GNE - Genesis Energy

[blackcap]

It worries me when companies come up with new key performance indicators as though being carbon neutral is just as important as any other KPI. I worry that in the process or creating this new yardstick by which they measure their performance they lose focus on what's really important in their business and most importantly of all what the shareholders really want them to laser focus on, the most relevant KPI of all, earnings per share. I think in this incredibly politically correct world its far to easy for company directors and senior management to think that by achieving some self contrived new yardstick they are somehow achieving the key objectives that shareholders really want.

I suspect if you took a poll the vast majority of shareholders for any given company would simply tell management to stick to their knitting and focus on more important issues. All their efforts (as one shareholder of Summerset put it to me at the annual meeting), won't save one single polar bear.

The reason they are doing all this though is all about perception. They are worried that if they are not seen to be doing the correct thing then customers and consumers are going to leave/agitate in droves and that will hinder the bottom line. A bit of a catch 22. My partner is around the board room and she thinks this Global Warming/Climate Change is a crock of ****. However she cannot utter those words and has to be careful not to fall too far out of line with the new PC speak otherwise its that very board position that is compromised.

[winner69]

It worries me when companies come up with new key performance indicators as though being carbon neutral is just as important as any other KPI. I worry that in the process or creating this new yardstick by which they measure their performance they lose focus on what's really important in their business and most importantly of all what the shareholders really want them to laser focus on, the most relevant KPI of all, earnings per share. I think in this incredibly politically correct world its far to easy for company directors and senior management to think that by achieving some self contrived new yardstick they are somehow achieving the key objectives that shareholders really want.

I suspect if you took a poll the vast majority of shareholders for any given company would simply tell management to stick to their knitting and focus on more important issues. All their efforts (as one shareholder of Summerset put it to me at the annual meeting), won't save one single polar bear.

Such a cynical view of that Summerset shareholder

Shareholders aren’t the only stakeholder in a company

[Baa_Baa]

Doesn’t GNE have the whole carbon credits/offsets thing to deal with, as carbon producer they pay the offset, so getting to carbon neutral would be a good thing for the bottom line and therefore the shareholders eps? I’m no expert in this so could be completely wrong.

[Beagle]

The reason they are doing all this though is all about perception. They are worried that if they are not seen to be doing the correct thing then customers and consumers are going to leave/agitate in droves and that will hinder the bottom line. A bit of a catch 22. My partner is around the board room and she thinks this Global Warming/Climate Change is a crock of ****. However she cannot utter those words and has to be careful not to fall too far out of line with the new PC speak otherwise its that very board position that is compromised.

Isn't the purpose of having a board so that members can express their individual varying opinions so the board can come to a consensus view ? If board members who think this whole thing is bull**** are too worried about their own position to express a diverging view then God help us, political correctness will overtake the world.

Doesn’t GNE have the whole carbon credits/offsets thing to deal with, as carbon producer they pay the offset, so getting to carbon neutral would be a good thing for the bottom line and therefore the shareholders eps? I’m no expert in this so could be completely wrong.

Yes it does in GNE's case which probably explains their joint venture with massive forestry plantations eluded too earlier in this thread. What we have here is a legitimate case of a major emitter but contrast that with SUM other company that's really invented being carbon neutral out of thin air without in any way being a major explicit emitter, which strikes me as somewhat contrived.

Such a cynical view of that Summerset shareholder

Shareholders aren’t the only stakeholder in a company

One I share. SUM are just going about their business like any other company that's not a major emitter. Its not like they burn one billion liters of jet fuel per annum like AIR is it ! No single polar bear will notice even the most microscopic difference to the environment unless the world's big emitters like China and the US take the appropriate actions. You could argue that with SUM not being a specific major emitter of CO2 their endeavours are SUMthing of a contrived whitewash to do nothing more than make an attempt to look politically correct. Hopefully this is not something they are pinning their hopes on to look good to the public to sell more units as its so contrived to be somewhat farcical in my opinion. One would hope they don't start wasting millions of dollars on electric vehicles like AIR did, long before they make a case for themselves on a realistic cost benefit analysis like AIR did. They need to laser focus on selling the units they build and looking after their residents needs...any major distraction from that is unwelcome as far as I am concerned.

