Election Year or Fear!

[MadAmster]

Looks like a post of mine has either not been posted or has somehow disappeared.

Here's an attempt at redoing it...

You have a company. It's not very good at its job, it seems. Why?

1. It has racked up something like 20BN in debt (meaning it has spent way more than it earnt)
2. It has a backlog of around 15BN worth of repairs and maintenance
3. It fails to deal with sewage satisfactorily and dumps vast amounts of untreated sewage into streams, rivers and the sea and gets heavily fined for such indiscretions

During this time it has also paid out something like 10BN to shareholders in dividends. It seems from what Rog posted that this is OK as what they have in assets covers the "trading losses" they have made. Ie, it is legal. That may be so but I find it utterly reprehensible.

Where will it get the money from to fund the R&M backlog? The answer is, more than likely, customers via ever increasing bills and the taxpayer. As the customers are also almost all taxpayers, they are being hit twice. Thames is, IMO, a dead man walking.

Now, Rog and others who seem to favour this malarkey use the "reasoning" that shareholders have put their money into the company and deserve a return. I would say, yes, IF the company was making a profit and ramping up huge debt. I'd go further. The only shareholders who actually funded the company are those who bought at the original IPO or at a subsequent share issue. Let's pretend rA bought a grand's worth of shares. He needs some ready cash. I buy those shares off him for 1200. How much of that 1200 goes to Thames Water. The answer is absolutely nothing. rA gets it, every last penny. I have the shares, I get the dividend yet I've put not a single penny into company coffers.

What does that scenario do to the argument that shareholders have put money into the business? Wrecks it?

[ramAnag]

Looks like a post of mine has either not been posted or has somehow disappeared.

Here's an attempt at redoing it...

You have a company. It's not very good at its job, it seems. Why?

1. It has racked up something like 20BN in debt (meaning it has spent way more than it earnt)
2. It has a backlog of around 15BN worth of repairs and maintenance
3. It fails to deal with sewage satisfactorily and dumps vast amounts of untreated sewage into streams, rivers and the sea and gets heavily fined for such indiscretions

During this time it has also paid out something like 10BN to shareholders in dividends. It seems from what Rog posted that this is OK as what they have in assets covers the "trading losses" they have made. Ie, it is legal. That may be so but I find it utterly reprehensible.

Where will it get the money from to fund the R&M backlog? The answer is, more than likely, customers via ever increasing bills and the taxpayer. As the customers are also almost all taxpayers, they are being hit twice. Thames is, IMO, a dead man walking.

Now, Rog and others who seem to favour this malarkey use the "reasoning" that shareholders have put their money into the company and deserve a return. I would say, yes, IF the company was making a profit and ramping up huge debt. I'd go further. The only shareholders who actually funded the company are those who bought at the original IPO or at a subsequent share issue. Let's pretend rA bought a grand's worth of shares. He needs some ready cash. I buy those shares off him for 1200. How much of that 1200 goes to Thames Water. The answer is absolutely nothing. rA gets it, every last penny. I have the shares, I get the dividend yet I've put not a single penny into company coffers.

What does that scenario do to the argument that shareholders have put money into the business? Wrecks it?

I’ve got a few Carnival shares, MA. They were brilliant during Covid, did wonders for the cruise industry. You can buy them off me if you like.

Andy, think you’ve overdone the grass cutting thing a bit now. It was a throwaway line from mac about a month ago which indicated he was as pissed off with you as with Swale and I for squabbling. It wasn’t ever an excuse for you to never have to substantiate your claims. I think maybe ‘straw man’ may be more relevant than grass cutting in this instance.