Latest news with #gas
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Has HomeChoice International plc's (JSE:HIL) Impressive Stock Performance Got Anything to Do With Its Fundamentals?
Most readers would already be aware that HomeChoice International's (JSE:HIL) stock increased significantly by 13% over the past three months. We wonder if and what role the company's financials play in that price change as a company's long-term fundamentals usually dictate market outcomes. Specifically, we decided to study HomeChoice International's ROE in this article. Return on equity or ROE is a key measure used to assess how efficiently a company's management is utilizing the company's capital. In short, ROE shows the profit each dollar generates with respect to its shareholder investments. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for HomeChoice International is: 11% = R411m ÷ R3.9b (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024). The 'return' is the yearly profit. Another way to think of that is that for every ZAR1 worth of equity, the company was able to earn ZAR0.11 in profit. See our latest analysis for HomeChoice International We have already established that ROE serves as an efficient profit-generating gauge for a company's future earnings. Depending on how much of these profits the company reinvests or "retains", and how effectively it does so, we are then able to assess a company's earnings growth potential. Generally speaking, other things being equal, firms with a high return on equity and profit retention, have a higher growth rate than firms that don't share these attributes. It is quite clear that HomeChoice International's ROE is rather low. Not just that, even compared to the industry average of 16%, the company's ROE is entirely unremarkable. Although, we can see that HomeChoice International saw a modest net income growth of 7.2% over the past five years. Therefore, the growth in earnings could probably have been caused by other variables. For instance, the company has a low payout ratio or is being managed efficiently. Next, on comparing with the industry net income growth, we found that HomeChoice International's reported growth was lower than the industry growth of 11% over the last few years, which is not something we like to see. Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. What investors need to determine next is if the expected earnings growth, or the lack of it, is already built into the share price. By doing so, they will have an idea if the stock is headed into clear blue waters or if swampy waters await. Is HomeChoice International fairly valued compared to other companies? These 3 valuation measures might help you decide. HomeChoice International has a healthy combination of a moderate three-year median payout ratio of 48% (or a retention ratio of 52%) and a respectable amount of growth in earnings as we saw above, meaning that the company has been making efficient use of its profits. Besides, HomeChoice International has been paying dividends for at least ten years or more. This shows that the company is committed to sharing profits with its shareholders. In total, it does look like HomeChoice International has some positive aspects to its business. Namely, its respectable earnings growth, which it achieved due to it retaining most of its profits. However, given the low ROE, investors may not be benefitting from all that reinvestment after all. While we won't completely dismiss the company, what we would do, is try to ascertain how risky the business is to make a more informed decision around the company. To know the 5 risks we have identified for HomeChoice International visit our risks dashboard for free. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
We Wouldn't Be Too Quick To Buy TSA Group Berhad (KLSE:TSA) Before It Goes Ex-Dividend
Readers hoping to buy TSA Group Berhad (KLSE:TSA) for its dividend will need to make their move shortly, as the stock is about to trade ex-dividend. The ex-dividend date is usually set to be two business days before the record date, which is the cut-off date on which you must be present on the company's books as a shareholder in order to receive the dividend. It is important to be aware of the ex-dividend date because any trade on the stock needs to have been settled on or before the record date. This means that investors who purchase TSA Group Berhad's shares on or after the 5th of June will not receive the dividend, which will be paid on the 20th of June. The company's next dividend payment will be RM00.01 per share, on the back of last year when the company paid a total of RM0.06 to shareholders. Last year's total dividend payments show that TSA Group Berhad has a trailing yield of 8.3% on the current share price of RM00.72. Dividends are an important source of income to many shareholders, but the health of the business is crucial to maintaining those dividends. As a result, readers should always check whether TSA Group Berhad has been able to grow its dividends, or if the dividend might be cut. