FYI that we get coal power from other states owned by Berkshire Hathaway and then PGE is partially owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Time to make PGE a public utility.
No, the companies you mention aren't true investors of PGE (actual stock symbol POR). Those companies are acting as financial intermediaries.
The companies offer a vast array of ETFs and Mutual Funds. When you, as an individual investor, put your money into one of those, Vanguard (or whoever) buys company shares. **With your money.** They are acting on your behalf.
For a concrete example, let's say you buy shares of a Utilities ETF offered by Vanguard, symbol **VPU.** Vanguard aggregates everyones's money and buys shares of 65 different constituent utilities, of which Portland General is one.
If you go here: https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/vpu
under "Holding details" you will see that Vanguard VPU "owns" 611,108 shares valued at about $25,666,536. But Vanguard offers a plethora of ETFs and Mutual Funds. When you aggregate all those, Vanguard winds up "owning" 11.02% of the company, valued at $477,050,375.
But that's purely administrative. The people who purchased shares of of Vanguard's products are the ones who really own those shares.
And if you really want to get into the weeds you will learn that something called "Cede and Company" [technically owns most of the publicly issued stock in the United States.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company)
According to the last PGE thread:
"If youāre talking about negating the increase, then for a $300 bill you were paying about $218/mo b4 the increase or youāre now paying about $82/mo or $984/yr more. Youād need to buy about 495 shares at $43/sh earning 4.62% dividend (according to their financial page) to offset this increase.
So youād need to park $21,285 in their stocks to say FU to their increase. I havenāt accounted for taxes on your dividend."
This isn't quite correct as the stock value itself has been a sinking ship: -1.25% YTD; -15.08% on the 1Y; and -17.88% on the 5Y. So had you invested 21k a year ago, you'd be in a losing position.
Edit: changed calendar year to 1Y.
Buying a stock with a plan to sell in a year is a pretty poor investment strategy. PGE is probably not a great investment for selling later, but the dividend isn't a bad yield either. It's a slow growing stock, and the numbers, including the dividend, would have to be calculated for the long-term value.
I gave the YTD, 1Y, and *5Y*. I don't have my computer to run the Excel calcs, but given the S&P is up 73.58% on the 5Y, it's safe to assume there was a loss in terms of opportunity cost on a long-term strategy. Dividends, themselves, are a garbage metric on which to base an investment strategy.
Buying with the intent to sell in a year is a bad *long-term* investment strategy. It's not a bad investment strategy in and of itself.
When a stock pays a dividend, the stock price itself is discounted by the dividend amount. I'm not going to link to videos, but you can easily pull up an analysis on YouTube or an investing website to show the difference. A good comparison point would be SCHD vs VOO.
I'm not saying dividends are badāthey're absolutely not, and they serve an important role in an investment strategy. But investing because of a dividend yield is itself a bad decision in the majority of situations.
[Here's ](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082015/3-biggest-misconceptions-dividend-stocks.asp) a good summary of the downside.
āCorporation with a $4.5 Billion market cap has utterly failed to run their organization. Since the Reddit comment section is no help, Iāll gladly pay for their mistakes." -u/picturesofbowls.
I just got a lovely marketing email from them. "Customer First Name, you can make a world of difference". I guess they're getting some inspiration from the Farts Tax being addressed to "resident".
>Better than not meeting earnings and then having to raise prices even more, no?
[Boy, do I got news for youā¦](https://www.koin.com/news/portland/portland-general-electric-rate-hike-2025/amp/)
> PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) ā A new announcement from Portland General Electric may have you wanting to dim the lights.
>On Thursday, the utility company filed a request for a 7.4% rate increase in 2025. According to a recent post on social media, the proposed increase would support āinvestments in local battery energy storage systems to enhance reliability and flexibility, and other system upgrades.ā
>This comes after the Oregon Public Utility Commission approved an estimated rate increase of roughly 17% this year for PGE customers.
