As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[Psamathe]

Your statement about borrowing rate is an implicit acceptance that public money would need to go into the company. See above about whether this is in the public interest.

I fully accept that public money would need to go in to the companies. But private money going in mean more that went in coming out to those lending so ultimately it's all coming from the public anyway so why not eliminate the investor profiting from higher interst that the Government could borrow at.

Also, you are using the worst example to try to justify a blanket approach for the whole sector.

Vast %age of our rivers are badly polluted (sewage being the major cause), across the entire country - which means the majority of water companies.

 

[CXRAndy]

I remember talking to a chap who was doing some foundations for me. I asked him his background, worked for the waterboard keeping the open land drainage clear.

He said soon as the his area was privatised, he was made redundant, dykes, rivers waterways would be cleaned and kept clear on a when there is a flood we will clean up then.

 

[pinkbikini]

Can anyone think of a privately-run monopoly where the product is an absolute necessity for every customer in the region within which that company operates?

Apart from water, I’m struggling. I understand all the arguments that others have put on here, but they’ve conveniently skirted this issue.

That’s why Thames Water, etc should be nationalised in my mind. Thames Water has no incentive to consider the customer (other than being overseen by a fairly toothless regulator).

 

[stowie]

Can anyone think of a privately-run monopoly where the product is an absolute necessity for every customer in the region within which that company operates?

Apart from water, I’m struggling. I understand all the arguments that others have put on here, but they’ve conveniently skirted this issue.

That’s why Thames Water, etc should be nationalised in my mind. Thames Water has no incentive to consider the customer (other than being overseen by a fairly toothless regulator).

From 2006 to 2017 Thames Water was owned by Macquarie Group - an Australian consortium. Previously it was owned by RWE - a German utilities consortium. The current major shareholders are a mix of overseas and domestic pensions companies and one (or two) middle east investment houses.

Whilst under the Macquarie Group shareholder dividends were paid (£2.8bn) from loans taken out against assets. This wasn't the only source of Thames Water's debt woes (which went from £4.4bn to £10.8bn under Macquarie) but it sure doesn't help.

Privatisation has been a disaster with water which should be considered a national security asset and treated as such. This might not mean it being a nationalised entity but it sure as hell means that regulatory authority should have been better than OFWAT.

 

[BoldonLad]

Knowing how many of you love. a graph.

I am not a Financial Expert, do we have any Financial Experts on the forum, who can explain this?

Graph below shows "Total return" for Thames Water, I guess this means Capital Growth (of share price), plus Dividends.

I goes steadily downhill

Doesn't this mean, unless you were sharp enough to buy in at the correct time, and exit at the correct time, Shareholders have no in fact "made a killing"?

I do understand that various senior staff may have "made a killing" via Salary, Bonus payments, and Pension Schemes.