Thameswater bills to raise by 50% by 2030

[Frankie Teardrop]

Thames Water makes bid to lift bills by up to 44%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68872563

[70PC]

2 hours ago, Frankie Teardrop said:

Thames Water makes bid to lift bills by up to 44%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68872563

The unacceptable face of capitalism. A company in this mess should not be paying dividends or big rewards for management.

"£10.6 million    Paid to Thames Water top bosses in past four years

In the year to the end of March 2023, it paid out about £45 million in dividends, and the previous two years it handed out a combined £53.9 million."

https://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/national/24217604.thames-water-dividend-payouts-spotlight-shareholders-pull-funding/#:~:text=When asked to explain the,to help pay its debts.&text=In the year to the,a combined £53.9 million.

[Dweller]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/28/thames-water-collapse-borrowing-whitehall-uk-finances-bonds-liz-truss

Thames Water collapse could trigger Truss-style borrowing crisis, Whitehall officials fear Exclusive: Concerns over effect on UK’s finances lead officials to believe utility should be renationalised before general election

[bomberbrown]

So basically, all the gains have been privatised…….now let’s socialise the losses.  

[Dweller]

1 hour ago, bomberbrown said:

So basically, all the gains have been privatised…….now let’s socialise the losses.  

EXACTLY.

I am not the brightest spark but I don't see how this restores confidence for investors?? Yes the investors have been allowed to make a lot of money  whilst the company ran up billions in debts but now they are about to lose a lot of money when the company is brought back into public ownership. So how does  investors losing up to 40%  sustain investor confidence in the UK? For years I have read on HPC about asset stripping and never really understood exactly what that meant until now when chickens are coming home to roost as  it becomes increasingly  apparent that any talk of sovereignty is ****** given that for decades the government  have been selling off the country  to anyone wanting to make a quick buck without having to accept any of the responsibility 

[suresh786]

11 hours ago, bomberbrown said:

So basically, all the gains have been privatised…….now let’s socialise the losses.  

well not really as share price becomes zero when company goes bankrupt

[msi]

10 minutes ago, suresh786 said:

well not really as share price becomes zero when company goes bankrupt

Equity is wiped out...but who takes on the resulting debt and operating costs to keep things running?

[winkie]

No debt when privatised.......div's and executive pay paid with debt?

[The Angry Capitalist]

1 hour ago, msi said:

Equity is wiped out...but who takes on the resulting debt and operating costs to keep things running?

The government plans on doing that:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/28/thames-water-collapse-borrowing-whitehall-uk-finances-bonds-liz-truss

Be under no illusions though.

This is a major crack in what is a crumbling system of a debt based low interest rate racket where everything gets flogged off at the expense of the common man.

If the government takes on all the £15 billion debt onto its balance sheet it sends a message that other corporations can just rack up debt and siphon off profits and then let the government take it over when the debts become unsustainable.

The government obviously already has too much debt so adding this does not help especially with a rising interest rate cycle which we have entered.

If they nationalise the company and decide to not pay off creditors or give them haircuts then that will be bad too because investors will flee the country and take their money elsewhere which will result in higher interest rates.

This is the chickens coming home to roost where decades of bad polices finally expose the stupidity of selling everything off to foreigners.

Looks as though Britain is going to get a reality check pretty soon.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

[ds7971]

Surely if it really is bankrupt, the Gov can just buy it for a Pound??

 

 

[The Angry Capitalist]

8 minutes ago, ds7971 said:

Surely if it really is bankrupt, the Gov can just buy it for a Pound??

 

 

That's not the issue.

The £15 billion of debt is and the fact that new infrastructure needs to be built too.

Do the creditors get paid or does the  government tell them to fu** off?

If the latter there will be a run on the pound because investors will flee.

[Freki]

1 hour ago, The Angry Capitalist said:

That's not the issue.

The £15 billion of debt is and the fact that new infrastructure needs to be built too.

Do the creditors get paid or does the  government tell them to fu** off?

If the latter there will be a run on the pound because investors will flee.

Do we know the interest rate on the bond? Was it price at gvt level? Or was there a premium? And did the government ever explicitly (or implicitly) guarantee the debt? 

Unless the answer is no on most of that list, then the bond holders were just hoping for a free lunch without doing their due diligence. 

[The Angry Capitalist]

5 minutes ago, Freki said:

Do we know the interest rate on the bond? Was it price at gvt level? Or was there a premium? And did the government ever explicitly (or implicitly) guarantee the debt? 

Unless the answer is no on most of that list, then the bond holders were just hoping for a free lunch without doing their due diligence. 

