paulfromcamden
Baffled
1. They go bust.
2. Er, that's it.
The game of chicken continues, FT headline now revised to:The FT story says shareholders have described Thames Water as "uninvestable" i.e. their gamble that they could buy into a basketcase utility and be assured of a bailout from public funds hasn't paid off.
The writing really is on the wall now.
Time for Ofwat to go too. It's not fit for purpose.
28% of your Thames Water bill is spent on servicing their debt.
Just nationalise it now. Shareholders and debt holders take a 100% haircut.
Everyone of them that supports Thames actions in reneging on the loan and demanding 40% increases.The snag is the UK Pension companies, etc, who may have shares. If the pension company then also fails that can both cause poverty for their pensioners *and* Government having to spend more to help them. Hence we would need to be specific about which investors get their investments nullified. i.e. go for offshore banks, etc, who got paid dividends based on hiking the water company debt. And maybe forcing repayment from those who ran the company and took massive bungs from the debt-loading.
That's right, they (Chinese and Abu Dhabi wealth funds, UK and Canadian pension funds, etc.) are willing to take a £5 billion hit so they don't have to invest £500 million. Totally believable.
I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before but...The snag is the UK Pension companies, etc, who may have shares. If the pension company then also fails that can both cause poverty for their pensioners *and* Government having to spend more to help them. Hence we would need to be specific about which investors get their investments nullified. i.e. go for offshore banks, etc, who got paid dividends based on hiking the water company debt. And maybe forcing repayment from those who ran the company and took massive bungs from the debt-loading.
I think it's a concern as so much money has been syphoned off huge amounts are now required now to keep the creaking infrastructure running.The concern is therefore for both 'water customers' - i.e. us as people who drink water, use drains, etc
I blame government of both colours over time have invited companies to screw us over.
I don't really understand your distinction between worthy UK investors who should be bailed out and nasty foreign investors who should take a hike.
I`d go for both and add incompetently mendacious.Update on my own small battle with TW.
Another two weeks had gone by with no action so it was time for another call. They reverted to the 'engineer said internal leak' line and surprisingly claimed they had photos of the engineer entering my house (he didn't).
'Can I see the photos?'
'Hold on please, Sir'...
(pause)
'We are going to email the smart meter team to send another engineer'.
They said that two weeks ago. I can't decide if they are just incompetent or incompetent and mendacious.
I'm sure you're aware of these complaints procedures but just in case. IME it's worth opening a complaint sooner rather than later - and can sometimes be the only way to resolve an issue. Good luck.Update on my own small battle with TW.
Another two weeks had gone by with no action so it was time for another call. They reverted to the 'engineer said internal leak' line and surprisingly claimed they had photos of the engineer entering my house (he didn't).
'Can I see the photos?'
'Hold on please, Sir'...
(pause)
'We are going to email the smart meter team to send another engineer'.
They said that two weeks ago. I can't decide if they are just incompetent or incompetent and mendacious.
You can say that but at the end of the day, it's the pension fund that still suffers.I would imagine that any pension fund which still has many shares in Thames Water might be considered as incompetent as Thames Water themselves..
It must be while since Thames shares looked like being a good safe long term investment.