlier this week, the project’s operating company promised completion “in the coming months.” In late November, Dmitri Kozak, Russia’s deputy prime minister in charge of energy, said Nord Stream 2 would begin operation “in mid-2020.”Even with the effective 90-day grace period allowed by the U.S. sanctions, the last 168 kilometers of each of the two strings of pipe may not be laid by the time the punitive measures kick in. It’s unlikely that Allseas, the Swiss-based contractor now working on Nord Stream 2, will defy the U.S. restrictions if it’s not done in time. Then, Gazprom will need to use the only pipe-laying vessel it owns, the Academician Chersky, to finish the job — a slow and iffy scenario, even if Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says Nord Stream 2 won’t be halted. Congress could have been much harsher with its sanctions, though. It could have hit Nord Stream 2’s financial investors, all major European energy companies: Engie SA, Uniper SE, OMV AG, Wintershall Dea GmbH and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It could have sanctioned Russian debt. It could have made it impossible to import equipment for the construction of Russian pipelines and do repairs and maintenance on them. All of these measures have been considered at various times, but struck down in order to avoid a major confrontation with the European Union and an upheaval in financial markets.As things stand, the punitive measures have the appearance of a vindictive gesture, a nuisance move that won’t change what comes next. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s grand plan of supplying gas both to Europe bypassing Ukraine and to China through the just-opened Power of Siberia pipeline can no longer be scuppered. The likely Nord Stream 2 delay may even be beneficial for Russia, in a way. Competition from Middle Eastern and U.S. liquefied natural gas and warm weather have driven down the price of Russian pipeline gas in Europe. In the three months through September, the average gas price, $169.8 per 1,000 cubic meters, was 18% lower than in the preceding three months and 32% lower than a year before. The last time Gazprom faced such prices was in 2004. Increasing supplies in such a market situation would send prices tumbling even further.No matter how carefully the U.S. sanctions are crafted to spare European allies, Germany is still irritated. On Thursday, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas tweeted in response to the U.S. measures that “the European energy policy will be decided in Europe, not in the U.S. We fully reject external interference and extraterritorial sanctions.” Theoretically, the European Union could even retaliate by raising duties on American LNG.But the U.S. sanctions, belated, weak and irritating to the German government as they are, still aren’t completely pointless. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s office thanked U.S. Congress for them on Thursday, and while Ukraine routinely thanks Western governments for sanctioning Russia, this time there’s a specific reason for the gratitude. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a dispute over the future of Russian gas supplies through Ukraine’s pipeline system. The current contract runs out at the end of the year, and Ukraine wants a long-term agreement to replace it while Russia doesn’t want to commit itself. The possibility of a protracted delay to Nord Stream 2 strengthens the Ukrainian position because it makes Russia nervous, and time is running out for the EU-brokered negotiations if supplies of Russian gas to Europe are to continue without interruption. To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Tobin Harshaw at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion's Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has today downgraded to Baa1 from A3 the senior unsecured rating of SUEZ as well as its junior subordinated debt rating to Baa3 from Baa2. Concurrently, Moody's has affirmed SUEZ's Prime-2 short-term ratings.
Announcement of Periodic Review: Moody's announces completion of a periodic review of ratings of Engie YUL L.P. New York, November 14, 2019 -- Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of Engie YUL L.P. and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers.
Could ENGIE SA (EPA:ENGI) be an attractive dividend share to own for the long haul? Investors are often drawn to...
Moody's Investors Service, ("Moody's") today upgraded the rating assigned to Neptune Energy Bondco Plc's $550 million senior unsecured notes due 2025 to B1 from B2 and assigned a B1 rating to its proposed issuance of $500 million senior unsecured notes due 2026. Concurrently, Moody's affirmed the Ba3 Corporate Family Rating (CFR) and Ba3-PD Probability of Default Rating (PDR) of Neptune Energy Group Midco Limited (Neptune).
After looking at ENGIE SA's (ENXTPA:ENGI) latest earnings announcement (30 June 2019), I found it useful to revisit...
It seems Anheuser-Busch is set on trying every type of alternative-fuel-powered delivery truck available. In 2017, A-B announced it had ordered 40 electric Tesla semi-trucks. In 2018, A-B said it ordered as many as 800 hydrogen Nikola Motor Company semis.
Anheuser-Busch InBev (NYSE: BUD), one of the biggest customers in line for hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric trucks from Nikola Corp., is jumping into California's electric truck demonstration race with 21 BYD battery-electric beer delivery trucks. BYD is partnering with the non-profit Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE), and ENGIE Services U.S. for what BYD said is the largest Class 8 electric truck deployment in North America. Volvo Trucks North America said September 12 that it plans to deliver the first five of 23 Class 8 VNR trucks as part of its Volvo LIGHTS demonstration project before the end of the year.
