Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

As an initial observation, accruing debt does not mean the same as making trading losses. Consider you probably have been in debt much of your life via mortgage, but you still had income via salary.

The cessor of dividends recently suggests they no longer have retained earnings to distribute and aren't budgeting for any going forward.

So sorry, the above is not fact checking on historic performance which is understandable as you're not an accountant.

I'll have a look myself - have no great skin in the game as to whether Thames Water acted illegally or not but I do doubt it given the scrutiny that they've been under in recent years.

I don’t think either MA or I mentioned legality. He just raised the morality - or otherwise - of a company being allowed to pay significant dividends at a time of even more significant financial loss. It seems particularly wrong, as he suggested, when the company is concerned with the delivery of essential services such as fresh water and responsible sewage treatment.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Listen to yourself for a minute. They would not have been able to pay dividends if, in so doing, they contravened company law. Therefore the inference is there must have been profits accumulated in the company to allow it. Morality has nothing to do with thay process.

Where morality does come into play would be if they chose to pay dividends out of profits when they knew infrastructure was collapsing around them and they could afford to fix it but chose not to.

[ramAnag]

Listen to yourself for a minute. They would not have been able to pay dividends if, in so doing, they contravened company law. Therefore the inference is there must have been profits accumulated in the company to allow it. Morality has nothing to do with thay process.

Where morality does come into play would be if they chose to pay dividends out of profits when they knew infrastructure was collapsing around them and they could afford to fix it but chose not to.

As I’ve already acknowledged, you have a far greater knowledge of all the technical, legislative, accountancy stuff, but I suspect that second paragraph confirms my suspicions and possibly, although I can’t speak for him, MA’s.

[Geoff Parkstone]

As I’ve already acknowledged, you have a far greater knowledge of all the technical, legislative, accountancy stuff, but I suspect that second paragraph confirms my suspicions and possibly, although I can’t speak for him, MA’s.

If you really want to see, rather than just arguing for the sake of it, look here

https://www.thameswater.co.uk/media-library/l13deqmw/thames-water-annual-report-2024-25.pdf

Go to the statement of financial position on page 105. You will see that at 31-03-2025 the company has indeed got accumulated losses of 641.8m, but look at the 2024 comparartives and you will see that, a year earlier, it had retained profits of 833.9m, so too the year before that 916.7m.

Now without going back through history to see if those accumulated profits or losses dippedin any one year or more, I cannot be sure, but am reasonably confident in asserting that Thames Water has not made billions in losses over time, but rather just in the last financial year - a year where you stated they had ceased paying dividends. Furthermore the total losses made over the company's history stoold at 641.8m rather than 10's of billions.

Also please note that this figure is after having paid out all the earlier billions of dividends complained about.

As your mate says "FACTS" unless of course you believe that the official audited financial statements are a fabrication (possibly of the right wing media ).

In the above I am not seeking to defend Thames Water, who seem guilty of failing to invest in the future and deserve to be dismantled if they are now insolvent, but lets at least deal with their predicament based on facts and not rhetoric (now where ahve I heard that before)

[MadAmster]

A company has built up massive debts of getting on for 20Bn. That same company, has accrued a backlog of repairs and maintenance estimated to cost 15Bn to catch up on. That same company has paid Billions out in dividends while increasing customer bills.

It might be legal to have paid out those dividends. If it is then the Law needs changing. IMO, that company is morally bankrupt.

I'd be interested to hear/read who exactly they think is going to:

1. Pay off the massive debts they have.
2. Pay to eradicate the R&M backlog

[swaledale]

There’s some pretty compelling evidence on social media, of capture if not consumption, swans and (from my observation) Bewick geese. Happy to take your view whether to confirm or contradict.

I think you mean Canada geese, or Mute Swans, as RA says Bewicks are wild swans, if anybody got close enough to them to catch I'd be surprised and they only migrate here in Autumn/Winter and are very localised in East Anglia and Gloucestershire.

As for compelling evidence on social media, mm given a pretty good rule of thumb with conventional media (including the BBC) is to believe about 25% of what one sees or hears, my experience of social media is that I'd believe about 2% of what's on there, there is ample actual evidence that a lot of stuff is totally fake and that in others whilst there might be a grain of truth in it, its been amplified and overhyped, such that finding that grain of truth is virtually impossible.

Is is true that certain people are "poaching" fish and possibly wildfowl on occasion, yes I know this to be the case, having witnessed it, are these people all immigrants? No, is it widespread? Difficult to say, I live in an area where there is a high percentage of Eastern Europeans, never had any issue with them quite often see them fishing and suspect they don't have a licence, but then I also see "locals" doing the same.

I've also encountered and intervened with "local" youths attacking geese and swans for fun. On balance I'd say there is a grain of truth in the poaching for food , but that its not the big issue that its being made out to be.

Rather like in the same vein, immigrants are accused of being a danger to women and girls because of "cultural" differences, yet 40% of those protesting against them on this basis last summer, where found to have had contact with the Police and justice system for offences against women and children.