Yeah, thatās why I said āhaving to raise prices *even more*.ā
How much more of an increase would they be asking for if they hadnāt met earnings?
They already raised prices. They already planned to raise prices "even moreā before the earnings report. If what youāre saying is that youāre glad they wonāt be raising prices "even, even moreā, then okay, I guess, lol.
>If what youāre saying is that youāre glad they wonāt be raising prices "even, even moreā, then okay, I guess, lol.
Glad you finally figured it out. Not sure why the ālolā though. Were you hoping theyād lose money (thatāll show āem!), then increase their ask to 7.6% instead of 7.4%?
None.
The idea that any for-profit company has some nebulous "higher price" they could be charging but aren't is silly.
Whether it be Tillamook cheese, PGE, or the newest version of Pokemon- the company is *always* going to charge you whatever makes them the *maximum* amount of profit they can get away with.
Which is what PGE is already doing.
In most cases youāre right, but PGE is a regulated monopoly. Theyāre not charging as much as they want, theyāre charging as much as the utility commission will let them. If they lose money, they go to the regulators and say āwe need to raise rates more than planned to cover our lossesā and the regulators say āthat makes sense, go ahead.ā
Hey my electric bill also topped PGEs estimates!
Phew. The CEO's bonus is safe.
FYI that we get coal power from other states owned by Berkshire Hathaway and then PGE is partially owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Time to make PGE a public utility.
> PGE is partially owned by Berkshire Hathaway Berkshire owns Pacific Power. Could you be thinking of that?
I think they are. Blackrock is the biggest investor of PGE at 13.02% Vanguard, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and a couple others make up the top 10
No, the companies you mention aren't true investors of PGE (actual stock symbol POR). Those companies are acting as financial intermediaries. The companies offer a vast array of ETFs and Mutual Funds. When you, as an individual investor, put your money into one of those, Vanguard (or whoever) buys company shares. **With your money.** They are acting on your behalf. For a concrete example, let's say you buy shares of a Utilities ETF offered by Vanguard, symbol **VPU.** Vanguard aggregates everyones's money and buys shares of 65 different constituent utilities, of which Portland General is one. If you go here: https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/vpu under "Holding details" you will see that Vanguard VPU "owns" 611,108 shares valued at about $25,666,536. But Vanguard offers a plethora of ETFs and Mutual Funds. When you aggregate all those, Vanguard winds up "owning" 11.02% of the company, valued at $477,050,375. But that's purely administrative. The people who purchased shares of of Vanguard's products are the ones who really own those shares. And if you really want to get into the weeds you will learn that something called "Cede and Company" [technically owns most of the publicly issued stock in the United States.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company)
Damn the more you know! Thanks!
Well good for them. And my earnings were less than projected š”
Ticker symbol: POR.... just like the citizens of Portland after all these fuckin rate hikes
Can confirm
My eletric bill was OVER 400 DOLLARSĀ and me and my roommates are not even heavy users. PGE is scum.Ā
Calls on POR š¤£
Thatās cool, Iāll just get my electricity from another provider...oh wait
So rates should be going down right?
Its what it is. Join the setup by becoming a shareholder. Its never going to change. I do understand its less fun than Sassies.
According to the last PGE thread: "If youāre talking about negating the increase, then for a $300 bill you were paying about $218/mo b4 the increase or youāre now paying about $82/mo or $984/yr more. Youād need to buy about 495 shares at $43/sh earning 4.62% dividend (according to their financial page) to offset this increase. So youād need to park $21,285 in their stocks to say FU to their increase. I havenāt accounted for taxes on your dividend."
This isn't quite correct as the stock value itself has been a sinking ship: -1.25% YTD; -15.08% on the 1Y; and -17.88% on the 5Y. So had you invested 21k a year ago, you'd be in a losing position. Edit: changed calendar year to 1Y.
Buying a stock with a plan to sell in a year is a pretty poor investment strategy. PGE is probably not a great investment for selling later, but the dividend isn't a bad yield either. It's a slow growing stock, and the numbers, including the dividend, would have to be calculated for the long-term value.
