Greed trumps climate as Origin bid voted down by dividend hungry shareholders

A bold plan to spend $30 billion over ten years on wind, solar and storage and drag at least one of Australia’s big energy utilities into the promised green energy future has been formally laid to rest – a triumph, if that’s the word, of greed over climate concerns.

The $20 billion bid for Origin Energy by a consortium led by Canadian funds management giant Brookfield was voted down on Monday, sunk by proxies who voted more than 31 per cent against the offer. The scheme needed 75 per cent approval.

The opposition was led by Australia’s biggest funds manager, Australian Super, a fund roundly criticised in previous times for its support of Australian oil and gas giant Woodside Energy and, like other fund managers, more interested in buybacks and dividends from Origin’s LNG business than the switch to green energy.

The fact that greed trumps climate concerns in the corporate sector around the globe is perfectly visible: Anyone witnessing the enormous share buybacks and the go slow on the green energy transition in Big Oil and Big Auto should be under no illusions on this.

We shouldn’t be surprised. Super fund managers and corporate executives are judged and paid handsomely on the basis of short term performance indicators. There is no reward for long term vision. Or for following the science.

One small shareholder who spoke at Monday’s shareholder meeting summed it up thus: “It doesn’t make sense to shut down our coal fired power stations,” he said. “Keep paying the good dividends.”

Another shareholder said the board should question the science of climate change (because “nothing has happened”), and urged caution on the closure of Eraring, the country’s biggest coal generator at 2.88GW, in August, 2025 (subject to negotiations).

“There will be blackouts,” he said, to applause. The applause was repeated when it was announced that the bid was voted down.

The business press writing on the battle for Origin was full of the myopic short term benefits of rejecting the bid. Macquarie analysts, for instance, were quoted as saying Origin could tap into its LNG earnings and reward shareholders with even higher dividends if the bid was rejected, rather than invest in new wind and solar.

And then there was the bizarre spectacle of former Treasurer Paul Keating, from his vantage point from a high chair at privately owned global investment bank Lazard (the advisors to Australian Super) lambasting Brookfield for being a privately owned global management fund.

Keating’s main complaint was that Brookfield was looking to “apply the profits of Origin’s energy markets” to the $30 billion of planned investments. Oh, the horror of it all!

Keating insisted that Origin could do this without Brookfield. Of course it could, but it hasn’t and it likely won’t.

Which is probably why the Origin board itself recommended the bid. And if Brookfield invested as promised, and generated value by doing so, and then sold the company on at a profit as a reward for its foresight, so what?

The Macquarie assessment was the perfect summary of why the Brookfield bid should be supported. One, it was generous. Two, it was proposing to do what none of Australia’s legacy utility companies have done to date – take the opportunity of the green energy transition seriousl

There was not a single mention of support for doing what Brookfield had planned. Origin will presumably now continue to bumble into the future, knowing that its shareholders are greedy buggers who just want more payouts and don’t give two hoots about Australia’s renewable and emissions targets.

The irony is that they will probably be starved of long term value anyway. The expended Capacity Investment Scheme, where the federal labor government had decided to take a hands on approach to the roll out of 32 GW of wind, solar and storage, will not do any favours to the likes of Origin or the other legacy players.

The reality is that Origin, and the other big utilities, simply haven’t done enough work to be in a strong position to bid into the 8GW of auctions that the governments will hold each year for the next four years.

Origin CEO Frank Calabria told shareholders on Tuesday that the CIS will mean increased competition. “A lot of people will be competing for renewables and storage under this new scheme,” Calabria said.

Brookfield itself is reassessing the playing field in the light of the CIS expansion, and whether it will come back with a market, and likely much lower offer.

The market has already spoken – Origin shares are now back to $7.86, well below the $9.39 (at current exchange rates) offered by Brookfield.

Federal energy minister Chris Bowen has now guaranteed that the green energy will get built, whether Origin or Brookfield are in it or not. It’s hard to imagine the share price ever rebounding to the levels offered by Brookfield. And it’s hard to know whether Origin shareholders are cynical, greedy, or just misled. Or all of the above.