Comment: Returns for water investors will start to dry up
"The customer's demand is for more and more for less and less. The losers can only be shareholders"
Friday 18 August 1995
The fault is not entirely their own. The seeds of this and most recent water debacles were sown at the time of privatisation six years ago. Water companies were hedged around with a bewildering array of financial rules, regulations and general paraphenalia, in part designed to make them saleable to the City. Divorcing the state from the vast costs of meeting tough new environmental and water standards was part of the Treasury's purpose.
Privatising what was in essence a tax destined only to rise was never going to be easy. A charging system based on usage would have helped the position. However, metering is still a long way off for the vast majority of households. In the meantime most of us continue to pay a flat rate regardless of the water company's ability to deliver a standard service. In no other private sector business would this be tolerated or even remotely possible.
In the midst of it all comes the announcement and implementation by the water companies of a series of share buy-backs costing hundreds of millions of pounds. The financially literate might reasonably think of this as a wholly unconnected balance sheet restructuring which will ultimately reduce the cost of capital to water companies - the official explanation, this - but to those trying to come to terms with the industry's insistence that if it is to do anything the customer will have to pick up the tab, it looks like a quite breathtaking display of waste and arrogance.
So far the City has taken a remarkably sanguine view. Share prices have scarcely been affected. This is a public relations problem that will be solved with the first rainfall, is the general view. There are all kinds of reasons for believing this may be misplaced. Certainly it is a problem not likely to go away without considerably higher expenditure than currently envisaged. The weather may be exceptional but hosepipe bans are not. They seem to happen in one part of the country or another almost every year now.
Water companies are required by the regulator to spend sufficient to ensure that hosepipe bans do not occur more than once every eight years, that drought orders do not have to be implemented more than once every 40 years, and that standpipes need to be installed only once in 100 years.
These criteria are based on past weather patterns. It may be that these patterns are changing. In any case present levels of spending are plainly inadequate; a change in the rules looks highly likely. While in theory water companies are allowed to earn an adequate rate of return on any new investment, in practice public and political pressure is such that they may have to dig deep into their own pockets. To some extent this is already anticipated. Yorkshire Water has said it will share efficiency gains with the customer by undertaking a "discretionary" investment programme worth pounds 125m over over five years. This is over and above what the regulator already requires the company to spend. Any hope that this sort of largesse might alleviate the problem must fast be receding, however.
Though Ian Byatt, the regulator, insists that the charging regime will not be reviewed again for another five years, the customer's demand is for more and more for less and less. The losers can only be shareholders. In the long term, investors must reconcile themselves to considerably smaller returns from these businesses.
- 2 Harry Potter fans can apply to the Hogwarts-inspired College of Wizardry
- 3 Jessica Chambers: 19-year-old woman 'doused with lighter fluid and burned alive' in the US
- 4 Russell Brand calls Nigel Farage 'poundshop Enoch Powell' in BBC Question Time debate
- 5 Orange Wednesdays are no more
Weather bomb in pictures: Storms cuts power for tens of thousands – and snow is on the way
Jessica Chambers: 19-year-old woman 'doused with lighter fluid and burned alive' in the US
Russell Brand calls Nigel Farage 'poundshop Enoch Powell' in BBC Question Time debate
Russell Brand was rendered speechless on Question Time by this man
Fury at Airbus after it hints the super-jumbo may be mothballed
Disgruntled RBS worker writes hilarious open letter to Russell Brand after anti-capitalist publicity stunt leaves him hungry
Nigel Farage defends Kerry Smith 'ch***y' comment: 'If you are going for a Chinese, what do you say you’re going for?'
Nigel Farage's approval rating hits 'record low' as popularity suffers in wake of Ukip sex scandal
Pakistan school attack live: Taliban kill at least 132 children in 'horrifying' massacre
Sony hack: Angelina Jolie branded 'seriously out of her mind' in further embarrassing leaked email saga
Panic Saturday: 13 million Britons spend £1.2bn – while 13 million others across the country live in poverty unable to afford food
iJobs Money & Business
£20000 - £25000 per annum + OTE £40,000 + Car + Pension: SThree: SThree are a ...
£20000 - £25000 per annum + OTE £35K: SThree: We consistently strive to be the...
£20000 - £25000 per annum + OTE £35000: SThree: SThree are a global FTSE 250 b...
£20000 - £25000 per annum + OTE £35K - £45K: SThree: SThree Group have been we...