I just can't believe they allowed the previous owners to borrow the money against the assets and strip the company down by selling the land. At the same time reducing any investment to the bear minimum to keep the company ticking over. At the same time coming up with noval was to take more from the consumer's.
plan for collapse of Thames Water
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,638
Ah, because what is reported is always the absolute truth, yes?
It's variously reported that the new plan wipes out £5bn, £6.7bn and even £17bn of debt... which one is true?
Shareholder wipe-out occurs when a company goes bankrupt, making the existing worthless. Subsequent restructuring cancels those shares and creates new ones held instead by the debtors, meaning shareholders lose their investment and company assets are used to pay off the creditors.
That is not what is happening here - The debt is owed to lenders and the holding company, not shareholders. The new proposal requires these lending entities to write off some of that debt, while also reducing the bondholders' stake. The aim is to increase the value of the company and thus appreciate the shares.
Why can't you believe it?
Better to have a source rather than just your opinion, yes.
Again what you are saying is not what is reported. Here is another take with a lot more detail.
Thames Water Creditors Deliver £17 Billion Recapitalisation Proposal to Transform Customer and Environmental Outcomes
Hanbury Strategy: - A large group of senior creditors (Creditors) of Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Water) have submitted to Ofwat a £17 billion plan...
www.businesswire.com
And i'll quote you the bits which directly contradict what you say.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,638
I work in the industry, rather than just relying on what newspapers report. I get to hear what the TW execs themselves are saying, rather than just what gets released in statements.
There's no detail. There's just the creditors claims about what they say the new plan is designed to do. That's like hearing what water companies say they're doing for their customers and believing it.
They're just magically going to recapitalise £17bn, which is often done to increase shareholder returns by the way, so more special dividends for those shareholders... all of which hinges on almost complete immunity from prosecution.
Well, I guess that's all the problems solved, eh? After all, that's how it's being reported....
I don't care what industry you work in so far all you've done is state your opinion which has been refuted by the articles I've shown you. Until you can provide anything concrete it just seems like you're trolling us.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,638
This isn't my opinion, it's the information from discussions within the industry among the people who are actually making this happen. The shareholders want to retain their controlling interest precisely because this latest turnaround is intended (but there are no guarantees) to increase company value, which is why (bar the one already mentioned) they did not write off their investment as KKR required and why previous bidders are now demanding to return to the table.
My opinion is that none of it is going to work, as previously discussed in this thread and for the same reasons TW got put in this position in the first place - Corporate greed, legal gymnastics and ignorant regulatory ineffectiveness.
Keir Starmer just got schooled over nationalising water companies
Keir Starmer got schooled on a legal provision that would mean water companies pay us for their failures in the nationalisation process
www.thecanary.co
If this is true then what are they waiting for.
Environment Agency warns of the need for more Hosepipe Bans and Smart Metering for England as they predict large and consistent shortages in the short term - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj939kpnvx8o
I can't see the public being happy to restrict their water usage. People up here (Scotland) were a little cynical when Scottish Water asked people to reduce their consumption during the dry Spring we had. Of course, it didn't help when a few days later, it rained so much that pretty much all the water levels were back to normal (and some higher than normal)
Is water going to be the new currency?
And, no, you can't have "ours" 
I can't see the public being happy to restrict their water usage. People up here (Scotland) were a little cynical when Scottish Water asked people to reduce their consumption during the dry Spring we had. Of course, it didn't help when a few days later, it rained so much that pretty much all the water levels were back to normal (and some higher than normal)
Is water going to be the new currency?
And, no, you can't have "ours" 
There should be a legal provision that when water providers impose any sort of water bans, a discount (x%) is applied to all customers for that period. This would provide a further incentive for customers to use less water and remind providers that they cannot charge a premium for a service they seemingly are incapable of providing!Environment Agency warns of the need for more Hosepipe Bans and Smart Metering for England as they predict large and consistent shortages in the short term - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj939kpnvx8o
I can't see the public being happy to restrict their water usage. People up here (Scotland) were a little cynical when Scottish Water asked people to reduce their consumption during the dry Spring we had. Of course, it didn't help when a few days later, it rained so much that pretty much all the water levels were back to normal (and some higher than normal)
Is water going to be the new currency?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,638
No - Make it so expensive that people cannot afford to use too much. Making it cheaper will just make people think they can afford to use more, which is the exact opposite of what needs to be achieved.
Great. So the customer is penalised at every turn due to the water supply failures of the providers. I understand the notion, to charge more due to scarcity, but this industry really does have its customers over a proverbial (water) barrel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,638
Is it the water company's fault that it hasn't rained enough?
Is it the water company's fault that no ****** wants them to build new reservoirs where they need to be built?
Pointless going around in that circle again.
My sole point in this example is that, no matter whose fault it is, the customer always pays. If a water restriction is put in place, the suggestion seems to be to charge the customer more per unit, thereby compensating the company and ensuring revenue is minimally impacted by any potential reduction in household consumption. The equalisation ensures households pay the same no matter their usage. What a ripe deal!
Around 20% of the treated water in E&W is lost due to leakage (circa 3bn litres/day).... I'd imagine that can be laid on the water company, right?
Don't worry I'm sure as well as raising customer prices during lean periods we can stop dividends during those years as well as implementing the other water saving methods be that bans or punitive smart metering charges so everyone suffers not just the plebs. Every little helps.
Last edited:
Water leakage is significantly higher in Scotland than England though. You just have more of it I guess.We can sell you some... At fair market rate of course
Yeah, I believe its about 24% in Scotland vs 20% in E&W... Scottish Water are working on it though and have reduced it by 60% in tha last 2 decades. I know you will never get 0% leakage but I would imagine 10% should be the target.
Thats actually lower than I thought.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,188
Point about the smart meter was that it measures your usage and prices accordingly which is basically what they have in the US. No water restrictions but if you use a lot boy are you going to pay a lot for it.Environment Agency warns of the need for more Hosepipe Bans and Smart Metering for England as they predict large and consistent shortages in the short term - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj939kpnvx8o
I can't see the public being happy to restrict their water usage. People up here (Scotland) were a little cynical when Scottish Water asked people to reduce their consumption during the dry Spring we had. Of course, it didn't help when a few days later, it rained so much that pretty much all the water levels were back to normal (and some higher than normal)
Is water going to be the new currency?