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Dividends are typically paid from company earnings. If a company pays more in dividends than it earned in profit, then the dividend could be unsustainable. TSA Group Berhad paid out 94% of its earnings, which is more than we're comfortable with, unless there are mitigating circumstances. A useful secondary check can be to evaluate whether TSA Group Berhad generated enough free cash flow to afford its dividend. Over the last year it paid out 57% of its free cash flow as dividends, within the usual range for most companies. It's good to see that while TSA Group Berhad's dividends were not well covered by profits, at least they are affordable from a cash perspective. Still, if this were to happen repeatedly, we'd be concerned about whether the dividend is sustainable in a downturn. View our latest analysis for TSA Group Berhad Click here to see how much of its profit TSA Group Berhad paid out over the last 12 months. When earnings decline, dividend companies become much harder to analyse and own safely. If business enters a downturn and the dividend is cut, the company could see its value fall precipitously. TSA Group Berhad's earnings have collapsed faster than Wile E Coyote's schemes to trap the Road Runner; down a tremendous 42% a year over the past five years. Given that TSA Group Berhad has only been paying a dividend for a year, there's not much of a past history to draw insight from. Is TSA Group Berhad worth buying for its dividend? It's never fun to see a company's earnings per share in retreat. Additionally, TSA Group Berhad is paying out quite a high percentage of its earnings, and more than half its cash flow, so it's hard to evaluate whether the company is reinvesting enough in its business to improve its situation. With the way things are shaping up from a dividend perspective, we'd be inclined to steer clear of TSA Group Berhad. So if you're still interested in TSA Group Berhad despite it's poor dividend qualities, you should be well informed on some of the risks facing this stock. For instance, we've identified 3 warning signs for TSA Group Berhad (1 is potentially serious) you should be aware of. If you're in the market for strong dividend payers, we recommend checking our selection of top dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
We Wouldn't Be Too Quick To Buy TSA Group Berhad (KLSE:TSA) Before It Goes Ex-Dividend
Readers hoping to buy TSA Group Berhad (KLSE:TSA) for its dividend will need to make their move shortly, as the stock is about to trade ex-dividend. The ex-dividend date is usually set to be two business days before the record date, which is the cut-off date on which you must be present on the company's books as a shareholder in order to receive the dividend. It is important to be aware of the ex-dividend date because any trade on the stock needs to have been settled on or before the record date. This means that investors who purchase TSA Group Berhad's shares on or after the 5th of June will not receive the dividend, which will be paid on the 20th of June. The company's next dividend payment will be RM00.01 per share, on the back of last year when the company paid a total of RM0.06 to shareholders. Last year's total dividend payments show that TSA Group Berhad has a trailing yield of 8.3% on the current share price of RM00.72. Dividends are an important source of income to many shareholders, but the health of the business is crucial to maintaining those dividends. As a result, readers should always check whether TSA Group Berhad has been able to grow its dividends, or if the dividend might be cut. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Dividends are typically paid from company earnings. If a company pays more in dividends than it earned in profit, then the dividend could be unsustainable. TSA Group Berhad paid out 94% of its earnings, which is more than we're comfortable with, unless there are mitigating circumstances. A useful secondary check can be to evaluate whether TSA Group Berhad generated enough free cash flow to afford its dividend. Over the last year it paid out 57% of its free cash flow as dividends, within the usual range for most companies. It's good to see that while TSA Group Berhad's dividends were not well covered by profits, at least they are affordable from a cash perspective. Still, if this were to happen repeatedly, we'd be concerned about whether the dividend is sustainable in a downturn. View our latest analysis for TSA Group Berhad Click here to see how much of its profit TSA Group Berhad paid out over the last 12 months. When earnings decline, dividend companies become much harder to analyse and own safely. If business enters a downturn and the dividend is cut, the company could see its value fall precipitously. TSA Group Berhad's earnings have collapsed faster than Wile E Coyote's schemes to trap the Road Runner; down a tremendous 42% a year over the past five years. Given that TSA Group Berhad has only been paying a dividend for a year, there's not much of a past history to draw insight from. Is TSA Group Berhad worth buying for its dividend? It's never fun to see a company's earnings per share in retreat. Additionally, TSA Group Berhad is paying out quite a high percentage of its earnings, and more than half its cash flow, so it's hard to evaluate whether the company is reinvesting enough in its business to improve its situation. With the way things are shaping up from a dividend perspective, we'd be inclined to steer clear of TSA Group Berhad. So if you're still interested in TSA Group Berhad despite it's poor dividend qualities, you should be well informed on some of the risks facing this stock. For instance, we've identified 3 warning signs for TSA Group Berhad (1 is potentially serious) you should be aware of. If you're in the market for strong dividend payers, we recommend checking our selection of top dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
ABC News
7 hours ago
- Business
- ABC News
WA government braces for testing time from Greens after call to extend North West Shelf
WA Premier Roger Cook got his wish this week. Woodside's North West Shelf gas project can continue operating off the Pilbara coast until 2070, and he can finally get industry off his back. But don't ask him about the impact on climate. Mr Cook was waiting with bated breath for the outcome of the decision from Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt, who approved the project's extension. But green groups are not buying the reasoning for his support of the project — a bold claim about WA's gas. "Our gas is about providing the opportunity for the globe to decarbonise," Mr Cook said on Thursday. And it's something they're going to take him to task on. Mr Watt said he considered the potential impacts extending the life of the plant would have on the national heritage values of nearby rock art and the economic matters, but the act which governs environmental approvals does not include provisions to consider the climate change impact of a project. Which might explain why conversations regarding the climate have largely been pushed under the rug. The premier chose to focus more on jobs and the economy, dodging questions about the impact of emissions. "This saves literally thousands of jobs in Western Australia … and secures the future for Karratha," Mr Cook told reporters. Federal and state Labor agree gas is important and will play a large role in the energy transition. "In order to get that investment in renewables, you do need firming capacity, whether it be batteries, hydro or gas. And that is what will encourage that investment and the transition to occur," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Thursday. Deputy Premier Rita Saffioti echoed a very similar sentiment on Friday. "This is all about making sure we get the balance right and making sure ... we also have the resources to continue to deliver affordable and reliable energy as we go through the transition," she said. But green groups reject those lines entirely. Greenpeace Australia Pacific's Geoff Bice thinks Mr Watt's decision could have provided a "step in earnest" away from fossil fuels — not towards. "At the end of the day, there's a competition on for the role of energy being between renewable energy and polluting fossil fuels," he said. "The decision to extend the life of the North West Shelf only makes that transition harder and pushes it out further both for our domestic economy and the regional economy." Protest after protest has posed the same question about Australia's role in bringing down global emissions — is the government beholden to gas giants? Or, as more informally put by federal Tasmanian Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson — do we have "a government that is in bed with big fossil fuel companies"? WA Mines Minister David Michael was asked on Thursday if both state and federal Labor are prioritising gas over traditional owners' cultural sites — namely nearby ancient Aboriginal rock art on the Burrup Peninsula (Murujuga) near Karratha, which traditional owners say will be "stripped" from them with this extension. "We're prioritising making sure we have gas in our system in WA to keep the lights on and to support industry," he said. The WA government might be supporting industry but it won't be able to dodge questions about climate — and the impact on traditional owners — much longer. Especially now with not one, but four upper house Greens MPs champing at the bit to hold it to account. New Greens MLC Jess Beckerling used Question Time this week to point out discrepancies in the executive summary of the Rock Art Monitoring Report released last Friday by the government — which studied the impacts of industrial air emissions on those ancient rock carvings at Murujuga. Referring to a line missing in a graph contained in the report, University of Western Australia professor of archaeology Benjamin Smith claimed the government "doctored" it. WA Environment Minister Matthew Swinbourn said the "graph in the summary document was simplified", but the pressure from the Greens is likely not done yet. And the headaches didn't stop there for the government. In some awkward timing, an interim UNESCO report released on Tuesday knocked back the Murujuga Cultural Landscape to the World Heritage list, citing concerns about emissions degrading the Aboriginal carvings. The draft decision called on the government to "ensure the total removal of degrading acidic emissions" — which might be a little hard to do now, until after 2070. "It is disappointing that the draft decision is heavily influenced by claims made in the media and correspondence from non-government organisations, rather than scientific and other expert evidence," Mr Watt said in a statement. Gas might be a balancing act for the federal and state governments, but one thing is certain — concerns about the climate are mounting and the pressure won't be letting up any time soon. So it best be prepared to answer tough questions.
