RDS-B - Royal Dutch Shell plc
| Previous Close | 55.10 |
| Open | 55.28 |
| Bid | 55.33 x 1300 |
| Ask | 55.66 x 1300 |
| Day's Range | 55.11 - 55.69 |
| 52 Week Range | 54.78 - 72.06 |
| Volume | 2,173,329 |
| Avg. Volume | 1,694,707 |
| Market Cap | 221.608B |
| Beta (3Y Monthly) | 0.58 |
| PE Ratio (TTM) | 11.19 |
| EPS (TTM) | 4.96 |
| Earnings Date | N/A |
| Forward Dividend & Yield | 3.76 (6.82%) |
| Ex-Dividend Date | 2019-08-15 |
| 1y Target Est | 82.00 |
- Barrons.com
Wall Street Has Abandoned Oil and Gas Stocks. You Shouldn’t.
The beaten-down energy sector is starting to look oversold. That’s misguided. Here are some picks to play a rebound.
- Bloomberg
Touch-Screens in Cars Don’t Make Us Safer – Yet
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Two years ago, 10 sailors died when the U.S. Navy’s guided missile destroyer USS John S. McCain collided with a chemical tanker off Singapore. An investigation has determined that insufficient training and inadequate operating procedures were to blame, and both factors were related to a new touch-screen-based helm control system. The Navy has decided to revert its destroyers back to entirely physical throttles and helm controls.It’s worth exploring the Navy’s rationale for installing touch-screens (“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” says Rear Admiral Bill Galinis), as well as its rationale for getting rid of them:Galinis said that bridge design is something that shipbuilders have a lot of say in, as it’s not covered by any particular specification that the Navy requires builders to follow. As a result of innovation and a desire to incorporate new technology, “we got away from the physical throttles, and that was probably the number-one feedback from the fleet – they said, just give us the throttles that we can use.”There are lessons here — including a prescient one from 50 years ago — for other, more mundane transport-control interfaces as well.Large, interactive touch-screens are becoming increasingly prevalent in passenger cars; in the case of Tesla, they’re the only control interface. They’re lovely to look at, but as the Navy’s experience suggests, they might be more confusing than physical controls. That confusion isn’t academic, either: Distracted driving is an increasingly dangerous problem. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 10% of all fatal crashes from 2012 to 2017 involved distracted drivers. Mobile phones are a major cause of distraction, as we’d expect, but they’re an even bigger problem for younger drivers.Almost 50 years ago, robotics professor Masahiro Mori wrote an extraordinary essay, “The Uncanny Valley,” on people’s reactions to robots as they became more and more humanlike. As Mori said, our affinity for robots rises as they more closely resemble humans. That affinity plunges, becoming negative and finally rising again once a robot reaches the (possibly unattainable) full likeness of a human being.Something similar is at work in our current touch-screen-filled vehicles. To an extent, adding more screen real estate give us more information, and with it more safety — until it begins to provide an overwhelming amount of information and an overly complex set of choices for visual navigation. And moving from one information-rich interface to another is increasingly difficult, as another Navy rear admiral said in reviewing the John S. McCain collision:When you look at a screen, where do you find heading? Is it in the same place, or do you have to hunt every time you go to a different screen? So the more commonality we can drive into these kind of human-machine interfaces, the better it is for the operator to quickly pick up what the situational awareness is, whatever aspect he’s looking at, whether it’s helm control, radar pictures, whatever. So we’re trying to drive that.There are two ways our in-car screens could evolve. The first is that, for safety’s sake, they’ll move back down the curve, so to speak, and be less ambiguous and more full of knobs and dials and physical throttles. That’s the Navy’s new approach. The second, though, is that we won’t go back, at least in passenger applications, to a more tactile interface of specific controls. We’re probably going to get more screens, with more information. Maybe the only way out of this valley is to shift the interface completely to voice or, in the very long run, to obviate the issue by having cars drive themselves. That could be how we navigate this uncanny valley of vehicle interfaces — the removal of any need to control the vehicle at all, and the chance to fill our cars’ screens with pure entertainment. Weekend readingA greener energy industry is testing investors’ ability to adapt. One coal CEO says “make money while you can” in an industry that is in terminal decline. The venture capital arm of Royal Dutch Shell Plc has invested in Corvus Energy, a maritime and offshore battery systems company. America’s obsession with beef is killing leather. A look at how Phoenix comes alive at night, and how other cities might too in a hotter world. An exploration of how extreme climate change has arrived in America. The Anthropocene is a joke. On a geological time scale, human civilization is an event, not an epoch. Three years of misery inside Google, the happiest company in tech. Here’s what happens when Apple Inc. locks you