[SithHappens]

Why would immigrants want to poach swans anyway. From what Nigel and the media tell us they are all living it up in 5 star hotels...

[swaledale]

Swale, re BR efficiency. You can think what you want but as someone who regularly commited in 80s and 90s during the last days of BR and the early days of privatised railways I can assure you BR was appalling. Cancelled trains, late running trains and standing around on platforms not knowing what was going on were regular events - maybe 2 or 3 times out of 10 weekly commutes.

You may dismiss this as simply anecdotal but it was an experience shared by everyone in my office (about 2000 all in) and resulted in many electing to drive in or stay in hotels the night before important meetings. But I guess these facts are irrelevant compared to yours which doubtless incorporate official data where a train is not deemed late if it's only 29 minutes late. Tell that to the commuter standing in the cold/rain/snow or even just normal conditions fretting about being late for work again and having to explain to a disbelieving management. Tell that to the people on hourly pay who were docked money yet had no recourse to compensation on their journeys.

So it was an (initial) breath of fresh air when the railways were privatised - at least for a couple of years - then most of the old failings came back. Underfunding of capital projects, continuous rises in ticket prices and slowly but surely shoddy performance, delays, cancellations etc such that by about 2010 it was as bad as it had been under BR.

So please don't look back on the final days of BR with rose tinted glasses. Maybe where (if) you used it, your experience was better than those of us commuting into the city, maybe the official performance statistics across the network level up the London area performance (and if course don't reflect the reality of late trains).

The last days of BR were in my experience, and that of my peer group, utterly atrocious. Nothing you can say will change my mind. I'm not saying that 30 odd years later it's much better (although more trains running / generally can find a seat) in terms of reliability - but during those intervening years there were some green shoots of improvement, albeit many of those withered on the vine.

But hey this is just 35 years of anecdotal experience so means nothing. Working from home and COVID have eased my pain. The numbers commuting to London will have fallen significantly so may be new BR will have more success than old BR as they will have way less passengers to carry. Hope so for the people still forced into the misery of commuting daily

As I said maybe its a case pf perspective? or indeed a tendency to over emphasise the negative.

In the decade before privatisation, BR streamlined its operations, invested in new trains, including in the London area and was actually receiving the lowest subsidy for a very long time.

Now I'm not discounting your experience, but mine was totally different, I used the trains several times a week in the decade before privatisation, the vast majority were on time, comfortable and value for money. I used mainly long distance trains, with some local and a spell of 6 months commuting into London from Cambridge, Yes there were the odd delay and cancellation, but it certainly wasn't the norm and not even weekly.

I asked my brother who as I say commuted from Surrey into waterloo for over 30 years and his recollection does not align with yours either, certainly the 70's were not a good time, under investment clapped out trains, but in the 1980's a very good manager called Chris green took over and Network Southeast was created, with a focus on commuter routes in the SE, this with considerable investment in new trains vastly improved the service.

I certainly didn't notice a significant improvement following privatisation, just not a deterioration until possibly 6 or so years in. Its a fact that the train service today takes 200% more public subsidy than BR did at the time of privatisation

Now it may be that your experiences were unfortunate, that your memory has been coloured by the decade before or you simply hated commuting, I know the 6 months I did it, I came to dislike it, but not due to the train journey, more the time it took out of my life.

I do note that a lot of people dislike public transport, preferring to drive than use it, I understand there are many reasons for this, but they forgotten ignore the delays and issues encountered on the roads.

But there we have it in a nutshell, the problem with government, how do you keep people happy who all have different perceptions and different expectations?

[Andy_Faber]

Rather like in the same vein, immigrants are accused of being a danger to women and girls because of "cultural" differences, yet 40% of those protesting against them on this basis last summer, where found to have had contact with the Police and justice system for offences against women and children.

I don't think you mean that, maybe you mean 40% of those arrested, your wording would mean tens of thousands had 'had contact'

Happy to accept I'm wrong or accept a correction from you, or delete the post

[swaledale]

I don't think you mean that, maybe you mean 40% of those arrested, your wording would mean tens of thousands had 'had contact'

Happy to accept I'm wrong or accept a correction from you, or delete the post

Indeed well spotted, I omitted the word arrested!

Not sure it would mean tens of thousands had contact, given there weren't tens of thousands rioting unless of course you can provide the evidence of the actual figures that shows your statement to be true. No doubt you will acknowledge that as I have acknowledged my error?

[Andy_Faber]

Indeed well spotted, I omitted the word arrested!

Not sure it would mean tens of thousands had contact, given there weren't tens of thousands rioting unless of course you can provide the evidence of the actual figures that shows your statement to be true. No doubt you will acknowledge that as I have acknowledged my error?

