Marubeni Boosts Power Role in Singapore by Raising Senoko Stake
Japan's Marubeni Corp. has raised its stake in Senoko Energy Pte to 50%, after acquiring shares in the Singaporean power generator's holding company.
The trading house said in a statement on Wednesday it increased its stake from 30% after buying the shares in Lion Power 2008 Pte from its Japanese co-investors. Financial terms weren't disclosed. Following the acquisition, Marubeni will jointly hold Senoko with Singapore's Sembcorp Utilities Pte.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lynas Rare Earths Limited's (ASX:LYC) institutional investors lost 4.3% last week but have benefitted from longer-term gains
Significantly high institutional ownership implies Lynas Rare Earths' stock price is sensitive to their trading actions The top 8 shareholders own 50% of the company Insiders have sold recently We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. If you want to know who really controls Lynas Rare Earths Limited (ASX:LYC), then you'll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are institutions with 57% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Losing money on investments is something no shareholder enjoys, least of all institutional investors who saw their holdings value drop by 4.3% last week. However, the 50% one-year return to shareholders might have softened the blow. But they would probably be wary of future losses. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of Lynas Rare Earths, beginning with the chart below. See our latest analysis for Lynas Rare Earths Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Lynas Rare Earths. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Lynas Rare Earths' historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. Lynas Rare Earths is not owned by hedge funds. Australian Super Pty Ltd is currently the company's largest shareholder with 9.5% of shares outstanding. For context, the second largest shareholder holds about 8.5% of the shares outstanding, followed by an ownership of 8.2% by the third-largest shareholder. On further inspection, we found that more than half the company's shares are owned by the top 8 shareholders, suggesting that the interests of the larger shareholders are balanced out to an extent by the smaller ones. While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. Quite a few analysts cover the stock, so you could look into forecast growth quite easily. The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. Our information suggests that Lynas Rare Earths Limited insiders own under 1% of the company. However, it's possible that insiders might have an indirect interest through a more complex structure. Keep in mind that it's a big company, and the insiders own AU$33m worth of shares. The absolute value might be more important than the proportional share. It is good to see board members owning shares, but it might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying. The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 31% stake in Lynas Rare Earths. While this size of ownership may not be enough to sway a policy decision in their favour, they can still make a collective impact on company policies. We can see that Private Companies own 12%, of the shares on issue. It's hard to draw any conclusions from this fact alone, so its worth looking into who owns those private companies. Sometimes insiders or other related parties have an interest in shares in a public company through a separate private company. While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. Case in point: We've spotted 3 warning signs for Lynas Rare Earths you should be aware of, and 1 of them is a bit unpleasant. But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. 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.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Better Dividend Stock: Kinder Morgan vs. Enterprise Products Partners
Kinder Morgan is one of the largest midstream operators in North America. Enterprise Products Partners is one of the largest midstream operators in North America. One of these two midstream giants has a better track record of reliably paying investors for sticking around. 10 stocks we like better than Kinder Morgan › If you are looking at Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) and its 4.1% dividend yield, you should also consider Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE: EPD) and its 6.8% distribution yield. But the reason for preferring Enterprise over Kinder Morgan is only partly to do with the yield, particularly if you are a dividend-focused investor. Here's what you need to know to decide between these two midstream giants. From a big-picture perspective, both Kinder Morgan and Enterprise Products Partners operate in the energy sector. This sector is known for being volatile, thanks to the huge impact that oil and natural gas prices have on the financial results of most energy companies. But not all energy companies, since Kinder Morgan and Enterprise are largely toll takers, charging fees for moving oil and natural gas around the world. Essentially, these midstream players sit between the upstream (energy production) and the downstream (chemicals and refining). The pipelines, storage, and transportation assets they own generate reliable fees, with the price of the commodities moving through their systems far less important than demand for the services they provide. And demand for energy tends to be fairly high even when energy prices are low. So both Kinder Morgan and Enterprise have attractive and reliable business models in what is an otherwise volatile industry. From this perspective, Kinder Morgan and Enterprise are very similar. They are also very similar when it comes to the size of their asset portfolios, which are among the largest in North America. In fact, both businesses have market caps in the $60 billion to $70 billion range. But they aren't interchangeable. Midstream investments are generally considered for the reliable income stream they provide to investors. The lofty dividend yields of both Kinder Morgan and Enterprise are part of that story. However, there's a back history that investors shouldn't ignore. In 2016, the energy sector was going through a difficult period. Enterprise increased its distribution. Kinder Morgan cut its distribution by 75%. To be fair, it was the right move for the company, but it was a terrible outcome for income investors. The real problem, however, is that just a couple of months prior to the cut, management was guiding for a dividend increase of as much as 10%. The cash freed up from the dividend cut was used to strengthen Kinder Morgan's balance sheet and to invest in growth opportunities. So the cut made the business stronger, with management eventually getting dividend growth back on track. But even here there was a problem. It set out an aggressive dividend growth schedule and then fell short of that plan during the difficult energy market in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. In other words, Kinder Morgan has let dividend investors down during each of the most recent energy industry downturns. Enterprise increased its distribution modestly in 2020, but that is basically what it has done for years. In fact, at this point, Enterprise has reliably increased its distribution year in and year out for 26 consecutive years. Kinder Morgan looks like it is in much better financial and business shape today than it was in 2016. And the 2020 dividend miss was reasonable, too, given the uncertainty at the time. But if being able to trust how the management teams of the investments you own address what's important to you, Enterprise will be the better investment option. And you'll collect a higher yield while you're at it. Before you buy stock in Kinder Morgan, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Kinder Morgan wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $713,547!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $966,931!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,062% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 177% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Kinder Morgan. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better Dividend Stock: Kinder Morgan vs. Enterprise Products Partners was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China bans uncertified and recalled power banks on planes
BEIJING (Reuters) -China's aviation regulator will from Saturday ban passengers from carrying power banks without Chinese safety certification markings, as well as those recently recalled by manufacturers because of safety concerns. The move, which applies to anyone boarding a flight in China, follows a series of incidents globally involving lithium battery products, including power banks, overheating on planes. South Korea said a spare power bank was a possible cause of a fire that engulfed an Air Busan plane in January, and in March a Hong Kong Airlines flight from China to Hong Kong was forced to land in China due to a fire in an overhead baggage compartment. Lithium batteries in devices such as laptops, mobile phones, electronic cigarettes and power banks can produce smoke, fire or extreme heat when manufacturing faults or damage cause them to short circuit. They are a growing concern for aviation safety as passengers carry more battery-powered items on flights. Last year three incidents every two weeks of overheating lithium batteries on planes were recorded globally by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, compared to just under one a week in 2018. China's Civil Aviation Administration said on Thursday power banks must be clearly marked with "3C" certification, short for China Compulsory Certification, which authorities require for products that could impact health, safety, and environmental protection. Several leading power bank manufacturers in China including Anker and Romoss have this month recalled batches of battery products due to safety concerns. China's market regulator has revoked or suspended the 3C certification of several power bank and battery cell manufacturers. Since the Air Busan incident, airlines globally have been tightening power bank rules. Aviation rules generally say power banks should be carried in cabin baggage, but increasingly airlines are banning their use on board and say they must be kept within view to spot any problems. China has since 2014 forbidden passengers from charging devices using power banks during flights. Southwest Airlines at the end of May became the first U.S. airline to say portable charging devices must be visible while in use during flight.