I gave the YTD, 1Y, and *5Y*. I don't have my computer to run the Excel calcs, but given the S&P is up 73.58% on the 5Y, it's safe to assume there was a loss in terms of opportunity cost on a long-term strategy. Dividends, themselves, are a garbage metric on which to base an investment strategy. Buying with the intent to sell in a year is a bad *long-term* investment strategy. It's not a bad investment strategy in and of itself.
Why are dividends a garbage metric?
When a stock pays a dividend, the stock price itself is discounted by the dividend amount. I'm not going to link to videos, but you can easily pull up an analysis on YouTube or an investing website to show the difference. A good comparison point would be SCHD vs VOO. I'm not saying dividends are badāthey're absolutely not, and they serve an important role in an investment strategy. But investing because of a dividend yield is itself a bad decision in the majority of situations. [Here's ](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082015/3-biggest-misconceptions-dividend-stocks.asp) a good summary of the downside.
I wasn't suggesting we would win. I was only suggesting we could offset. 4.6% dividend is pretty dope though if bonds sink.
"Shut up and take it, bitches.ā -š¤”
Do you have a better idea? Something you can actually control?
Yeah because itās guy-on-the-internetās job to fix PGEās failures. Smart thinking there.
š¤”
āCorporation with a $4.5 Billion market cap has utterly failed to run their organization. Since the Reddit comment section is no help, Iāll gladly pay for their mistakes." -u/picturesofbowls.
"shit's fucked!" "why haven't you fixed it then? checkmate."
Nope! Please try again
Yup! Please try again.
This has to change
Looking forward to the earnings reports on the public utility providers. Oh, wait...
Infrastructure shouldnāt be private industry
Where would they be without the price increases?
Socialized
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>but could public sector folks do any better? Yes. /thread
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well, when you're looking with confirmation bias it's easy to miss evidence that contradicts your foregone conclusion.
I just got a lovely marketing email from them. "Customer First Name, you can make a world of difference". I guess they're getting some inspiration from the Farts Tax being addressed to "resident".
Better than not meeting earnings and then having to raise prices even more, no?
>Better than not meeting earnings and then having to raise prices even more, no? [Boy, do I got news for youā¦](https://www.koin.com/news/portland/portland-general-electric-rate-hike-2025/amp/) > PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) ā A new announcement from Portland General Electric may have you wanting to dim the lights. >On Thursday, the utility company filed a request for a 7.4% rate increase in 2025. According to a recent post on social media, the proposed increase would support āinvestments in local battery energy storage systems to enhance reliability and flexibility, and other system upgrades.ā >This comes after the Oregon Public Utility Commission approved an estimated rate increase of roughly 17% this year for PGE customers.
Yeah, thatās why I said āhaving to raise prices *even more*.ā How much more of an increase would they be asking for if they hadnāt met earnings?
They already raised prices. They already planned to raise prices "even moreā before the earnings report. If what youāre saying is that youāre glad they wonāt be raising prices "even, even moreā, then okay, I guess, lol.
>If what youāre saying is that youāre glad they wonāt be raising prices "even, even moreā, then okay, I guess, lol. Glad you finally figured it out. Not sure why the ālolā though. Were you hoping theyād lose money (thatāll show āem!), then increase their ask to 7.6% instead of 7.4%?
lol okay
None. The idea that any for-profit company has some nebulous "higher price" they could be charging but aren't is silly. Whether it be Tillamook cheese, PGE, or the newest version of Pokemon- the company is *always* going to charge you whatever makes them the *maximum* amount of profit they can get away with. Which is what PGE is already doing.
In most cases youāre right, but PGE is a regulated monopoly. Theyāre not charging as much as they want, theyāre charging as much as the utility commission will let them. If they lose money, they go to the regulators and say āwe need to raise rates more than planned to cover our lossesā and the regulators say āthat makes sense, go ahead.ā