out of its walled garden after fraud suspicions. Machine vision can spot unknown links between classic artworks. When Midwest startups sell, their hometown schools often lose. A programmer in California got a “NULL” vanity license plate in the hopes that the word would not compute in a database of traffic offenders. Instead, he was fined $12,049. Robert Ballard, discoverer of the Titanic, is exploring a startling clue that may help him find Amelia Earhart’s plane. Bugatti’s one-off La Voiture Noire debuted at the Pebble Beach Concours D’Elegance. It’s already been sold, for $18.68 million. Bloomberg Businessweek’s Peter Coy looks back on the 40 years since the magazine declared “ the death of equities.” Get Sparklines delivered to your inbox. Sign up here. And subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.To contact the author of this story: Nathaniel Bullard at nbullard@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Brooke Sample at bsample1@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Nathaniel Bullard is a BloombergNEF energy analyst, covering technology and business model innovation and system-wide resource transitions.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
- PR Newswire
Royal Dutch Shell plc: Transaction in Own Shares
LONDON , Aug. 16, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Royal Dutch Shell plc (the 'Company') (NYSE: RDS.A) (NYSE: RDS.B) announces that on August 16, 2019 it purchased the following number of "A" Shares and ...
- Bloomberg
In Trump's America, Why Code When You Can Dig?
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- President Donald Trump delivered remarks on Tuesday afternoon about “American energy and manufacturing.” As you might expect, these also covered much non-contiguous ground, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell (“another beauty that I chose”), the president’s love of trucks “of all types” and a curiously extended bit about pouring cement at Central Park’s Wollman Rink – a subject “nobody wants to talk about,” apparently.The rink riff was part of an elaborate shout-out to the Teamsters; Trump was at a new petrochemicals complex in Pennsylvania to tout his support for the local workers and fossil-fuel industry. That the message was decidedly mixed may not come as a shock, but it also says something important about the line the president is walking on energy, particularly in Pennsylvania.For me, the most interesting part came about halfway through:The last administration tried to shut down Pennsylvania coal and Pennsylvania fracking. If they got in, your fracking is gone; your coal is gone. You guys, I don’t know what the hell you’re going to do. You don’t want to make widgets, right? [Pointing to audience] You want to learn how to make a computer? [Mimicking making something] A little tiny piece of stuff; you put it with those big beautiful hands of yours, look … Nah, you want to make steel and you want to dig coal and that’s what you want to do.It should be pointed out that while Pennsylvania’s coal production fell during President Barack Obama’s administration, it had been declining since at least 2001. That trend was accelerated by the arrival of cheap shale gas from states such as Pennsylvania – where, as you can see below, the Obama administration presented little obstacle. Incidentally, cheap gas from fracking is the main reason Royal Dutch Shell Plc built the plastics plant at which Trump spoke – making its final investment decision in June 2016, several months before the presidential election.Trump’s framing is the main thing, here, though. Toward the end of his speech, he lauded Americans’ ability to “outperform anyone,” adding “no one can beat us; nothing can stop us.” Yet, mere weeks after the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, he links that greatness to production of raw commodities while mocking the idea of making “widgets” or – heaven forbid – “computers.”Let’s just get the obvious out of the way and say America is big and fortunate enough to support a range of industries, from fracking to fabrication. Private production of all goods – including agriculture, mining, construction and manufacturing – amounts to less than 18% of GDP, while private services are 70%. Setting sectors up in mutual exclusion to each other is ridiculous.More importantly, putting one’s faith in such raw-calorific concepts as “energy dominance” sells short the human ingenuity that has underpinned breakthrough after breakthrough – including, as it happens, the fracking for which the president professes such admiration. It also glosses over real trade-offs that must be addressed, such as climate change and the fact that promoting gas production is the single-biggest rival to Trump’s beloved coal miners – partly because shale operators have increased productivity under pressure from the energy crash.Trump was playing to a local crowd, of course, so he was bound to focus on their particular concerns and hopes. Pennsylvania is a particularly interesting arena in this regard, in part because it’s so finely balanced.Trump won the state by a margin of less than 1%, partly by focusing on factory workers who felt ignored by his opponent Hillary Clinton, during what was a mini-recession for the sector in the year leading up to November 2016. Yet, as my colleague Justin Fox wrote