advertisement


Thames Water

paulfromcamden said:
[Thames Water CEO] Cathryn Ross headed Ofwat between 2013 and 2017, a tenure that overlapped with Australian investment group Macquarie’s ownership of the troubled water company. She joined Thames in 2021 as head of strategy and regulatory affairs. The decision to install Ross as temporary co-chief following the abrupt departure of Sarah Bentley last month has prompted criticism of the “revolving doors” between Ofwat and the industry it regulates.

At a hearing of the House of Commons environment select committee on Wednesday, Labour MP Darren Jones invited Ross to apologise for what he said were the regulator’s shortcomings under her leadership. “I won’t apologise for my role at Ofwat, no,” Ross replied. In a tense exchange, Jones aid: “But you signed off as the chief executive of the regulator in 2014 for Macquarie to ramp up the debt from £3bn to £10bn while taking out nearly £3bn in dividends, often paying dividends higher than the profits the company made in particular years.”

https://www.ft.com/content/a3b2173b-3fe0-45e7-8ad9-93d023a4a365

The appointments of the current and previous chairs of the water regulator Ofwat should be investigated, campaigners have said, as the Liberal Democrats called for the watchdog to be abolished. Jonson Cox, a former chair of the regulator, had multimillion-pound links with the privatised water industry before taking up the role. The current chair, Iain Coucher, remains a senior adviser to a global private equity firm that has interests in the water industry in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...f-ofwat-chairs-past-and-present-water-industy
Click to expand...

I caught a clip of her on tv earlier. Woeful is the word I’d use to best describe her.
 
paulfromcamden said:
If she lasts a year you can add another adjective - minted.

It was reported that her predecessor got a £3m 'golden hello' in addition to her £2m salary.
Click to expand...

IMHO she’d struggle to hold down a 50K job in the real world. I wouldn’t hire her to run a bath.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
don’t forget the dividend that he paid to his missus. What was it, a £billion.
How is it that this kind of theft is NOT regulated against
Click to expand...

Erm. The 'regulation' is arranged in order to *enable* these shenanigans! The con artists game the system *and* the rules.

We won't end this without having all national resources (inc rail as well as roads, not just water or energy sources) run by public-controlled concerns. Even if we allow a controlled profit to be taken in exchange for work done by companies as suits.

Similarly, we really need to start appying an 'asset equity tax' that isn't a payment on 'profit' (which can be gamed). Instead it takes a given percentage of the asset *ownership* back by government each year, regardless of any 'profit' made. Thus over time returning the asset to public control and preventing assets used as a lever for debt-generated 'profits' that leave us to pick up the bill.

Sort of graded 'jubilee' process in the original meaning of that word.

We need new methods to combat the international rip-off artists.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
don’t forget the dividend that he paid to his missus. What was it, a £billion.
How is it that this kind of theft is NOT regulated against
Click to expand...
The neoliberal stool rests on three legs; privatisation, deregulation and public spending cuts. They all work together. Such regulation as there is underfunded and inefficient by deliberate choice.

If we want decent regulation to protect the public interest, we need to get rid of the stinking stool
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Erm. The 'regulation' is arranged in order to *enable* these shenanigans! The con artists game the system *and* the rules.

We won't end this without having all national resources (inc rail as well as roads, not just water or energy sources) run by public-controlled concerns. Even if we allow a controlled profit to be taken in exchange for work done by companies as suits.

Similarly, we really need to start appying an 'asset equity tax' that isn't a payment on 'profit' (which can be gamed). Instead it takes a given percentage of the asset *ownership* back by government each year, regardless of any 'profit' made. Thus over time returning the asset to public control and preventing assets used as a lever for debt-generated 'profits' that leave us to pick up the bill.

Sort of graded 'jubilee' process in the original meaning of that word.