Can't imagine the government guaranteed the debt because it is a private company.

Whether they was hoping for a free lunch or not is besides the point.

Investors won't put money into British corporations and companies because of the risk that they will get nationalized etc.

Basically, Britain won't be able to attract capital at cheap rates like they have done over the last 20 years.

That will mean pain. Lots of pain.

[suresh786]

17 hours ago, msi said:

Equity is wiped out...but who takes on the resulting debt and operating costs to keep things running?

yes i agree but its same like any other company going bust, that's why i think water companies should never be privatized in my opinion 

[suresh786]

17 hours ago, msi said:

Equity is wiped out...but who takes on the resulting debt and operating costs to keep things running?

that's why water companies should never have been privatized, in my opinion

[suresh786]

14 hours ago, The Angry Capitalist said:

That's not the issue.

The £15 billion of debt is and the fact that new infrastructure needs to be built too.

Do the creditors get paid or does the  government tell them to fu** off?

If the latter there will be a run on the pound because investors will flee.

why creditors will get paid, its same like any other private company going bust, do creditors get paid, No

[onlooker]

46 minutes ago, suresh786 said:

why creditors will get paid, its same like any other private company going bust, do creditors get paid, No

46 minutes ago, suresh786 said:

In theory the creditors can sue to take possession of the assets, which must be worth more than 15 billion. So the government would step in to confiscate the assets, and that’s when it finds that nobody is prepared to lend to the government any more.

[regprentice]

14 minutes ago, onlooker said:

In theory the creditors can sue to take possession of the assets, which must be worth more than 15 billion. So the government would step in to confiscate the assets, and that’s when it finds that nobody is prepared to lend to the government any more.

Thats a bonus for a future labour govt.They have no intention of borrowing to find public services...and it salts the earth for any future conservative government 

win-win as they say

[onlooker]

1 minute ago, regprentice said:

Thats a bonus for a future labour govt.They have no intention of borrowing to find public services...and it salts the earth for any future conservative government 

win-win as they say

Can you imagine what life would be like if the UK government and UK companies were trying to borrow as if they were 3rd World countries?

 

[Brendan110_0]

14 hours ago, The Angry Capitalist said:

Can't imagine the government guaranteed the debt because it is a private company.

Whether they was hoping for a free lunch or not is besides the point.

Investors won't put money into British corporations and companies because of the risk that they will get nationalized etc.

Basically, Britain won't be able to attract capital at cheap rates like they have done over the last 20 years.

That will mean pain. Lots of pain.

Short term pain, long term gain. This version of Capitalism has failed the UK.

[Dweller]

Couldn't resist posting this  one :O)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/14/russell-brand-baptised-thames-sins-washed-away-criminal-allegations

So Russell Brand was baptised in the Thames, and all his sins were washed away. Cheaper than a lawyer, I suppose

 

A hazmat dredger, please, to the stretch of the River Thames on which Russell Brand was recently baptised, in an event apparently conducted by TV adventurer and chief scout Bear Grylls. I know, it’s incredible: Thames Water is no longer responsible for the biggest piece of shit in the river.

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, Dweller said:

Couldn't resist posting this  one :O)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/14/russell-brand-baptised-thames-sins-washed-away-criminal-allegations

So Russell Brand was baptised in the Thames, and all his sins were washed away. Cheaper than a lawyer, I suppose

 

A hazmat dredger, please, to the stretch of the River Thames on which Russell Brand was recently baptised, in an event apparently conducted by TV adventurer and chief scout Bear Grylls. I know, it’s incredible: Thames Water is no longer responsible for the biggest piece of shit in the river.

 

Denying an individual the legal right to earn a living is a crime. An act of consensual sex is not. The hacks and stringers at the Graun cannot be unaware of the difference so one must assume this latest slander is motivated either by spite or ideology.

Caroline Dinenage MP is the one deserving of our contempt.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/197530/culture-media-and-sport-committee-chair-writes-to-broadcasters-and-tiktok-over-russell-brand-allegations-and-investigations/

Edited Tuesday at 17:56 by zugzwang

[Dweller]

3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

 

Denying an individual the legal right to earn a living is a crime. An act of consensual sex is not. The hacks and stringers at the Graun cannot be unaware of the difference so one must assume this latest slander is motivated either by spite or ideology.

Caroline Dinenage MP is the one deserving of our contempt.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/197530/culture-media-and-sport-committee-chair-writes-to-broadcasters-and-tiktok-over-russell-brand-allegations-and-investigations/

I agree with what you are saying but sadly I still appreciate people who say things that really shouldn't  be said 

Edited Tuesday at 21:04 by Dweller