Thames Water

They had no 'debt' but they had billions of pounds of liabilities to fix decades of under investment while nationalised.

All around the coast raw untreated sewage was simply pumped a few hundred metres off the beaches. Every decent rain storm resulted into thousands of tons rainwater and sewage being dumped into the Thames. The super sewer costing a few billions will stop or massively reduce this. Ditto the similar scheme under the entire length of Brighton and Hove promenade.

For decades the trades union barons who regularly marched into Downing St to tell the PM what to do diverted taxes to support British Coal/Steel/Leyland/Railways, the dockers etc while the water boards, and the NHS had to squabble over what was left. This is why the NHS had to buy Factor VIII to treat clotting disorders from the USA, because the

The water boards (who charged a pittance for the supply of water via the rates) were stuck with Victorian systems and pipework. This was OK for 125 years but didn't allow for the increase in post war house building.

The simple fact is that the nationalised water companies have invested billions in upgrades. The claim that all the debt was used to pay shareholders is an exaggeration.

Where will the money come from to compensate the shareholders ?.

Any government silly enough to try the trick that Byers/Hewitt pulled on Railtrack will see overseas buyers of gilts vanish, so

No it isn't. The water industry has a regulator, just like Energy and Telecoms. It's a failure of regulation and oversight.

That's why Railtrack assets were effectively stolen and given to Network Rail which over the last 25 years have amassed a vast amount of debt. Despite being created as a 'not for profit' undertaking, within a few years of being created they started reporting 'profits' and have used those illusory profits as justification to hand out millions in bonuses to its top managers. Any job done by Network Rail costs about 30% more than any of its European counterparts.

North Sea Oil and Gas would still be under the sea if it had not been for private companies willing to take massive risks to get at it. No private company will work for free.

And that's what they did, most obviously with the new mega sewer.

or what

Brian Gaff snipped-for-privacy@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

Fantasy.

Another silly fantasy.

Yes, but the companies are still allowed to make a profit, even with regulation and oversight.

Same as when bankrupt banks with no value, hence worthless shares, were taken over by the government.

You're still posting here so have no decency. But we all knew that anyway.

That wasn't the case for Norway.

Doesnt say that the current state of Thames Water was due to that.

Fair enough but it's probably your money that is being lost. These faceless big shareholders are often your pension fund/ providers.

How can a company both be making an excess profit and be bankrupt and worthless at the same time?

So the Norwegian Government financed all the oil/gas exploration in their sector up front?

Norway did however benefit massively from North Sea revenues (taxes) and managed them a lot better than the UKs spend them as soon as we get them approach.

Its te shareholders who inveted in the company and their debts.

These should have been

What makes you so sure that the water companies are not investing properly? Many decades of no investment in the infrastructure requires billions and although the current complaint seems to be about sewage it used to be about the water leaks.

That should not be a problem with a new meter reading. They get the reading from a smart meter every 30 minutes.

You have to define what you mean by "profit". Income less direct costs such as staff, buildings? Or income less these and as well costs for repairs and other work on the water infrastructure?

The same rules as any other business: gross profit is sales revenue and other income less sales-related expenses (e.g. raw materials, sales and routine maintenance staff, sales premises and warehouses), net profit is gross profit less non-sales-dependent costs (e.g. wages of directors, accountants etc., buildings and equipment they use, unexpected repairs).

The net profit is subject to Corporation Tax, and what's left belongs to the shareholders. The directors, not the shareholders, determine dividends, if any.

In general, asset purchases are initially subject to Corporation Tax, but it is repaid over a number of years. From time to time, special exemptions are made, and special rules apply to certain industries.

Accountants (lawyers) get paid for quibbling over categories of expenses, and similar details.

Yep, an absolutely classic example of socialism working very well indeed.

By paying agreed dividend out of turnover as per agreement with OFWAT, and having significant future repair liabilities that make the organisation worthless.