ABC News
13 hours ago
- Business
- ABC News
Australia just approved Woodside's gas project until 2070. How could it happen?
Some weeks more than others, climate change really bears down on Australians. This week, the news carried images of eerie orange skies as dust storms whipped across landscapes dried from record-breaking droughts. Further north, homes were submerged in floods exacerbated by heavier rain from a warmer climate. And also this week, the Australian government approved the extension of one of the world's largest gas facilities until 2070. But this decision isn't about climate change. At least not under Australia's current laws, where the climate harm from fossil fuel projects doesn't have to be considered. How can Australia approve a fossil fuel mega-project that will run until 20 years after the world is meant to reach net zero emissions? "I think the average punter out there is basically saying, 'Hang on, this is about climate change and 2070, what are we doing? What in the hell are we doing?'" lamented Greg Bourne from the Climate Council. Environment Minister Murray Watt's first major decision in the new role was to give the green light for Woodside's North West Shelf gas plant to continue operating until 2070. The North West Shelf is already Australia's third-highest emitting facility in the country, producing about 6 million tonnes of greenhouse gas each year. That's just the direct emissions from extracting and processing the gas and doesn't count emissions after the gas is sold, shipped, and burnt at its final destination. Some estimates put the total lifetime emissions from this project at the equivalent of a decade of Australia's current emissions. A decade. Think of it as pushing out Australia's climate goals by another 10 years. When asked about the decision this week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claimed the gas was needed to boost Western Australia's renewables, with 15 per cent of the gas earmarked for the local market. Without the extension, the North West Shelf was due to close in 2030. "In order to get that investment in renewables, you do need firming capacity, whether it be batteries, hydro, or gas, and that is what will encourage that investment and the transition to occur," Mr Albanese said. "In Western Australia, they are closing their last coal-fired power station at Collie in 2027. They are moving to renewables backed by gas, and that will be a really important part of the transition that will occur." But Mr Bourne said the decision would "haunt" the government. Before working at the Climate Council, he worked for decades in the gas industry in Western Australia and internationally, including at the North West Shelf. "We've been talking about net zero by 2050, that number is in people's heads," he said. It's not just climate experts warning that the world needs to stop expanding fossil fuels: the International Energy Agency says there is enough existing coal, oil, and gas projects to supply the world and stay the course to net zero. "The world is awash in gas, primarily coming out from the Middle East, but lots coming out from America and so on like that. I think our Australian companies fool themselves into thinking that they're going to be the last company standing, pushing gas out there," Mr Bourne said. The Albanese government is focused on driving renewable investments to bring down emissions, but at the same time, the country's climate plans don't include emissions from our fossil fuel exports. Woodside Energy welcomed the news this week, emphasising the important role gas played in Western Australia and its heavy industry. "This proposed approval will secure the ongoing operation of the North West Shelf and the thousands of direct and indirect jobs that it supports," Woodside's statement read. Currently, the environment minister has veto power over major projects if they would impact "matters of national environmental significance", such as protected plants, animals, and ecosystems. In the case of the North West Shelf, the minister considered the impact on cultural heritage relating to the ancient rock art of Murujuga. But under these laws, in the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, climate change is not a deciding factor. "The fact that our environment laws do not address the harms caused by climate change from coal and gas extraction is a really dangerous loophole," said Julia Dehm, an associate professor in the law school at La Trobe University and climate law expert. "There's long been calls for reform of the EPBC act to include a climate trigger." This concept was actually proposed back in 2005 by Mr Albanese, who, as shadow environment minister, wanted to fix this "glaring gap" in the laws. "The climate change trigger will enable major new projects to be assessed for their climate change impact," he told parliament in 