FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Water companies want to increase our charges by up to 91%
Water companies want to increase our charges by up to 91%
Jump to: Newest in thread
BBC reporting water companies in England and Wales want bills to increase by between 24% and 91% over the next five years, according to figures compiled by the consumer watchdog.
Separately reported 28% of Thames’ customer bills were spent servicing debt.
English water companies plan to hike bills to consumers who are paying a high price for combined water companies debts of £60bn
Water firms say the increases will fund £100bn of spending over the period, which will include replacing ageing, leaking pipes and reducing sewage discharges into rivers and seas
Every day three billion litres of perfectly good drinking water is wasted in the UK.
How did we get to this for a free resource that falls from the sky at record levels, 1890mm this last year.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"BBC reporting water companies in England and Wales want bills to increase by between 24% and 91% over the next five years, according to figures compiled by the consumer watchdog.
Separately reported 28% of Thames’ customer bills were spent servicing debt.
English water companies plan to hike bills to consumers who are paying a high price for combined water companies debts of £60bn
Water firms say the increases will fund £100bn of spending over the period, which will include replacing ageing, leaking pipes and reducing sewage discharges into rivers and seas
Every day three billion litres of perfectly good drinking water is wasted in the UK.
How did we get to this for a free resource that falls from the sky at record levels, 1890mm this last year.
"
Utterly ridiculous. Southern Water looking for 91% increase for investment in the network... that's what profits are for and once the maintenance costs are sorted only then do you start divvying out to shareholders |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *irldnCouple 31 weeks ago
Brighton |
Wonder what level of investment/cash injection the water companies are going to ask for from their shareholders? After all they have used profits to pay dividends and excessive executive pay but taken on debt to fund investment that is paid for by their customers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Firstly, the price increases are needed to counter long term climate change and rising water levels. There's nothing contentious about this - it's just water hydraulics.
Secondly, looking at my local water authority, Severn Trent, there dividends seem to be between 3.7% to 4.7%. That seems fairly modest. Investors could get more return in Post Office Saver account - why would they take the risk investing in a company for low returns?
Finally salaries. Yes, execs get well paid, but these are big companies. As Michael O'Leary of Ryanair commented recently, people rail against salaries of business leaders but are perfectly happy for footballers and golfers to get extortionate salaries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 31 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Firstly, the price increases are needed to counter long term climate change and rising water levels. There's nothing contentious about this - it's just water hydraulics.
Secondly, looking at my local water authority, Severn Trent, there dividends seem to be between 3.7% to 4.7%. That seems fairly modest. Investors could get more return in Post Office Saver account - why would they take the risk investing in a company for low returns?
Finally salaries. Yes, execs get well paid, but these are big companies. As Michael O'Leary of Ryanair commented recently, people rail against salaries of business leaders but are perfectly happy for footballers and golfers to get extortionate salaries."
If the provision of a natural resource is not profitable enough to warrant people investing (buying shares) then perhaps it should not be a private entity. The fact remains that water companies have not reinvested their profits to update infrastructure. They have used their profits to fund excessive executive pay and dividends while taking on unsustainable loans/debt to pay for infrastructure. Doesn’t sound like responsible corporate governance to me, so perhaps these executives have not been doing their job!
Who are these people who are railing against executive salaries but happy about footballers? And how is that anything other than false equivalence anyway? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firstly, the price increases are needed to counter long term climate change and rising water levels. There's nothing contentious about this - it's just water hydraulics.
Secondly, looking at my local water authority, Severn Trent, there dividends seem to be between 3.7% to 4.7%. That seems fairly modest. Investors could get more return in Post Office Saver account - why would they take the risk investing in a company for low returns?
Finally salaries. Yes, execs get well paid, but these are big companies. As Michael O'Leary of Ryanair commented recently, people rail against salaries of business leaders but are perfectly happy for footballers and golfers to get extortionate salaries.
If the provision of a natural resource is not profitable enough to warrant people investing (buying shares) then perhaps it should not be a private entity. The fact remains that water companies have not reinvested their profits to update infrastructure. They have used their profits to fund excessive executive pay and dividends while taking on unsustainable loans/debt to pay for infrastructure. Doesn’t sound like responsible corporate governance to me, so perhaps these executives have not been doing their job!
Who are these people who are railing against executive salaries but happy about footballers? And how is that anything other than false equivalence anyway? "
Yes, Utility companies could be returned to government ownership. But would they get the necessary investment? I doubt it. That's why they were privatised in the first place - to get private investment in potable water (which they did - very successfully). As I've said, dividend payouts don't seem overly excessive, nor do salaries. OFWAT regulate both anyway.