here, U.S. manufacturing job gains have slowed lately, and industrial production has outright declined in the past two quarters. Trump’s tariffs, while nominally aimed at protecting domestic industry, are piling pressure on a weakening global economy. Tuesday’s surprise decision to delay tariffs on what amounted to a Christmas gift list of products suggests they’re putting pressure on American consumers too. We’re a long way from the Trump-bump to industrial stocks that greeted his election.Besides being purple, Pennsylvania’s energy identity is also mixed. While it’s one of the country’s biggest producers of fossil fuels, it’s not in the same league as states traditionally seen as big energy producers. Less than 2% of Pennsylvania’s GDP relates to production of oil and gas, for example – much lower than in Texas or even Colorado, which went for Clinton in 2016(1). And as I wrote here ahead of last year’s midterms, Pennsylvania also looks “bluer” in terms of average income and gasoline consumption:This makes Pennsylvania a microcosm of the political trade-offs in U.S. energy. Tariffs boost Trump’s standing with steelworkers but pressure energy demand (and raise producers’ costs). Boosting fracking, meanwhile, modestly helps the state’s economy but exacerbates the pressure on coal miners from natural gas without necessarily paying much of a political dividend on the oil side, given Pennsylvania’s relatively low average gasoline burden. On the other hand, those relying on fuel oil for heating may be more sensitive to rising prices, which in turn bears on Trump’s confrontation with Iran and Venezuela. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania is the only one of 15 states with a low- or zero-emissions vehicle program where Trump won the popular vote in 2016, according to ClearView Energy Partners.Such complex networks of influence and impact perhaps explain why Trump has resorted to trying to end-run the energy market in certain respects. For example, trying to force through subsidies for coal-fired power plants offers one route to garnering votes from miners while also supporting fracking – and socializing the costs and inefficiencies more opaquely across the broader electorate. In what has become a hallmark of his administration, Trump’s electoral instincts push him to divide that which is inherently linked.(1) These data are taken from ClearView Energy Partners’ “Energy Policy by the Numbers, 2019 Update”To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at ldenning1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at mgongloff1@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
- American City Business Journals
Energy giant ExxonMobil shares details of its $100M partnership with Golden's NREL
"We need every ‘ology’ out there" to solve the big challenge facing the energy industry, exec says.
- American City Business Journals
Trump visits ethane cracker being built in Beaver County
The $6 billion project is being touted as one of the biggest examples of the renaissance of the energy and manufacturing industries.
- American City Business Journals
Trump plans to talk shale, manufacturing at Shell project site
It's the commonwealth's largest construction project since World War II, employing 6,000 workers at its peak.
- Motley Fool
The Most Amazing Quote From BP's Q2 Earnings Call
The oil and gas giant's CEO spent a lot of time on...renewables?
- Bloomberg
Saudi Aramco Puts the ‘Brief’ in ‘Briefing’
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Great thirty minutes, guys.Monday morning’s much-ballyhooed earnings call from Saudi Arabian Oil Co., or Saudi Aramco, was remarkable chiefly for its brevity. About 25 minutes in, the host was reminding people to get their questions into the queue. Just after 9:30 a.m. in New York, it was time for closing remarks.Aramco, the biggest oil major in the world, is owned by the government of Saudi Arabia, so the fact it was putting anyone on the line to talk about a published set of accounts is noteworthy. And, to be fair, they had blocked out an hour. Yet the call yielded little new information. That partly reflected the caliber of the questions, with the first amounting to “please explain why your company is so awesome.” But it was also a function of the usual reticence of major companies, compounded by the fact that this one is, after all, not merely unlisted but a virtual state within a famously secretive state.It was, therefore, entirely understandable that Aramco didn’t offer up much detail on plans to buy a 20% stake in the refining and chemicals business of India’s Reliance Industries Ltd., only made public a few hours before the call got underway.On the other hand, it was unfortunate that CFO Khalid Al-Dabbagh effectively dodged a decent question on Aramco’s capital expenditure and dividend policy. If, as recent reports suggest, Aramco still intends to go through with its IPO and this was a dry run for that, then questions about cash flow and dividends will be the ones that really matter.In a world where energy stocks have fallen out of favor because of a legacy of excess spending and concern about faltering demand growth, the majors are valued chiefly for their dividends. A public Aramco would be no different in this respect (see this).The first-half numbers just published confirmed Aramco is a cash-flow