[Baa_Baa]

Yes it does in GNE's case which probably explains their joint venture with massive forestry plantations eluded too earlier in this thread. What we have here is a legitimate case of a major emitter but contrast that with SUM other company that's really invented being carbon neutral out of thin air without in any way being a major explicit emitter, which strikes me as somewhat contrived.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about GNE contriving their carbon situation and its effect on eps.

[Beagle]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about GNE contriving their carbon situation and its effect on eps.

I probably picked the wrong thread but at least in my view there is a genuine difference between a company like GNE needing to offset their emissions from the big Huntly smokestacks and other sources and AIR from the jet engine exhaust with one billion litres of jet fuel burned per annum...this is genuine stuff but the SUMwhat apparently contrived need to appear to be politically correct by SUM other companies rubs my fur up the wrong way.
Maybe I don't see the big picture though and all companies are big emitters in one way or the other...I'm probably just being a silly dog this weekend and should find something more interesting to bark about...

[Jantar]

She certainly can utter those words. Yes, it will upset the greenies, and some labour voters, but they are not likely to form the majority of the larger customers of any business.

[Arthur]

The reason they are doing all this though is all about perception. They are worried that if they are not seen to be doing the correct thing then customers and consumers are going to leave/agitate in droves and that will hinder the bottom line. A bit of a catch 22. My partner is around the board room and she thinks this Global Warming/Climate Change is a crock of ****. However she cannot utter those words and has to be careful not to fall too far out of line with the new PC speak otherwise its that very board position that is compromised.

Wow!. Is your partner an antivaxer and flat earther as well? The rest of the board is probably aware of the risks.
ASIC encourages listed companies and their directors and advisors to:

adopt a probative and proactive approach to emerging risks, including climate risk;
develop and maintain strong and effective corporate goverance which helps in identifying, assessing and managing risk;
consider how best to comply with the law where it requires disclosure of material risks; and
disclose meaningful and useful climate risk related information to investors – the voluntary framework developed by the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures can assist in this regard.

ASIC commissioner John Price said:

‘Climate change is a foreseeable risk facing many listed companies in the Australian market in a range of different industries. Directors and officers of listed companies need to understand and continually reassess existing and emerging risks (including climate risk) that may affect the company’s business – for better or for worse

[blackcap]

Wow!. Is your partner an antivaxer and flat earther as well? The rest of the board is probably aware of the risks.
ASIC encourages listed companies and their directors and advisors to:

adopt a probative and proactive approach to emerging risks, including climate risk;
develop and maintain strong and effective corporate goverance which helps in identifying, assessing and managing risk;
consider how best to comply with the law where it requires disclosure of material risks; and
disclose meaningful and useful climate risk related information to investors – the voluntary framework developed by the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures can assist in this regard.

ASIC commissioner John Price said:

‘Climate change is a foreseeable risk facing many listed companies in the Australian market in a range of different industries. Directors and officers of listed companies need to understand and continually reassess existing and emerging risks (including climate risk) that may affect the company’s business – for better or for worse

You put it quite nicely. ASIC spells it out don't they. The IOD here in NZ take a similar position.
As for my partner she understands the risks posed by potential climate change/global warming etc. But those risks have been overstated by the IPCC (a political not scientific panel) for many years now. It's just unfortunate that a diversity of opinion around this issue is not looked on favourably.

[Jaa]

You put it quite nicely. ASIC spells it out don't they. The IOD here in NZ take a similar position.
As for my partner she understands the risks posed by potential climate change/global warming etc. But those risks have been overstated by the IPCC (a political not scientific panel) for many years now. It's just unfortunate that a diversity of opinion around this issue is not looked on favourably.

Wow from me too!

You and your partner are living in a dream world.

A good director can process expert advice, research and analysis to make good and timely decisions for all stakeholders, not just shareholders. If you can't do this about climate change with the overwhelming evidence available from science and scientists (not armchair experts or bought and paid for researchers) you wouldn't get my vote at an AGM based on reading comprehension and cognition alone.