As for your point about exec salaries + bonuses, you wouldn't need to look much further than these very forums to find examples management/shareholder bashing.
It might make us feel better, but the overwhelming driver in this is climate change and the annoying fact that water doesn't flow uphill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 31 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Firstly, the price increases are needed to counter long term climate change and rising water levels. There's nothing contentious about this - it's just water hydraulics.
Secondly, looking at my local water authority, Severn Trent, there dividends seem to be between 3.7% to 4.7%. That seems fairly modest. Investors could get more return in Post Office Saver account - why would they take the risk investing in a company for low returns?
Finally salaries. Yes, execs get well paid, but these are big companies. As Michael O'Leary of Ryanair commented recently, people rail against salaries of business leaders but are perfectly happy for footballers and golfers to get extortionate salaries.
If the provision of a natural resource is not profitable enough to warrant people investing (buying shares) then perhaps it should not be a private entity. The fact remains that water companies have not reinvested their profits to update infrastructure. They have used their profits to fund excessive executive pay and dividends while taking on unsustainable loans/debt to pay for infrastructure. Doesn’t sound like responsible corporate governance to me, so perhaps these executives have not been doing their job!
Who are these people who are railing against executive salaries but happy about footballers? And how is that anything other than false equivalence anyway?
Yes, Utility companies could be returned to government ownership. But would they get the necessary investment? I doubt it. That's why they were privatised in the first place - to get private investment in potable water (which they did - very successfully). As I've said, dividend payouts don't seem overly excessive, nor do salaries. OFWAT regulate both anyway.
As for your point about exec salaries + bonuses, you wouldn't need to look much further than these very forums to find examples management/shareholder bashing.
It might make us feel better, but the overwhelming driver in this is climate change and the annoying fact that water doesn't flow uphill. "
Without a doubt climate change has impact but I think the biggest problem for the UK (not just water) is that following the industrial revolution and significant progress made during the Victorian era (when the UK was a global leader in innovation) we have not updated our infrastructure sufficiently to match 21st century standards.
So we, the current generation are paying the price.
When water was privatised the Thatcher govt wiped out their debt so shareholders took on a debt free organisation(s). However, that didn’t then materialise into investment in infrastructure to update it. Instead the water companies were used as cash cows for investors with a captive customer base guaranteeing income. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firstly, the price increases are needed to counter long term climate change and rising water levels. There's nothing contentious about this - it's just water hydraulics.
Secondly, looking at my local water authority, Severn Trent, there dividends seem to be between 3.7% to 4.7%. That seems fairly modest. Investors could get more return in Post Office Saver account - why would they take the risk investing in a company for low returns?
Finally salaries. Yes, execs get well paid, but these are big companies. As Michael O'Leary of Ryanair commented recently, people rail against salaries of business leaders but are perfectly happy for footballers and golfers to get extortionate salaries.
If the provision of a natural resource is not profitable enough to warrant people investing (buying shares) then perhaps it should not be a private entity. The fact remains that water companies have not reinvested their profits to update infrastructure. They have used their profits to fund excessive executive pay and dividends while taking on unsustainable loans/debt to pay for infrastructure. Doesn’t sound like responsible corporate governance to me, so perhaps these executives have not been doing their job!
Who are these people who are railing against executive salaries but happy about footballers? And how is that anything other than false equivalence anyway?
Yes, Utility companies could be returned to government ownership. But would they get the necessary investment? I doubt it. That's why they were privatised in the first place - to get private investment in potable water (which they did - very successfully). As I've said, dividend payouts don't seem overly excessive, nor do salaries. OFWAT regulate both anyway.
As for your point about exec salaries + bonuses, you wouldn't need to look much further than these very forums to find examples management/shareholder bashing.
It might make us feel better, but the overwhelming driver in this is climate change and the annoying fact that water doesn't flow uphill.
Without a doubt climate change has impact but I think the biggest problem for the UK (not just water) is that following the industrial revolution and significant progress made during the Victorian era (when the UK was a global leader in innovation) we have not updated our infrastructure sufficiently to match 21st century standards.
So we, the current generation are paying the price.
When water was privatised the Thatcher govt wiped out their debt so shareholders took on a debt free organisation(s). However, that didn’t then materialise into investment in infrastructure to update it. Instead the water companies were used as cash cows for investors with a captive customer base guaranteeing income."
