Be interested in this too, as my knickers need extra twisting over something
I do recall that a water supplier, South West Water perhaps? Was to introduce seasonal pricing, lower in Winter and higher in Summer or something along these lines. No doubt, other suppliers watching that innovation with glee at potentially another mechanism to pull more pennies from our pockets.I read it in a paper, then I searched online. Theres currently a trial going on.
www.bbc.co.uk
www.ofwat.gov.uk
The very cynical among us might presume that the idea is to reduce consumption while ensuring the sector remains financially viable. In other words, we want you to use less but pay more – rest assured, we'll try to make this less noticeable through seasonal pricing and thresholds.
www.theguardian.com
It will never be financially viable, no natural monopoly can be in this crony capitalism clown world we have.The very cynical among us might presume that the idea is to reduce consumption while ensuring the sector remains financially viable. In other words, we want you to use less but pay more – rest assured, we'll try to make this less noticeable through seasonal pricing and thresholds.
In other news, the preferred bidder for Thames, KKR, has realised it's a dud.
Thames Water preferred bidder KKR pulls out of rescue deal
Future of troubled supplier in doubt as US private equity group says it cannot proceed with acquiring £4bn stake
Likely because the shareholders are refusing to take the full 8bn hit on their investments, which is why the bondholders are now losing money.
Bills based on usage is pretty darn fair, TBH, and if you're an excessive user filling your swimming pools and leaving the hose on to water your gardens, that cost is on you. Back when we were on rates, we'd pay the same as someone who got to leave their hose on 24/7.
My goodness gracious, a trial.....!!!!!
Regulator supports efforts and endeavours that are predicted to lower bills.... Again, so what? That's what they're supposed to do.
That would only apply to CEO and exec of the water company. Nothing to do with shareholders.Haven't they just introduced bans on bonuses, then the main investor pulls out
What exactly is the expectation here, and is it based on any sort of reality? Who do the shareholders expect will take the hit if not themselves? Surely, by now, between shareholders, bondholders, creditors, and whoever else involved, some, if not all, will need to accept liability and absorb the losses.
One of KKR's conditions of investment was that 8bn of the existing debt was written off, causing a loss to the current shareholders.
No, they all just want their money. They want Thames Water to fail, because then they get their payouts.
Were it publicly owned but privately run, there would then be competition, part of which would result in lower prices.
As it was before, and the money did remain "in the system"... but the problem back then was that it didn't get spent on the water sector, and the problem now will be the same - It'll go to the NHS or benefits or whatever the trending government interest is.
This could be eliminated by stricter regulations... but for that you need a unified regulator.
In theory, that is what should happen. In practice it's funded by the same pot as every other public service, so every sector wants that money, and it goes to whoever ministers favour.
Those who actually get the big bonuses don't stay for life anyway. A few years, perhaps, before they go on to harvest some other industry.
So, in essence, it is an unreality where shareholders operate with zero risk and get their coin irrespective of the outcome. Truly, truly rotten.
That's the issue here tho' isn't it?
true enough... that was more a swipe at those who were in the old nationalised system who appeared to be untouchable in their position.
) companies for our renewable energy. That money should be coming into the UK.KKR pulled out it is reported, not that it was rejected by shareholders. Shareholders are not the bondholders anyway.
Who knows the full details but ...
Quite. I'm sure there is still some milk left in the tank but considering the profile of this, I'm also stunned that KKR thought there was anything left to strip. Christ knows who or what would be willing to touch this company, as it cannot end up being anything but a negative outcome for all concerned.
No, the existing shareholders were expected to lose the 8bn. That was the condition of KKR investing, and the risk of losing everything is the price shareholders pay for their higher returns.
Debts to holding companies are structured as loans, for which repayment is expected, which is why it's not technically a dividend.
The problem is that it won't, and it won't be used to improve water either.
It can still be done with some profit while also being made to work very well. In fact it was being in just such a position that made it such an attractive purchase for RWE. The only things preventing this position again are corporate greed and useless regulators.
Water is a long-term investment and things take years to have a notable effect, good or bad. Macquarie did the exact same - Put some cash in, did the work to generate value and then sucked it all out before the industry caught up to the sucking.
KKR had already submitted turnaround plans and everything else from their end. They were fully on board, and the only reason to pull out is if another stakeholder caused a problem or refused to meet a condition. The only ones refusing to comment are KKR themselves and the existing major shareholders...
Shareholder stakes are already worthless. This is on KKR and the gov really.
