Thames Water

[Wild Card]

Michael Gove has ‘zero sympathy’ for ‘arrogant’ Thames Water in funding crisis – business live

Live, rolling coverage of business, economics and financial markets as minister says water company’s leadership has been a ‘disgrace’

www.theguardian.com

Mickey Gove calling out Thames water.

Almost as if he has had 13 years to sort it out isn’t it.

The hypocrisy of the prick

They only good thing about his comments (if they are not just point scoring soundbites) it that maybe the government is sick of TW and as they may lean of Ofwat to tell them to piss off.

Wild card move from the Cons? renationalise a private company prior to the election?

This seems to be an issue that is energising the electorate. If the Tories give Thames a bail out of any sort I can see even more defections to the left and right.

Definitely an issue to keep banging on about in the run up to the election.

I have never seen the basket case that is the BBC's HYS comments section so riled up and unified.

Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%

The regulator, whose approval is needed for any price rises, has pushed back on substantial bill increases.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[WHD]

Who would own the infrastructure if they went bankrupt? Thames water wouldn't be anymore, so could the government not offer to take on the whole of it at a knock down price ? I'm no financial expert.

I would guess the shareholders. I assume the government would then have to offer a token amount back to the shareholders.

 

[DaveH]

Mental how it's perfectly legal to be in billions of debt and pay out money to people. It's effectively a Ponzi scheme. Someone's going to have to pay the piper, and you can sure it'll not be anyone making money out of it right now.

It is mental.

Sell a public business to a consortium of private owners. Borrow money, refuse to invest then share both the borrowed money and profit amongst the shareholders while the business rots.

 

[Barry Quizshow]

I would guess the shareholders. I assume the government would then have to offer a token amount back to the shareholders.

The shareholders would be wiped out and the creditors would have claims over the assets if TW goes bankrupt.

If that occurs it'll be interesting to see if the infrastructure and operations are sold to another private buyer/consortium or if the current public mood leads to some form of nationalising the assets.

 

[Blue Bell Lad]

I would guess the shareholders. I assume the government would then have to offer a token amount back to the shareholders.

That's what I meant, a token amount. They've raped and pillaged it with their dividends for years already. 1p a share should do it.

 

[DaveH]

So basically they're paying for other countries pension schemes, then tell 3.5 million female pensioners, hold on when we said you get your pension at 60 ,we've changed our mind you have to work until you're 66 . Meanwhile billions are siphoned off for pension funds all over the planet.

That is not quite how it works.

The pension age you quote is for the state pension. The shares in this are for private pensions and have no relation to the state pensions. Britain's USS is listed there. They allow people to draw their pension from up to 10 years before the normal retirement age. So, women can retire under that scheme from 56, but with a penalty applied for every year before normal retirement. Someone retiring at 56 will get 30% less than the same pension retiring at 66.

No matter what age someone retiring under USS private pension jacks it all in at, the age for the state pension remains the same.

 

[Wild Card]

I would guess the shareholders. I assume the government would then have to offer a token amount back to the shareholders.

I think what happens if a company goes into administration is the shares would be come negligible value. And they would have been deemed to have been sold and rebought on the day of administration at nil value. Then if it did get pulled round they would have their shares still. The loss can be claimed but your shares have a base cost of nil.

If then the government created a new co and bought the infrastructure off the liquidators I think the shareholders would lose everything.

 

[HellsBells]

Who would own the infrastructure if they went bankrupt? Thames water wouldn't be anymore, so could the government not offer to take on the whole of it at a knock down price ? I'm no financial expert.

Depends on the security of the bank package (if there is any). I've not done Infrastructure lending before so I don't know what is standard, but there might be terms of the debt that state what happens to the infrastructure after default.

I would guess the shareholders. I assume the government would then have to offer a token amount back to the shareholders.

Not sure - see above - the shares would be worthless.

 

[DaveH]

Depends on the security of the bank package (if there is any). I've not done Infrastructure lending before so I don't know what is standard, but there might be terms of the debt that state what happens to the infrastructure after default.

Not sure - see above - the shares would be worthless.