juggernaut, generating free cash flow after capex of almost $38 billion and paying its sole shareholder a dividend of more than $46 billion. The details beneath such numbers matter, though. After all, it’s immediately obvious that, despite generating more free cash flow in the first half than BP Plc, Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and Total SA combined, Aramco borrowed to pay that dividend to the government. While net debt is just 2% of capital employed, there was a $28 billion swing in net indebtedness in the space of 12 months. And Aramco’s capex in the first half looked low – which is why it was questioned – and Al-Dabbagh did allow that “timing” was one reason for that, suggesting it would rise in the second half of 2019.Roughly 40% of the first-half dividend was an outsize special payment predicated on 2018’s “exceptionally strong financial performance,” yet sitting oddly with a year-over-year decline in first-half profit. Coming alongside Aramco’s acquisition of the government’s majority stake in Saudi Basic Industries, or Sabic, this reinforces the sense that the company chiefly represents a financing channel for a government facing chronic deficits at current oil prices. To which one might respond: Duh, like, it’s a national oil company, what exactly did you think it was for?This is the central issue when it comes to Aramco’s valuation, however, because the closeness of that relationship with the government affects the risk premium on the company’s earnings. Taking the 12 months through June as a whole, Aramco’s capex of about $35 billion left it with free cash flow of about $88 billion, more than enough to fund $72 billion of dividend payments. Putting those on an Exxon-like yield of 5% implies a value of $1.45 trillion.Yet, assuming ordinary dividends are running at $52 billion a year – as the accounts suggest – about $20 billion of that payout is akin to the more discretionary buybacks oil majors use to distribute exceptional income. Aramco’s payout was 99% of earnings in the first half of 2019 versus just 52% a year earlier. That cyclical element should be priced at a discount to ordinary dividends, especially in light of Aramco’s role in Saudi Arabia’s public finances. Price the dividend at 6%, and the value drops to $1.21 trillion; at 7%, a shade higher than the yield for BP and Shell, it falls to $1.03 trillion.These are still very big numbers (and in line with the valuation I put together last year). They remain, however, far short of the $2 trillion valuation bragged about by Prince Mohammed bin Salman; and this despite those numbers reflecting, in part, an “exceptionally” strong year for the company.If Aramco’s owner still wants to get even close to a two in front of those twelve zeroes on the trading screen some day, then the company needs either a fundamental shift in the outlook for the oil market or a fundamental reappraisal of its ability to squeeze even more dividends out of that market. It has only some influence over the first option. The second would require at least a bit more time on the phone. Update: A typographical error in an earlier version of this story put Aramco’s implied valuation with a 6% dividend at $1.21 billion instead of $1.21 trillion.To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at ldenning1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at mgongloff1@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
- Simply Wall St.
Dividend Investors: Don't Be Too Quick To Buy Royal Dutch Shell plc (AMS:RDSA) For Its Upcoming Dividend
It looks like Royal Dutch Shell plc (AMS:RDSA) is about to go ex-dividend in the next 3 days. You can purchase shares...
- Market Realist
Slumping Energy Stocks Post Attractive Dividend Yields
Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) stock has slumped 10.8% so far in Q3. Shell’s dividend yield has risen to 6.6%, the highest among its peers.
- Motley Fool
5 Top Natural Gas Stocks to Buy Now
Here's how to evaluate the top natural gas stocks for long-term investment.
- Oilprice.com
Norway’s Trillion Dollar Fund Isn’t Ditching Oil After All
The world’s largest sovereign wealth fund shocked the world when it said it was dumping oil and gas stocks, but it seems to have had a change of heart
- Market Realist
Do Analysts Like Energy Sector Stocks Post-Q2?
Energy sector players ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP saw their earnings fall year-over-year in the second quarter.
- PR Newswire
Royal Dutch Shell plc: Notification and Public Disclosure in Accordance With the Requirements of the EU Market Abuse Regulation of Transactions by Persons Discharging Managerial Responsibilities
LONDON , Aug. 6, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- This notification is made in accordance with Article 19 of the EU Market Abuse Regulation: 1. Details of the person discharging managerial responsibilities/person ...
- Market Realist
Energy Sector Stocks Fell: XOM, CVX, RDS.A, and BP
Energy sector stocks including ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX), Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A), and BP (BP) are getting hit twice.
- Simply Wall St.
Need To Know: Royal Dutch Shell plc (AMS:RDSA) Insiders Have Been Buying Shares
We often see insiders buying up shares in companies that perform well over the long term. Unfortunately, there are...
