Are the guaranteed returns of regulated utilities really what they sound like?
Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy?  Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down.  So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS "No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a  monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity.  Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk ""defensive"" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities."
"I'm sorry, i should have said I was saying that sarcastically, but those are the arguments which I suspect are being made.  &gt;*""You did not answer my question: Where's my advocate in the negotiations?""*  Its doubtful that they would be among the hundreds (thousands?) of lobbyists. Unless you are a corporation and you have one.  &gt;*""Why should I believe the negotiators have my best interests at heart?""*  I don't think the negotiators have your or the country's best interests at heart. I think they barely even play lip service to it any more.   &gt;*""What's the point of negotiating a treaty that doesn't have the people's interests at heart?""*     Well, look at all the things that are in TTIP, for example, here in the US, by underfunding government agencies tasked with enforcement of existing laws and recommending new ones, the chemical industry has succeeded for the last 25 years or so at preventing a lot of needed regulation of a lot of demonstrably dangerous substances. Particularly a class of chemicals called [endocrine disruptors](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/tag/Endocrine-Disruptors/).   Meanwhile, Europe has put into place much more stringent regulations based on the Precautionary Principle, which requires that chemical industry prove some chemicals are safe to get them approved, while the US the key issue is overcoming lobbyists and even chemicals which are clearly dangerous have to go through a lot of hoops before they are regulated, and even when its shown to be extremely likely they are dangerous, it is very difficult when lobbyists are there often regulators are political appointees from the industries they are supposed to regulate. There is no denying that having different regulations is complicated, but what they are promoting as a solution is not a good approach.   They are pushing for what they call regulatory coherence- which is basically the forcing of all environmental and chemical laws in a bunch of countries [into the same mold](http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ToxicPartnership_Mar2014.pdf). It would overrule a lot of state laws involving things like fracking..and food safety -   Instead of raising our standards to the European level, they want to bring theirs down, and get rid of the (IMO, quite prudent) Precautionary Principle, which I think is incredibly stupid. But, people are not aware of this.  There- I think has clearly been a high level decision - some kind of gentlemans agreement between the 5 media corporations that control virtually all US media, to never cover some issues.  To not cover those issues at all. But in Europe they have a similar problem, just not quite as bad. But there people make more of an effort to find out whats really happening. Also there are fewer astroturfers.  (the US is known for massive levels of astroturfing in its online world)  For example, in the UK, there is a lot of protesting because of the implicit goal of the FTAs is to privatize public services, although they deny it, its right there [in agreements like GATS](http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm), framing public services as bad, some kind of theft from companies, and ratcheting any small privatization into a permanent entitlement for that company to that market so its permanent, even if its unsuccessful. Thats been [disastrous to their NHS](https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/john-hilary/on-ttip-and-nhs-they-are-trying-to-bamboozle-us).  How did it get this way? In part its due to the failure of Americans to seek out facts, something people really have to do because there are forces spending a lot of effort into hiding them and trying to exploit positions of trust to create a dangerous false security..  Its a direct result of so much money in politics. The so called ""stakeholders"" spend a lot of money and energy into getting candidates into office. So then they expect something in return.   This is related: http://www.chemsec.org/what-we-do/influencing-public-policy/news-updates/1321-letter-to-the-ttip-negotiators-signed-by-178-groups" "The ""guaranteed minimum future value"" isn't really a guarantee so much as the amount they will charge you at the end of the agreement if you want to keep the car. In this sense it might better be considered a ""guaranteed maximum future cost"". If the car has fallen below that value at that point, then you can just hand back the car and you won't owe anything extra. If it turns out to be worth more, you end up in profit - though only if you either actually pay for the car, or if you roll over into a new PCP deal. So the finance company has an incentive to set it at a sensible value, otherwise they'll end up losing money. Most new cars lose a lot of value quickly initially, and then the rate of loss slows down. But given that it's lost £14k in 2 years, it seems pretty likely it'll lose much more than another £1k in the next 2 years. So it does sound like that in this case, they estimated the value badly at the start of the deal and will end up taking a loss on the deal when you hand it back at the end. It appears you also have the legal right to ""voluntary termination"" once you have paid off half the ""Total Amount Payable"". This should be documented in the PCP agreement and if you're half way into the deal then I'd expect you'll be about there. If that doesn't apply, you can try to negotiate to get out of the deal early anyway. If they look at it rationally, they should think about the value of your payments over the next two years minus the loss they will end up with at the end of those two years. But there's no guarantee they will. Disclaimer: Despite living in the UK, I hadn't heard of these contracts until I read this question, so my answer is based entirely on web searches and some inferences. The two most useful sources I found on the general subject were this one and this one." "Your return from a bond fund corresponds to the return on the underlying bonds (minus fees) during your holding period. So you can buy AND sell at any time. Some funds charge a penalty of 2% or whatever if you sell your fund shares within 30 or 60 days of buying it. There are two basic ways to profit from a bond fund. 1) you get dividends from the interest paid on the bonds. 2) you have a capital gain (or loss) on the bonds themselves. 1) is likely to happen. MOST (not all) bonds pay interest on time, and on a regular basis. This component of returns is ALMOST guaranteed. 2) There are no guarantees on what the ""market"" will pay for bonds at any given time, so this component of bonds is NOT AT ALL guaranteed. Your ""total return is the sum of 1) and 2) (minus fees). Since 2) is uncertain, your ""total return"" is uncertain." "I suppose it is on the surface, when you look at the cost of that indivdual item to your individual doorstep.  But one most consider the efficiency of the entire *system*.  While one item may be a chore, the UPS driver is really an online shopping delivery man.  Courier companies have developed very efficient networks of delivery.  Vastly more efficient than the net sum of the chaotic weekend chore runs that we all do, heading from store to store accross the city.  I know i've switched over to online shopping almost exclusively to avoid that. I'd rather wait a few days and have whatever i need delivered to home or work than waste one of my week days ""running around"".  I know that doesn't sound like much of a point, but consider the effect if a significant percentage of the population began to utilize online shopping.  Replacing the chaotic hordes of individuals running around all week, with an efficient delivery system.  The infrastructure savings would be likely be significant, and quality of life would be improved for most with less errands to be running.  It would be interesting if that could be quantified and compared to what the income from a state sales tax would bring." Basic utilities like water and electricity are highly regulated.  The price is set by a certain and small amount above cost, which is audited at several layers by government and private entities.  I'm just not sure why someone would be so far from reality, I apologize if my response jarred you. GIC perhaps? These would be quite similar to Certificates of Deposit where one is agreeing to lock up their money for a term and be paid a percentage for doing so. There are various kinds as some may be linked to market returns in some cases and others are just simple interest. Returns: Variable, as with all investments. Legitimate: Contact the usual major investment-fund houses. "Yeah, I saw a similar article back in 1976 (and several times since).  But then they used the correct word ""exponential"" to refer to growth.  Ironically the author may end up being correct by using ""parabolic"" -- which is the type of curve you see with ""bubbles"", as the slow towards the peak and then begin descending with increased rapidity on the other side.  And (alas) solar electric power generation placements are very likely to follow THAT curve -- as the investments fail to pay off, people begin to realize that (despite the claims) it is *not* a viable long-term base of power-generation, and so begin to not only reduce investment, but to abandon and even scrap projects as the long term costs mount."