For this would they factor in assets (which are considerable but in need of a lot of improvement) and the fact you have a monopoly?

 

[Steak Pie]

Really. What evidence do you have that Labour will simply allow this Tory sanctioned con to continue?

Starmer ruled out renationalising the water companies a few weeks ago.

Sir Keir Starmer rules out re-nationalising Thames Water after water supply chaos

The man tipped to be the country’s next Prime Minister has said it is “time for a rethink” about how water companies behave after learning that hundreds of homes in Reading were cut off from their water supply this week.

uk.news.yahoo.com

If anyone thinks that this Labour Party will bring anything back into public ownership, then they are living in a fantasy land.

 

[Blue Bell Lad]

That is not quite how it works.

The pension age you quote is for the state pension. The shares in this are for private pensions and have no relation to the state pensions. Britain's USS is listed there. They allow people to draw their pension from up to 10 years before the normal retirement age. So, women can retire under that scheme from 56, but with a penalty applied for every year before normal retirement. Someone retiring at 56 will get 30% less than the same pension retiring at 66.

No matter what age someone retiring under USS private pension jacks it all in at, the age for the state pension remains the same.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[DaveH]

Starmer ruled out renationalising the water companies a few weeks ago.

Sir Keir Starmer rules out re-nationalising Thames Water after water supply chaos

The man tipped to be the country’s next Prime Minister has said it is “time for a rethink” about how water companies behave after learning that hundreds of homes in Reading were cut off from their water supply this week.

uk.news.yahoo.com

If anyone thinks that this Labour Party will bring anything back into public ownership, then they are living in a fantasy land.

They have said they want to, but recognise the funds are not there. They have talked about one possible penalty for under performing, is shares going back into public ownership, rather than issuing files that end up being paid for via bills.

In their first term I don't see much changing but some frameworks starting to go into place that would allow the transition of certain services in certain conditions back into public ownership. It might start to happen in their 2nd or 3rd term, depending on how things go

I'm fine with that. After 5 PMs and 3 different manifestos since June 2016, each with major policy changes and each trying to jump on what they think the burning issue of the day is, with little thought. I'm happy to see a government with realistic strategic planning than one who blunders into the next issue of popularist politics.

 

[PTR]

Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%

The regulator, whose approval is needed for any price rises, has pushed back on substantial bill increases.

www.bbc.co.uk

They want to put the bills up by 40 % LOL

 

[Stray Cat]

Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%

The regulator, whose approval is needed for any price rises, has pushed back on substantial bill increases.

www.bbc.co.uk

They want to put the bills up by 40 % LOL

They can fuck off!

 

[psr]

Bunch of c***s

 

[James]

Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%

The regulator, whose approval is needed for any price rises, has pushed back on substantial bill increases.

www.bbc.co.uk

They want to put the bills up by 40 % LOL

Perfectly fine and normal imo.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1773339061303857466

 

[Brian Griffin]

The dildo of redemption rarely arrives lubed.

Nationalise the lot. Fuck the entirety of the shareholding base. They’re a disgrace the lot of them. I hope they lose everything.

 

[Toronado]

shareholder dividends should only be paid out of whats left of running a non problematic system/service no matter what that is !

Shareholder and CEO greed should not effect everyone in the country

 

[Hugh Gains]

The dildo of redemption rarely arrives lubed.

Nationalise the lot. Fuck the entirety of the shareholding base. They’re a disgrace the lot of them. I hope they lose everything.

Exactly

Please explain how nationalised water isn’t superior to privatised water. Profits are back into the company, reducing costs for the consumer, allowing for investment into infrastructure, allowing for further reduction of costs to consumer.

Rather than costs go up and up and up whilst shareholders line their pockets, infrastructure crumbles etc

It’s rigged as fuck

 

[Snugster]

Jacob Rees-Mogg

@Jacob_Rees_Mogg

Thames Water ought to be allowed to go bankrupt. It would continue to be run by an administrator, the shareholders would lose their equity but they took too much cash out so deserve no sympathy and the bond holders would face a partial loss. This is capitalism, it won’t affect the water supply.