(Bloomberg) -- Starbucks Corp. won a court fight and a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV unit lost one over European Union tax orders in decisions that left lawyers puzzling over the impact on Apple Inc.’s chances of toppling a record 13 billion-euro ($14.3 billion) bill.Even though the amounts at stake in Tuesday’s rulings -- about 30 million euros each for Starbucks and Fiat -- aren’t huge, lawyers are now poring over the judgments ahead of multiple appeals as companies, including the iPhone maker, counter EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager’s five-year crackdown on allegedly unfair tax deals.While Vestager generally came out of the latest rulings on top, “what this bodes for the eventual decision in the Apple case is still not clear,” said Howard Liebman, a tax partner at Jones Day, a Brussels law firm. He isn’t involved in the disputes. “There will be no ‘cookie cutter’ decisions relying on broad or sweeping generalizations about paying one’s ‘fair share’ of tax,” he said.The EU General Court in Luxembourg said Tuesday that the EU failed to show that coffee giant Starbucks obtained an unfair tax deal by the Netherlands. The judges threw out a similar challenge by Fiat over its fiscal arrangements in Luxembourg.“The principles laid down in these judgments provide some ammunition for both the taxpayers and the commission in the ongoing investigations,” said Natura Gracia, a lawyer with Linklaters in London.Tax AgreementsChallenges have been piling up at the EU courts since state-aid investigators started work in 2013 to unearth what they deemed to be the most problematic examples of otherwise legal individual tax agreements, known as tax rulings, doled out to companies by member countries.Luxembourg’s finance ministry said it would “analyze the judgment” and pointed out that the government “in the past few years has done numerous reforms to find against fiscal fraud and tax evasion.”The Dutch finance ministry is “glad there is clarity” following the court ruling, deputy finance minister Menno Snel said in an emailed statement. The judgment “means that the tax authorities have not treated Starbucks better or differently than other companies,” he said.Fiat said in an emailed statement that while it’s disappointed with the ruling and considering its next steps, the decision isn’t material to the group.No ‘Special’ TreatmentStarbucks said in a statement that it pays its taxes wherever they are due and that the ruling in its challenge “makes clear” that it “did not receive any special tax treatment from the Netherlands.”The decisions, which can be appealed to the EU Court of Justice, “give important guidance” to the commission on how to apply EU state aid rules in tax cases, and the regulator will study them before deciding on the next steps, according to a statement by Vestager.She said they “confirmed the commission’s approach to assess whether a measure is selective and if transactions between group companies give rise to an advantage under EU state-aid rules based on the so-called ‘arm’s length principle’.”Vestager, who’s set to take on another five-year stint as competition commissioner, said she’ll continue to look at “aggressive tax planning measures under EU state aid.” Ultimately, the goal is that all companies “pay their fair share of tax,” she said.In the Apple case, the EU said Ireland illegally reduced the company’s tax bill, a finding Apple and Irish officials don’t accept.Apple declined to comment Tuesday beyond pointing to its remarks in a hearing in its own appeal at the same court last week. It told judges it’s “now paying around 20 billion euros in tax in the U.S. on the very same profits that the Commission says should also have been taxed in Ireland.”The guidance from judges on the European Commission’s use of state aid law could also have an impact on Vestager’s tax probes, now centering on fiscal deals done by Alphabet Inc. and Ikea.Starbucks and Fiat were targeted on the same day in 2015 by a similar EU order to pay back 30 million euros each over their tax arrangements in the Netherlands and Luxembourg respectively.The EU said at the time the companies did this by setting prices for products and services sold between units -- called transfer prices -- that didn’t reflect market conditions.“These two judgments prove that the court will look at the precise facts of each state aids case brought before it and judge each on their individual merits,” Liebman said in an email.Finding itself at the receiving end of most of the EU’s decisions since then, Luxembourg was ordered to recoup 250 million euros from Amazon.com Inc. in 2017 and 120 million euros in back taxes from energy utility Engie SA, France’s former natural-gas monopoly, previously known as GDF Suez, last year.The cases are: T-636/16 - Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v. Commission, T-755/15 - Luxembourg v. Commission, T-759/15 - Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v. Commission, T-760/15 - Netherlands v. Commission.