We need new methods to combat the international rip-off artists.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
It's interesting to see the centre left and right calling for better regulation now, after decades of framing regulation as the bad guy when it comes to running things effectively. Makes it clearer that the issue all along was ownership. That's what they care about and that's what needs to change.
 
ks.234 said:
The neoliberal stool rests on three legs; privatisation, deregulation and public spending cuts. They all work together. Such regulation as there is underfunded and inefficient by deliberate choice.

If we want decent regulation to protect the public interest, we need to get rid of the stinking stool
Click to expand...

I'd add a fourth leg. The way 'earned' and 'unearned' gains are treated differently - allowing 'unearned' income to dodge tax. The remarkable thing for me is the sheer barefaced cheek of openly admitting *unearned* income is exactly that - and then giving it specific ways to dodge tax!

Thus for those who cream off the wealth, it's more like a 4-legged thone than a stool!
 
As well as utter incompetence, I sense this is another consequence of ultra cheap borrowing. They probably thought why not, it’s so cheap, let’s pile on debt and share the love, we can service it, no problem, doubles all round. Had rates remained at the (still historically low) level they are now, I doubt 14BN would have been loaded on.
 
I think its more "we can get away with it and keep the wealth" competence. Although, yes, they may believe the convenient familiar delusions of standard model 'economics', etc. Those who gain power from religions tend to see that as a reason to confirm their belief. And wealth is power.
 
Ponty said:
As well as utter incompetence, I sense this is another consequence of ultra cheap borrowing. They probably thought why not, it’s so cheap, let’s pile on debt and share the love, we can service it, no problem, doubles all round. Had rates remained at the (still historically low) level they are now, I doubt 14BN would have been loaded on.
Click to expand...
I think there's significant moral hazard at play here, too. The model has historically been that privatised businesses get bailed out when they fail - look at the rail franchises. So it makes sense for the privateers to load up the debt, extract the value, then let it fall into the public sector safety net while they move on to the next thing.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think there's significant moral hazard at play here, too. The model has historically been that privatised businesses get bailed out when they fail - look at the rail franchises. So it makes sense for the privateers to load up the debt, extract the value, then let it fall into the public sector safety net while they move on to the next thing.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that’s a whole lot easier to do and keep under the radar when borrowing costs are close to zero.
 
Ponty said:
I caught a clip of her on tv earlier. Woeful is the word I’d use to best describe her.
Click to expand...

She has been useless as has the regulator in general (and PE for that matter) - time to introduce bank-level stress tests for the utility companies. And then there's the spectre of climate change which may well turn water into a national security issue.
 
Is the answer to simply nationalise them by taking ownership and giving the shares a nominal value of say .0000001 pence?

After all, the ridiculously high dividends were being paid to the shareholders, so it’s not that they didn’t get their moneys worth.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Is the answer to simply nationalise them by taking ownership and giving the shares a nominal value of say .0000001 pence?

After all, the ridiculously high dividends were being paid to the shareholders, so it’s not that they didn’t get their moneys worth.
Click to expand...

Could be. The shareholders have had their pay days, f ‘em. If it was well run, that’s one thing. Pumping crap into the waterways etc is another entirely. Quite possibly at the point of being unfit for purpose. All the execs etc, they can swivel for their gold plated payoffs and pensions too. God, I’m sounding like a lefty!
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Is the answer to simply nationalise them by taking ownership and giving the shares a nominal value of say .0000001 pence?

After all, the ridiculously high dividends were being paid to the shareholders, so it’s not that they didn’t get their moneys worth.
Click to expand...

The problem is with the meaning of 'shareholders'. Lot of the 'dividends' may have gone to other organisations like pension funds in the UK. So many innocent people then end up losing out - never having been consulted about the investment or knowing it was dodgy - whilst others don't. Thus many genuinely innocent victims.

Hence the need for a more subtle approach that takes control and lets the non-UK investors who speculated take any hit over a longer period as TW contnues to operate under UK State management. Otherwise we're doing what the perps expected of us - to let them walk away with the dividends leaving us with the hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top