Extrapolation of the few official estimates given ('hundreds' to 'in the thousands' X number of locations X number of protests (some locations had more than one protest). My number may be overegged a bit by fact that a lot of the reporting was about 'riots' not protests but it'll do. Strange that the protests themselves are so lacking in numbers but most counterprotests have them, but thats another story

[ramAnag]

If you really want to see, rather than just arguing for the sake of it, look here

https://www.thameswater.co.uk/media-library/l13deqmw/thames-water-annual-report-2024-25.pdf

Go to the statement of financial position on page 105. You will see that at 31-03-2025 the company has indeed got accumulated losses of 641.8m, but look at the 2024 comparartives and you will see that, a year earlier, it had retained profits of 833.9m, so too the year before that 916.7m.

Now without going back through history to see if those accumulated profits or losses dippedin any one year or more, I cannot be sure, but am reasonably confident in asserting that Thames Water has not made billions in losses over time, but rather just in the last financial year - a year where you stated they had ceased paying dividends. Furthermore the total losses made over the company's history stoold at 641.8m rather than 10's of billions.

Also please note that this figure is after having paid out all the earlier billions of dividends complained about.

As your mate says "FACTS" unless of course you believe that the official audited financial statements are a fabrication (possibly of the right wing media ).

In the above I am not seeking to defend Thames Water, who seem guilty of failing to invest in the future and deserve to be dismantled if they are now insolvent, but lets at least deal with their predicament based on facts and not rhetoric (now where ahve I heard that before)

I’m really not ‘arguing for the sake of it’, Rog and, for the third and hopefully final time, I’ve accepted your greater knowledge of all things accountancy wise.
Neither am I interested in scoring cheap points, however I am generally just expressing my support for the point MA initially made…that it is morally reprehensible and financially damaging to our country to have profit being made for the relatively few out of the essential services that society depends on.

I feel much the same about drug companies. As it happens two of my sons work in this industry - albeit for different companies in different countries - and have corrected my occasional outbursts of outrage via their better informed insight into quite how much relevant R&D costs can amount to.
They are, I’m sure, correct however once such costs are covered - and perhaps even before - I (possibly naively in your opinion) believe that the well being of the people should come before profit.

[Geoff Parkstone]

A company has built up massive debts of getting on for 20Bn. That same company, has accrued a backlog of repairs and maintenance estimated to cost 15Bn to catch up on. That same company has paid Billions out in dividends while increasing customer bills.

It might be legal to have paid out those dividends. If it is then the Law needs changing. IMO, that company is morally bankrupt.

I'd be interested to hear/read who exactly they think is going to:

1. Pay off the massive debts they have.
2. Pay to eradicate the R&M backlog

If you look at the balance sheet you will see that substantial borrowing is matched with substantial fixed assets - presumably the historic investment in infrastructure, buildings. ,vehicles etc. It's likely not been used to fund past losses. Their biggest problem is funding the cost of that debt going forward, and that can only be done by further borrowing (an unsustainable spiral) or big price hikes (unacceptable to OFWAT). Even if they could afford to resolve that problem this still doesn't give them the ability to invest in future infrastructure.

Repaying the existing debt?Dunno but not sure what repayment terms are on it - it might be perpetual and so not need repaying any time soon?

After all who is going to pay back the national debt! It's a big enough issue trying to service that, so perhaps the TW financing model is just a smaller version of UK plc.

Remember the UK war loans issued in 1932 to o pay for WW1 weren't paid off for 83 years until 2015

[Geoff Parkstone]

SWALE; "I've also encountered and intervened with "local" youths attacking geese and swans for fun. On balance I'd say there is a grain of truth in the poaching for food , but that its not the big issue that its being made out to be."

Unless you happen to be the protected species that has been poached, that is

[Geoff Parkstone]

As I said maybe its a case pf perspective? or indeed a tendency to over emphasise the negative.

In the decade before privatisation, BR streamlined its operations, invested in new trains, including in the London area and was actually receiving the lowest subsidy for a very long time.

Now I'm not discounting your experience, but mine was totally different, I used the trains several times a week in the decade before privatisation, the vast majority were on time, comfortable and value for money. I used mainly long distance trains, with some local and a spell of 6 months commuting into London from Cambridge, Yes there were the odd delay and cancellation, but it certainly wasn't the norm and not even weekly.

I asked my brother who as I say commuted from Surrey into waterloo for over 30 years and his recollection does not align with yours either, certainly the 70's were not a good time, under investment clapped out trains, but in the 1980's a very good manager called Chris green took over and Network Southeast was created, with a focus on commuter routes in the SE, this with considerable investment in new trains vastly improved the service.

I certainly didn't notice a significant improvement following privatisation, just not a deterioration until possibly 6 or so years in. Its a fact that the train service today takes 200% more public subsidy than BR did at the time of privatisation

Now it may be that your experiences were unfortunate, that your memory has been coloured by the decade before or you simply hated commuting, I know the 6 months I did it, I came to dislike it, but not due to the train journey, more the time it took out of my life.

I do note that a lot of people dislike public transport, preferring to drive than use it, I understand there are many reasons for this, but they forgotten ignore the delays and issues encountered on the roads.

But there we have it in a nutshell, the problem with government, how do you keep people happy who all have different perceptions and different expectations?

yada yada, yadda yadda yadda, yada yada yada