As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
newfhouse

newfhouse

pleb
matticus said:

View: https://twitter.com/TBo39515440/status/1719209397732225301
Click to expand...


I wonder how the water companies would cope with thousands of similar claims. Would Coffey set Special Branch on us?
 
albion

albion

Guru
Amazing they can get away with it whilst destroying the only safe cycling route past Thirlmere.
Two finger salutes indeed.
 
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Über Member
newfhouse said:
I wonder how the water companies would cope with thousands of similar claims. Would Coffey set Special Branch on us?
Click to expand...
Just like banks, they would be deemed to big to fail and the taxpayer pays, or they go bankrupt and then the taxpayer pays aswell.
Yet when there was a water shortage a few years back theydecided the pump to convert seawater into normal water was to expensive to run, alltough they type off business always makes the taxpayer pay, so why would they care?
 
albion

albion

Guru
The whole thing has been a scam throughout. Nearly all of them have borrowed money to pay dividends.
In addition,mon the case of Thames they dent loaded on change of ownership.

And just look at United Utilities who keep their roads closed in order to pay bigger dividends.
 
E

ebikeerwidnes

Well-Known Member
Beebo said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67696645

Thames water are insolvent and could be nationalised, but at huge cost to the public.
Their parent company owe £18billlion, which has been asset stripped by leveraging the value of a national asset. It’s a complete scandal.
Click to expand...

In my opinion they should be declared bankrupt and taken over by the government at pretty much zero cost

Then you get people screaming that the main investors are pension companies and we have to think of the poor pensioners

NOT WE DON'T
the investors are pension COMPANIES - although one owns 30% or something - it is a small part of the company's total investment and they will have massive backup and spreading of risk
we are NOT taking away the bread and milk from a little old lady in a 2-up-2-down in Coronation Street

and a lot of the shareholders are, in reality, very rich people who are looking to minimise their losses - and if possible drag a profit from it - after making money from it form many years at the expense of the customers

can't see it being done the way I think with this government!
 
BoldonLad

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
ebikeerwidnes said:
In my opinion they should be declared bankrupt and taken over by the government at pretty much zero cost

Then you get people screaming that the main investors are pension companies and we have to think of the poor pensioners

NOT WE DON'T
the investors are pension COMPANIES - although one owns 30% or something - it is a small part of the company's total investment and they will have massive backup and spreading of risk
we are NOT taking away the bread and milk from a little old lady in a 2-up-2-down in Coronation Street

and a lot of the shareholders are, in reality, very rich people who are looking to minimise their losses - and if possible drag a profit from it - after making money from it form many years at the expense of the customers

can't see it being done the way I think with this government!
Click to expand...

The "poor pensioners" pensions will not be affected. YOUR pension might be, (depending on how your Pension Scheme is funded), if you are not already in receipt of your pension.
 
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Über Member
ebikeerwidnes said:
In my opinion they should be declared bankrupt and taken over by the government at pretty much zero cost
Click to expand...
Yeah point is what they should and what they do are two different things. I do agree with you tough, or better said i think they should have kept the hardware(water infrastructure) in government hands to begin with making the water companies lease the infrastructure so that there is from the beginning much less of an incentive for crazy investments based on nothing but air, and investor ''value'' it should just be kept simple and stupid basically.
ebikeerwidnes said:
NOT WE DON'T
the investors are pension COMPANIES - although one owns 30% or something - it is a small part of the company's total investment and they will have massive backup and spreading of risk
we are NOT taking away the bread and milk from a little old lady in a 2-up-2-down in Coronation Street
Click to expand...
That and pension companies are said companies because they are supposed to specialize and spreading risk, the alternative is not using an pension company and just put the money on a interest paying(savings) account on the bank. However that brings a much less revenue, so the strategy of a pensions company is a good spread over multiple different sectors type of companies etc. so that in the long term the short term losses are nulled by the income.
ebikeerwidnes said:
and a lot of the shareholders are, in reality, very rich people who are looking to minimise their losses - and if possible drag a profit from it - after making money from it form many years at the expense of the customers
Click to expand...
To take an example of the cycling branche as we are on a cycling forum afterall, the fact that rich people always seem to think they are entitled to compensation stings a bit, especially since out of millions of Ebikes sold right now, almost none of them are compactible, even within the same brand. So we as normal people are expected to burn if our investment is rendered useless if for example the eletrical motor of a ebike fails and only and full replacement if offered. (yes i known we have facebook marketplace, aliexrpess and such, but i'm talking about official offerings, bosch and all the other ebike engine companies only sell complete units not parts.)

So if we don't get to negate our losses, why should those with millions to play around get that option? They should not and that should learn them to be more carefull with their money and lives. If some of those realized that earlier we might not have had a strange attempt of claiming to be as sub-marine crash.

ebikeerwidnes said:
can't see it being done the way I think with this government!
Click to expand...
Agreed, now to be completely honest i have little trust any government would come with an better plan

BoldonLad said:
The "poor pensioners" pensions will not be affected. YOUR pension might be, (depending on how your Pension Scheme is funded), if you are not already in receipt of your pension.
Click to expand...
He is correctly pointing out it are pension companies investing, depending on their strategy there is very little change they would not be able to pay-out because of one investment not giving expected returns.
 
icowden

icowden

Legendary Member
More bad news from Thames Water:-
Thames Water is in a race to find extra cash after its investors said they would not give the struggling water giant extra cash unless bills rise.
Click to expand...

If only there were some way to find some cash...
In analysis undertaken for the BBC, Martin Blaiklock, a consultant with international experience of privatised utility funding, concluded that under Macquarie's control, the total returns made by the bank and its investors from Thames Water averaged between 15.5% and 19% a year.
Mr Blaiklock has 40 years of experience in such matters and said these returns were "twice what one would normally expect".
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ian H
Politics as it used to be done
Replies
1
Fab Foodie
What books/literature should be read as part of the UK GCSE curriculum?
Replies
48
glasgowcyclist
The UK’s broken asylum system
Replies
724
AndyRM
Cannabis as a Class A drug?
Replies
155
Top Bottom