Yes, I'm afraid so. We have a perfect storm (sorry!) of legacy sewage pipework and climate change. We are one of the few countries that combine storm water and sewage in the same pipe system. It will cost £ billions to modernise, and we're footing the bill! But cut shareholders some slack - they are our pension funds  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple 31 weeks ago
Open Tonight Fri 27 CLOSED Saturday 28 |
"
How did we get to this for a free resource that falls from the sky at record levels, 1890mm this last year.
"
Well, good luck with drinking that free resource that falls from the sky in abundance, but perhaps you might want it treated first.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 31 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Firstly, the price increases are needed to counter long term climate change and rising water levels. There's nothing contentious about this - it's just water hydraulics.
Secondly, looking at my local water authority, Severn Trent, there dividends seem to be between 3.7% to 4.7%. That seems fairly modest. Investors could get more return in Post Office Saver account - why would they take the risk investing in a company for low returns?
Finally salaries. Yes, execs get well paid, but these are big companies. As Michael O'Leary of Ryanair commented recently, people rail against salaries of business leaders but are perfectly happy for footballers and golfers to get extortionate salaries.
If the provision of a natural resource is not profitable enough to warrant people investing (buying shares) then perhaps it should not be a private entity. The fact remains that water companies have not reinvested their profits to update infrastructure. They have used their profits to fund excessive executive pay and dividends while taking on unsustainable loans/debt to pay for infrastructure. Doesn’t sound like responsible corporate governance to me, so perhaps these executives have not been doing their job!
Who are these people who are railing against executive salaries but happy about footballers? And how is that anything other than false equivalence anyway?
Yes, Utility companies could be returned to government ownership. But would they get the necessary investment? I doubt it. That's why they were privatised in the first place - to get private investment in potable water (which they did - very successfully). As I've said, dividend payouts don't seem overly excessive, nor do salaries. OFWAT regulate both anyway.
As for your point about exec salaries + bonuses, you wouldn't need to look much further than these very forums to find examples management/shareholder bashing.
It might make us feel better, but the overwhelming driver in this is climate change and the annoying fact that water doesn't flow uphill.
Without a doubt climate change has impact but I think the biggest problem for the UK (not just water) is that following the industrial revolution and significant progress made during the Victorian era (when the UK was a global leader in innovation) we have not updated our infrastructure sufficiently to match 21st century standards.
So we, the current generation are paying the price.
When water was privatised the Thatcher govt wiped out their debt so shareholders took on a debt free organisation(s). However, that didn’t then materialise into investment in infrastructure to update it. Instead the water companies were used as cash cows for investors with a captive customer base guaranteeing income.
Yes, I'm afraid so. We have a perfect storm (sorry!) of legacy sewage pipework and climate change. We are one of the few countries that combine storm water and sewage in the same pipe system. It will cost £ billions to modernise, and we're footing the bill! But cut shareholders some slack - they are our pension funds "
Perfect Storm 
I wonder how much exposure UK based pension schemes actually have with the water companies? I do not know this for a fact, but I recall that one of the major investors (in Thames Water I think) was the Canadian Teachers Pension Fund.
I actually don’t have a lot of sympathy with shareholders. After all “your investment may go up or down” and so you take a risk. Equally, as a shareholder you need to ride rough with smooth and be prepared to invest for long term health of the business.
I have investments but these are in actual commodity businesses. I take the risk that these will give me return. Water should not be considered a commodity. IMO nothing that is essential for the life and health of a country’s citizens should be run for profit, they should be a state asset owned by and operated for the benefit of the citizens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 31 weeks ago
Brighton |
" Water should not be considered a commodity.
We have so much of it - we should actually be in the business of exporting it.  "
There’ll still be hosepipe bans later this summer!
Water capture (and retention) needs to be better as does the need for a “national grid” to move water from wet to dry areas of the UK. Won’t happen but probably more useful than HS2 would have been! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 31 weeks ago
Brighton |
"And this has been the biggest failing."
Assume you are referring to my points immediately above your post?
I would add the aforementioned storm water and sewage using same system that has resulted in tonnes of shit in our rivers and beaches. Again, a legacy of Victorian era innovation having not been modernised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've mentioned it before, but a friend of mine is a heavy investor in water shares with his supplier. Not millions, but 20-40K (he gets "twitchy" when I ask...nothing like "transparency" eh ?).
.
I said to him, "your dividends have been pretty good?" and he said "Yes."
.
I then said, "But if the company raise bills on the backs of their customers to pay for failing infrastructure, that's going to hit your dividend, surely ?"
.
