plan for collapse of Thames Water

Classic vulture capitalism where they get away with it whilst the customers who have no choice because there's no competition just eats **** whilst they get the next bunch of failed-upwards toffs in charge.

If Labour does this they will forever be toxic.
 
Last edited:
200sols said:
Nope. As I said other factors have changed including political risk which have changed the investment case as well and the the line coming out is KKR walked away rather than shareholders blocked the deal. Its not simply a case of what you claim, you may well be right but I just asked you to back it up with a source.
Click to expand...
And now you have it - Shareholders obviously refused the deal (forcing KKR to walk away), because they're 'suddenly' proposing their own £6.7Bn write-off instead of the £8Bn+ that KKR wanted, for an extra £1Bn investment and without giving up their stakes... and with this added BS about immunity from OFWAT.
 
ttaskmaster said:
And now you have it - Shareholders obviously refused the deal (forcing KKR to walk away), because they're 'suddenly' proposing their own £6.7Bn write-off instead of the £8Bn+ that KKR wanted, for an extra £1Bn investment and without giving up their stakes... and with this added BS about immunity from OFWAT.
Click to expand...
Firstly I just asked you to provide a source, you still haven't. Secondly, why don't you link to this deal so we can all read the facts rather than your interpretation of it.
 
Is there a general water bills thread?

Just had a letter from Southern Water, bill going up by fractions short of 50% from next week! :eek: :(
 
StriderX said:
Classic vulture capitalism where they get away with it whilst the customers who have no choice because there's no competition just eats **** whilst they get the next bunch of failed-upwards toffs in charge.

If Labour does this they will forever be toxic.
Click to expand...
Labour are toxic, and they are going to lose the next election. Labour know this and most likely will just continue down crap street.

Labour are going to destroy citizens private pensions with their new proposals. I wish policies on pensions applied to both private and civil.

We need a government to provide better policies when it comes to infrastructure that is important to security. Specially after the attempt to poison our drink water by terrorists. We can't have these type of services control by foreign companies.
 
Last edited:
(may need an Alzheimer's thread too)

How much is your water bill?

Yes it enters a downstairs bathroom with no room to fit a meter annoyingly. That's a bummer. Maybe you could remodel the room to accommodate a meter, they are petty small. Bit of a nuclear option though unless you're refitting the bathroom anyway.
forums.overclockers.co.uk forums.overclockers.co.uk

Similarly free Gear reinvested in Maquaire for contracts on the national charging infrastructure 2nd bite at the uk tax payer.
 
200sols said:
Firstly I just asked you to provide a source, you still haven't. Secondly, why don't you link to this deal so we can all read the facts rather than your interpretation of it.
Click to expand...
Give me your email and I'll forward the internal company comms.
Failing that, you'll have to settle for the same newspaper links that everyone else in the thread has posted.

www.theguardian.com

Thames Water creditors offer up £5bn as part of emergency turnaround plan

Regulator Ofwat concerned that plans do not write off enough debt to secure investment-grade credit rating
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The facts are:
KKR submitted its proposal, which was contingent on existing shareholders writing off £8bn of their debt.
Only one shareholder wrote theirs off.
KKR pulled out at the last moment.
Almost immediately, the shareholders and other creditors submitted a new plan, which had more favourable conditions for them, including a vie for prosecution immunity.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Give me your email and I'll forward the internal company comms.
Failing that, you'll have to settle for the same newspaper links that everyone else in the thread has posted.

www.theguardian.com

Thames Water creditors offer up £5bn as part of emergency turnaround plan

Regulator Ofwat concerned that plans do not write off enough debt to secure investment-grade credit rating
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The facts are:
KKR submitted its proposal, which was contingent on existing shareholders writing off £8bn of their debt.
Only one shareholder wrote theirs off.
KKR pulled out at the last moment.
Almost immediately, the shareholders and other creditors submitted a new plan, which had more favourable conditions for them, including a vie for prosecution immunity.
Click to expand...
The facts are existing shareholders will be wiped out under that deal.

Thames Water’s senior creditors have submitted a rescue plan to the UK’s water industry regulator, envisaging £5 billion ($6.8 billion) of fresh funds and hefty losses for the struggling utility’s debt holders.
The proposal includes £3 billion in new equity and £2 billion of fresh debt, according to a statement by the group of creditors released on Tuesday. It would also mean “several billion of debt writedowns” to ensure financial stability, while existing shareholders would be be completely wiped out, they said.
Click to expand...

The company confirmed last week it’s working with senior creditors to restore its finances. Should the process fail, Thames could fall into a special administration regime, a temporary state-supervised process akin to insolvency for bankrupt businesses that provide critical services. That makes it a potential millstone around the neck of Keir Starmer’s Labour government.
Existing shareholders walked away last year after declaring the business “uninvestible,” leaving the creditors as effective economic owners. They also include Pacific Investment Management Company and Apollo Global Management.
Click to expand...

KKR & Co. withdrew its bid to invest £4 billion ($5.4 billion) in Thames Water when the US infrastructure giant realized there was little upside to a deal, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
KKR quit its offer Tuesday as the crisis engulfing the UK utility made a profitable overhaul extremely challenging, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing confidential information. Expectations for improving the asset base in a way that protected the business, and for raising the performance of the company, were realistically hard to meet, they said.
Click to expand...

You can use an archive site to get around paywalls.

So again, I've not seen anything reported that it is shareholders who blocked the deal.
 
200sols said:
The facts are existing shareholders will be wiped out under that deal.
Click to expand...
They lose the debt but, unlike with the KKR deal, they retain controlling interest and presumably will be looking for dividend payouts later on down the line.
The majority of the debt lies with creditors not shareholders, though, so it depends who takes the hit. Right now, it looks like they're targeting bondholders and the holding company rather than shareholder debt.
These are the same Class A creditors whose investment plans were challenged by the Class B ones in court recently, and who are already reporting a 17% profit on the £3bn emergency loan in February.

200sols said:
So again, I've not seen anything reported that it is shareholders who blocked the deal.
Click to expand...
It's an internal squabble, so you probably won't see anything officially reported. Just as reports that suggest KKR pulled out due to the politics are no more than supposition, since KKR themselves are refusing to comment.
However, the CEO did explain why KKR pulled out in a staff address meeting.

200sols said:
You can use an archive site to get around paywalls.
Click to expand...
Didn't work for Bloomberg. You'll have to detail your process.
 
200sols said:
Citation needed.
Click to expand...
Why is it needed?
Shareholders usually get their money through dividends and appreciation of their shares, not by funding debt. A company is typically not indebted to shareholders beyond the initial investment anyway, unless further conditional investments are made, the latest of which they actually refused, too. But by holding the shares, they retain that voting power (ie controlling interest) on what the company does, with the aim of making them appreciate later on down the line.
The debt is with the lenders (creditors and holding company loans) and bondholders. The only way to 'wipe out' a shareholder is to devalue the company and its shares to the point where the shareholders lose all their investments.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Why is it needed?
Shareholders usually get their money through dividends and appreciation of their shares, not by funding debt. A company is typically not indebted to shareholders beyond the initial investment anyway, unless further conditional investments are made, the latest of which they actually refused, too. But by holding the shares, they retain that voting power (ie controlling interest) on what the company does, with the aim of making them appreciate later on down the line.
The debt is with the lenders (creditors and holding company loans) and bondholders. The only way to 'wipe out' a shareholder is to devalue the company and its shares to the point where the shareholders lose all their investments.
Click to expand...
Citation needed to back up your claim that the existing shareholders will retain controlling intetest stakes. That is not what is being reported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom