Not My Fault, Guv

[spen666]

Radio today are reporting that bosses at Thames Water say the uncertainty regarding Burnham makes it more likely they will end up in administration
Its laughable. Burnham is not in power, yet Thames Water are blaming their failings on him. Obviously its nothing to do with the dreadful way the company has been run and the payment of dividends to shareholders that should have been used to pay for infrastructure

A great example of the way in society nothing is ever your fault, its always someone else's fault

 

[icowden]

Radio today are reporting that bosses at Thames Water say the uncertainty regarding Burnham makes it more likely they will end up in administration

What's the uncertainty? He's going to be PM on Monday. That's pretty certain.

 

[Beebo]

In fairness the current board have been dealt a fairly poor hand. Thames Water's previous owners including Australian fund Macquarie were the ones who totally fleeced the company of cash.

It would be almost impossible for the current board to raise capital with the uncertainty of nationalisation hanging over them.

 

[Cirrus]

They have returned to profit apparently, will they pay bonuses, will they pay a dividend?

Apparently it’s due to price rises, if so, then in my humble, no, they effing shouldn’t.

 

[First Aspect]

The difficulty they (and most of the others) have is that in order to get the infrastructure where they need it, inward investment and a deep restriction on dividends is needed. So who would invest in that?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

The difficulty they (and most of the others) have is that in order to get the infrastructure where they need it, inward investment and a deep restriction on dividends is needed. So who would invest in that?

A company that serves the poeple not the shareholders, the goverment can set that up, dutch drinking water companies are setup in that way as well, most local goverment have a controlling share, other shares are government owned or for example pension funds, co-opertive banks etc. Salaries (yes even for the biggest bosses) are capped and they just provide one service really well with little price increases.
oh and yes there are also very strickt rules, Elon Musk can't come in with a bag of money to buy a dutch drinking water company(even if the shareholders would agree)

 

[BoldonLad]

The difficulty they (and most of the others) have is that in order to get the infrastructure where they need it, inward investment and a deep restriction on dividends is needed. So who would invest in that?

IMHO, they would get investment if dividends were “reasonable”. By “reasonable” I mean a little (1-2%) above current interest rates, on instant access savings. I would guess that those wanting a stable RoI (pension companies, retirees for example) without too much risk to Capital, would give it a go. If it could be held in an ISA, even more attractive.

 

[tarric]

When the water companies were privatised they had zero debt, that now stands at somewhere between 75 and 85 billion pounds which matches the amount in dividends paid to shareholders since privatisation. Maybe instead of borrowing to pay shareholders they should have been investing in infrastructure rather than polluting the countries waterways.