He said, "A bit perhaps. But we cannot do without water, can we ? They don't have much choice but to pay, do they ?"
.
I said, "Clearly the company could reduce their dividend and use the money from that to improve the infrastructure, and keep bills as low as possible?"
.
"Then I'll put out my investment and the government can sort out the mess."
.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 31 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I've mentioned it before, but a friend of mine is a heavy investor in water shares with his supplier. Not millions, but 20-40K (he gets "twitchy" when I ask...nothing like "transparency" eh ?).
.
I said to him, "your dividends have been pretty good?" and he said "Yes."
.
I then said, "But if the company raise bills on the backs of their customers to pay for failing infrastructure, that's going to hit your dividend, surely ?"
.
He said, "A bit perhaps. But we cannot do without water, can we ? They don't have much choice but to pay, do they ?"
.
I said, "Clearly the company could reduce their dividend and use the money from that to improve the infrastructure, and keep bills as low as possible?"
.
"Then I'll put out my investment and the government can sort out the mess."
.
"
Sums up the attitude. Investors are totally fair weather and this is exactly why water and the supply of it should not be treated like a commodity (unless rival companies can run pipes up to your home and supply their water rather than someone else’s creating competition). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thames Water dividend payouts 1990-2022 £7 BILLIONS
Thames Water debt accrued 1990 - 2022 £14.3 BILLIONS
How can a company with so much debt pay out so much in dividends to shareholders?"
Essentially the shareholders are given too much power, and leverage their threat of investment withdrawal and/or CEO removal. This in turn hampers the running of the company and distorts their business operation.
It's a form of economic "entitlement" and coercion. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and this is the failing of shareholder-led industries where profit is the sole motive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"Thames Water dividend payouts 1990-2022 £7 BILLIONS
Thames Water debt accrued 1990 - 2022 £14.3 BILLIONS
How can a company with so much debt pay out so much in dividends to shareholders?
Essentially the shareholders are given too much power, and leverage their threat of investment withdrawal and/or CEO removal. This in turn hampers the running of the company and distorts their business operation.
It's a form of economic "entitlement" and coercion. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and this is the failing of shareholder-led industries where profit is the sole motive."
how does a shareholder withdraw investment ?
The issue with this co, is that we can't let it go to the wall. I bet that's priced into share price too.
Imo we need stricter rules for certain industries that have public failure impacts. Banks too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Thames Water dividend payouts 1990-2022 £7 BILLIONS
Thames Water debt accrued 1990 - 2022 £14.3 BILLIONS
How can a company with so much debt pay out so much in dividends to shareholders?
Essentially the shareholders are given too much power, and leverage their threat of investment withdrawal and/or CEO removal. This in turn hampers the running of the company and distorts their business operation.
It's a form of economic "entitlement" and coercion. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and this is the failing of shareholder-led industries where profit is the sole motive."
Thames water is not publicly traded.
Thames is owned by a consortium and that has been the issue of borrowing and paying out.
This type of ownership model should be scrapped on precious utility resources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ockforplay66Man 31 weeks ago
Southampton/isle of wight/ everywhere |
When the water companies were privatised in the 1980s, all the water companies were given access to ultra low (almost zero) interest loans from the government to pay specifically for infrastructure improvements. Since that point, over £600 billion has been “drawn down” with less than £300 million spent on infrastructure. (Nationally) and it is this that makes up the bulk of the water companies debt but it’s low priority as there is no specific pay back date.
OFWAT is a completely toothless tiger, who make recommendations and impose “fines” of such a pathetic nature that it is cheaper for water companies to pay for the illegal discharges than it is to invest in decent treatment plants.
Climate change has nothing to do with any of this, it’s purely the volume of sewage that is being pumped through a system that was first built in the 1800s and has not been expanded at the same rate as the population.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the water companies were privatised in the 1980s, all the water companies were given access to ultra low (almost zero) interest loans from the government to pay specifically for infrastructure improvements. Since that point, over £600 billion has been “drawn down” with less than £300 million spent on infrastructure. (Nationally) and it is this that makes up the bulk of the water companies debt but it’s low priority as there is no specific pay back date."
Your figures are wrong. Thames Water has spent over £5bn on one single project, the Thames Tideway Tunnel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the water companies were privatised in the 1980s, all the water companies were given access to ultra low (almost zero) interest loans from the government to pay specifically for infrastructure improvements. Since that point, over £600 billion has been “drawn down” with less than £300 million spent on infrastructure. (Nationally) and it is this that makes up the bulk of the water companies debt but it’s low priority as there is no specific pay back date.
