OV9

What’s wrong with that particular company is that they prioritised paying dividends over running the business. We’ve covered that.

There you go...

The failure is that of Ofwat, a government agency. Either by not preventing this or, their charter not having the power or remit to stop this.

Either way, a failure of Government and good reason not renationalise

Ok dinny

Ah of course, your argument that companies shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions was just fishing.

That’s why it was so stupid

ZedLeg wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:32 pm Ah of course, your argument that companies shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions was just fishing.

That’s why it was so stupid

Fishing? Probably not such a great idea with our polluted rivers…

Dividends kept investors money in the business, without one, you’d have less of the other and so would probably have been in a similar/worse situation sooner. That being said 3.3bn over 5 years isn’t too bad, but it depends on whether the current management have a plan to reduce their costs, fix the issues listed etc or will just be back in 5 years saying, “hi, us again”.. in which case, and if the country can afford it currently, it should be nationalised sooner rather than later; good money after bad etc

I understand what a dividend is, how do you justify paying them out with borrowed money and lumbering a needed utility with the debt?

I know that expecting good ethics from capitalists is a mugs game but this seems pretty unethical to me.

I’m sure the fact that the government can’t just let them fail never entered their thought process.

ZedLeg wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:32 pm Ah of course, your argument that companies shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions was just fishing.

ZedLeg wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:49 pm I understand what a dividend is, how do you justify paying them out with borrowed money and lumbering a needed utility with the debt?

I don't understand how they can pay dividends out either. My accountant always drummed into me that dividends can only be paid from profits - something which is clearly absent. Although is borrowing money classified as a profit, is that how it works?

Gavster wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 4:14 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:49 pm I understand what a dividend is, how do you justify paying them out with borrowed money and lumbering a needed utility with the debt?

I don't understand how they can pay dividends out either. My accountant always drummed into me that dividends can only be paid from profits - something which is clearly absent. Although is borrowing money classified as a profit, is that how it works?

Technically it's a restriction on making distributions on equity from "distributable reserves". I'm not an accountant, nor a specialist in listed entities but there are various ways you can effect what you may term a 'divi-recap' and which may not include a 'dividend' per se but is nonetheless a return of value to shareholders.

In the private equity context, typically PE firms fund a bidco to purchase the target via loans rather than capitalising with equity. That then means they can have their portfolio company they've bought repay loans rather than make a distribution on equity. That's also more efficient from a tax perspective.

The other thing that springs to mind is that you could potentially incur debt and use that debt to fund capex, i.e. say, renew infrastructure - rather than using in year or accumulated cash. That may then increase profits / your distributable reserves, allowing the payment of a larger dividend.

As I say, the accounting side of this is beyond my purview but someone (usually one of the big 4) will write a memorandum of the steps involved in these transactions.

There was a BBC programme on the antics of Severn Trent recently and that was fairly eye opening as to what they get up to. Creating new companies, transferring assets for £1, suddenly having a company worth £billioms and then raising capital off that.

I didn't watch it fully but that's my understanding of what has gone on with some.

Oh look, fascists in the UK are feeling emboldened too

https://bsky.app/profile/jolyonmaugham. ... q5jcddfc2g

He clarified that he only meant to call the safe abuse targets peados.

Thank goodness that Keir is going to close a loophole that’ll *checks notes* maybe stop people dying in a completely obliterated warzone.

Really got our priorities right here

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ir-starmer

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2025 10:11 am Thank goodness that Keir is going to close a loophole that’ll *checks notes* maybe stop people dying in a completely obliterated warzone.

Really got our priorities right here

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ir-starmer

Mad isn't it? Strong whiffs of "it's not right that these brown people have used a legal route to asylum that was only meant for white people."

Keeps attention away from the PFI shitshow that Labour are responsible for though I suppose.

I didn’t want to paint it that broadly for fear of being a woke lefty again but yes, it does appear to be exactly like that.

Bear in mind this was a conservative policy that Kemi was using to try and trip starmer up in pmq’s but no one had told her it was her own policy, which starmer pointed out and agreed with.

No idea what he’ll do to replace it, but the story is leaving out the context to make it look like he hates brown people, which is unlikely at best.

I don’t think he hates anyone as much as he doesn’t care about other people beyond how they can boost his career.