\--With assistance from Ruben Munsterman and Tommaso Ebhardt.To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Bodoni in Luxembourg at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at email@example.com, Peter Chapman, Paul SillitoeFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. may only need to wait until Tuesday to get early clues about its chances of success in the biggest tax case in recent history.The iPhone maker has been arguing its case at the European Union’s General Court to topple a record 13 billion-euro ($14.3 billion) EU tax order. This week the same panel of judges will deliver a ruling on two smaller but related challenges by Starbucks Corp. and a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV unit.They’re the first in a series of cases to come to a decision as companies rail against EU Competition chief Margrethe Vestager’s five-year crackdown on allegedly unfair tax deals.While the facts of the various appeals differ, Tuesday’s decisions “should have a far-reaching impact, both on the other pending cases and going forward,” said Howard Liebman, a tax partner at law firm Jones Day in Brussels, who isn’t involved in the disputes.The judges’ stance will “presumably establish some precedent as to how far the court is willing to allow the commission to extend its approach of judging tax regimes -– and individual tax rulings –- in the context of a state-aids analysis,” he said.Vestager’s ProbesAppeals have been piling up at the EU courts since state-aid investigators started work in 2013 to unearth what they deem to be the most problematic examples of otherwise legal individual tax agreements doled out to companies by countries. The judges’ verdicts could empower or halt Vestager’s probes, which are now centering on fiscal deals done by Amazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc.Starbucks and Fiat were targeted on the same day in 2015 by a similar EU order to pay back about 30 million euros each over their tax arrangements in the Netherlands and Luxembourg respectively.The commission accused Luxembourg and the Netherlands of granting so-called tax rulings to the companies that backed “artificial and complex methods” to calculate their taxable profits that didn’t reflect “economic reality.”The EU said at the time the companies did this by setting prices for products and services sold between units -- called transfer prices -- that didn’t reflect market conditions.“As a result, most of the profits of Starbucks’ coffee roasting company are shifted abroad, where they are also not taxed, and Fiat’s financing company only paid taxes on underestimated profits,” said in a 2015 statement.Back TaxesLuxembourg has since also been ordered to recoup 250 million euros from Amazon.com and 120 million euros in back taxes from energy utility Engie SA, France’s former natural-gas monopoly, previously known as GDF Suez.In the Apple case, the EU said Ireland illegally slashed the iPhone maker’s tax bill between 2003-2014, a finding the company and Irish officials don’t accept.The EU alleged that “Apple paid essentially no tax on earnings in Europe” and “sought headlines by quoting tiny numbers, but this public campaign ignores the taxes Apple pays all across the world,” Apple attorney Daniel Beard said at last week’s hearing.The Dutch finance ministry said it had nothing to add to previous statements criticizing the EU’s approach. Fiat Chrysler, Starbucks, Apple and the commission declined to comment, as did the Luxembourg and Irish finance ministries. EU nations ordered to claw back the allegedly illegal tax aid have accused the commission of overreaching itself by using state aid law to attack individual fiscal arrangements that dated back many years. A key question for the commission in the cases is whether its argument that these tax rulings were selective and unfair stands up in court.“The commission did not identify a single instance where a taxpayer was treated less favorably than Apple,” Paul Gallagher, a lawyer for Ireland, told the judges in the court hearings last week.Luxembourg, which has so far faced the brunt of the EU’s decisions, has attacked the “arbitrary nature” of the commission’s approach which creates “complete legal uncertainty,” their lawyer Denis Waelbroeck said in a court hearing about Fiat’s case last year. Ireland and Luxembourg have supported each other in their respective appeals.The nation was among the first EU countries to be singled out in 2014 over its tax practices, when a group of investigative reporters published thousands of pages from secret arrangements between the tiny nation and companies including Walt Disney Co., Microsoft Corp.’s Skype and PepsiCo Inc. The so-called LuxLeaks publications have been used by EU regulators in their deliberations and EU officials further expanded their probes by seeking new information to find more “outliers” among these tax deals.Still, in a first in the EU’s continued crackdown on “outliers” among these otherwise legal tax rulings, the commission last year closed its probe into the fiscal deal between McDonald’s Corp. and Luxembourg, finding there was no violation of state aid laws.The cases are T-636/16 - Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v. Commission, T-755/15 - Luxembourg v. Commission, T-759/15 - Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v. Commission, T-760/15 - Netherlands v. Commission,(Updates with more on Luxleaks revelations and McDonald’s probe in last two paragraphs.)\--With assistance from Peter Flanagan, Daniele Lepido and Ruben Munsterman.To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Bodoni in Luxembourg at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at email@example.comFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") announced today that the proposed changes by Trafigura Securitisation Finance PLC will not, in and of itself and at this time, cause the current Moody's ratings of the debt issued by the Issuer to be reduced or withdrawn.