2005. "Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing the global community and one of the greatest threats to Australia's way of life. "It is time to act. It is time for procrastination to end … We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue." Twenty years later, Australia has not closed that gap and the Albanese government just approved the type of project that he was targeting back in 2005. The minister isn't completely hamstrung and under the current laws, could still opt to consider the climate consequences from the project. According to Liz Hicks, a lecturer at the Melbourne Law School and former Greens candidate, the EPBC gives the minister significant leeway when making decisions. "It was enacted during the Howard era," Dr Hicks explained, "the act was designed to make these considerations very political and confer enormous discretion on the minister". Under the act, Mr Watt is required to consider economic and social matters of projects, which could include the well-documented evidence of how climate change is affecting Australian society. An explicit climate trigger, however, would mean the minister was required to weigh up the climate impacts. "The climate trigger would have a lot of advantages … they would have to think about those climate factors, which we know are probably going to be some of the biggest factors," Dr Hicks said. The federal government proposed changes to these laws in its last term in office, but the proposals were shelved after pushback from the industry and the West Australian government. Those changes did not include a climate trigger. Instead, environmental groups have been trying in the courts to force the environment minister to consider climate impacts associated with major-polluting projects. Last year, the Environmental Council of Central Queensland argued in the Federal Court that all of the important environmental sites under the minister's protection are affected by climate change, and coal and gas projects will add to that damage. The court ultimately rejected the appeal, but in its decision, the justices noted the "ill-suitedness" of the current scheme when assessing climate change. Another flaw that comes with the system is that projects are assessed individually; even in the case of the North West Shelf, the proposal for the drilling of the gas to supply the plant into the future is considered separately. "Because it's the product of cumulative impacts of all projects in multiple jurisdictions around the world, everyone's trying to hide behind that abrogation of responsibility. "We can no longer hide behind the impact that each project is small because we know that each project has a significant impact and it's a cumulative impact of all these projects that have led to what is a really dangerous climate situation." Australia does have a way to regulate emissions from projects once they're up and running. Some emissions from the North West Shelf will continue to be monitored under Australia's national climate policy, the safeguard mechanism, which sets an annual limit for each facility's emissions that gradually decreases over time. Currently, the gas plant is the third-largest emitter in the country and last year relied on buying offsets to reach its targets set under the scheme. But the safeguard mechanism doesn't deal with the majority of emissions from fossil fuel projects, which come after the gas is sold and consumed at its endpoint, known as scope 3 emissions. "Australia's biggest impact is our scope 3 emissions, and they're completely left out of that framework for reduction, and that's really the big gap in Australian environmental law," Dr Hicks said. "Our export footprint is significantly larger than our domestic emissions. And this really needs to be recognised as part of our sphere of responsibility." This decision has not gone unnoticed internationally, especially with Australia vying to host next year's UN climate conference. Already, the news was lamented by Pacific leaders, who are on the existential frontlines of a hotter world. The Climate Council's Mr Bourne believes it will hurt Australia's standing internationally. "It immediately brought back the image to me of, I think it's the minister of [Tuvalu], who's standing in water up to his waist, pleading with the world's nations to tackle climate change. Our standing, I think it's going to go down in a very big way. "We are going to have to stop the opening up of new oil and gas fields …They're going to have to take those powers if they want to have any credibility at all." Monash University's Dr Dehm said this is exactly the opposite direction of where we should be going. "Approving more coal and gas projects, such as the North West Shelf, really undercuts Australia's climate credentials and presents Australia internationally as not just a climate laggard, but really as a destructive player on climate change."