OFWAT is a completely toothless tiger, who make recommendations and impose “fines” of such a pathetic nature that it is cheaper for water companies to pay for the illegal discharges than it is to invest in decent treatment plants.
Climate change has nothing to do with any of this, it’s purely the volume of sewage that is being pumped through a system that was first built in the 1800s and has not been expanded at the same rate as the population.
"
Climate change has a huge impact on wastewater disposal. As incidents of flooding increase in severity and frequency, treatment works are overwhelmed with nowhere for sewage to go. So overspills occur. Sewage solids in our waterways in unpleasant, but the REAL harm is done by soluble compounds in wastewater like sugars, salts, chemicals, nitrogen, drugs (prescription and illegal). These are not removed in treatment works anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ockforplay66Man 30 weeks ago
Southampton/isle of wight/ everywhere |
"
Your figures are wrong. Thames Water has spent over £5bn on one single project, the Thames Tideway Tunnel."
I apologise, and accept that my figures were incorrect, in so far as it is £600 billion drawn down, £300 billion spent, still only 50% of what they have borrowed.
Additionally, the tidewater tunnel was/is being built by a company called Tideway, which is a consortium of companies including Allianz, and Thames water only put in £1.1 billion of their money in to the project for the construction costs, the rest was funded by the consortium, as per Thames Waters own website |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your figures are wrong. Thames Water has spent over £5bn on one single project, the Thames Tideway Tunnel."
"I apologise, and accept that my figures were incorrect, in so far as it is £600 billion drawn down, £300 billion spent, still only 50% of what they have borrowed.
Additionally, the tidewater tunnel was/is being built by a company called Tideway, which is a consortium of companies including Allianz, and Thames water only put in £1.1 billion of their money in to the project for the construction costs, the rest was funded by the consortium, as per Thames Waters own website"
Yes. Thames Water has spent over £2bn of their own money on the Thames Tideway Tunnel and the Lee Valley Tunnels, and have managed to scrape up £4bn of private investment to form Tideway. That's just 1 company that has invested more than 20 times what you claimed was the national figure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 30 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Your figures are wrong. Thames Water has spent over £5bn on one single project, the Thames Tideway Tunnel.
I apologise, and accept that my figures were incorrect, in so far as it is £600 billion drawn down, £300 billion spent, still only 50% of what they have borrowed.
Additionally, the tidewater tunnel was/is being built by a company called Tideway, which is a consortium of companies including Allianz, and Thames water only put in £1.1 billion of their money in to the project for the construction costs, the rest was funded by the consortium, as per Thames Waters own website
Yes. Thames Water has spent over £2bn of their own money on the Thames Tideway Tunnel and the Lee Valley Tunnels, and have managed to scrape up £4bn of private investment to form Tideway. That's just 1 company that has invested more than 20 times what you claimed was the national figure."
£2bn of their own money? As in taken from their profits instead of paying out dividends? If so then good! That is what they are supposed to do.
As you will have no doubt ascertained over the years we have all posted on this topic, I have zero sympathy for water companies and their shareholders (whatever the mechanism of ownership is). Water (and provision of) should be a state owned asset.
The argument I often see trotted out is:
A) It provided investment to update old infrastructure (not enough and funded via what has turned out to be unsustainable debt while profits were extracted).
B) It has saved taxpayers from having to make huge investment to update infrastructure. But what that fails to acknowledge is every adult in the UK who is a customer is also a taxpayer so we are still funding via our bills anyway. I also have to wonder whether govt borrowing over a long period (via bonds) would be cheaper than the commercial loans the water companies have saddled themselves with?
Water privatisation is a failed experiment. The proof is all around us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ripfillMan 30 weeks ago
Paris, New York, Hong Kong and Havant |
Water privatisation has truly failed - it’s tradgic too, in the last 14 years so little has been done as the threads suggest climate change is only going to make it worse.
I am
Originally from Cumbria and to see lakes being polluted is heart breaking and locally to me Langston harbour is increasingly polluted an an increasing rate
I used to sea swim most of the year - this now has been taken away from a lot of people.
The owners of the utilities are mainly overseas - this present corrupt government has done nothing to oversea change - the environment agency has power but will not use them - why??
The lates idiot incumbent Steve Barclay ( they seek him here they seek him there )
Chocolate fire guard comes to mind is useless
I have joined a local action group holding to
Make a difference
It needs to be re- nationalised but sadly broken Britain will need to borrow yet more money
What a legacy to leave our children - to clean up shit  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
