Election Year or Fear!

[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-...rt-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)

[ramAnag]

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

https://www.thameswater.co.uk/media-...rt-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]

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.

At the risk of prolonging this for no useful purpose, let it be known that "profit being made for the relatively few" is a curious expression. If you are challenging the excessive remuneration of directors or senior executives in a failing company then you have my support. If you are questioning a return on capital for investors who have put their money into the business in order to fund the service, then be aware that those shareholders are far from "few" - the government of China (9%) - about 1.5 billion people; Canadian University TEACHERS pension fun (32%) - about 640,000 pensioners; BT pension fund - 212,000 pensioners and various other global investment/pension funds. Still they're mostly foreigners arent they, so dont matter!! .

When it comes to the question of the pharma industry her indoors worked in it for many years and I agree that they are scumbags - although they are right in saying the intial R&D costs can be extreme. My problem with the industry is that they can make more profits from selling treatments rather than cures, as you dont get repeat custom from someone youve cured. hence the conspiracy theory that there is a "cure for cancer" which is suppressed as they make loads of money off repeat treatments.

[ramAnag]

At the risk of prolonging this for no useful purpose, let it be known that "profit being made for the relatively few" is a curious expression. If you are challenging the excessive remuneration of directors or senior executives in a failing company then you have my support. If you are questioning a return on capital for investors who have put their money into the business in order to fund the service, then be aware that those shareholders are far from "few" - the government of China (9%) - about 1.5 billion people; Canadian University TEACHERS pension fun (32%) - about 640,000 pensioners; BT pension fund - 212,000 pensioners and various other global investment/pension funds. Still they're mostly foreigners arent they, so dont matter!! .

When it comes to the question of the pharma industry her indoors worked in it for many years and I agree that they are scumbags - although they are right in saying the intial R&D costs can be extreme. My problem with the industry is that they can make more profits from selling treatments rather than cures, as you dont get repeat custom from someone youve cured. hence the conspiracy theory that there is a "cure for cancer" which is suppressed as they make loads of money off repeat treatments.

Well at least we can agree on something.

Where are the Romans and the Victorians when you need them? Oh for another Joseph Bazalgette and the means and willingness to fund him.