Why Thames Water is drowning in debt
When we think about companies that might go bankrupt, we don’t often think of water companies. With simple business models, monopolistic market positioning, and the essential nature of their service, it is easy to think that water companies are some of the safest investments out there. As the UK’s biggest water supplier, Thames Water seems no different.
This was the rationale of some of the world’s largest international investors that poured money into the company. Now the company is drowning in debt, at 80% of the value of the company. What happened?
To give some background, the UK water industry was nationalised in 1973. The industry’s cost and a series of pollution proceedings from our friend, the EU, led to privatisation in 1989. 10 regional private companies were created, including Thames Water, to own and operate water infrastructure. Alongside this, The Office of Water Services (Ofwat) was created to serve as the economic regulator of these local monopolies, setting limits on water prices amongst other things.
Thames Water’s private owners have changed over time – ranging from German energy company, RWE, to Australian bank, Macquarie. Whilst these owners did invest billions into Thames, a lot of it was financed through raising debt (with net debt currently over £16 billion). This debt has helped Thames pay out over £7 billion in dividends to these shareholders since 1990.
The point is that regulation drives the UK water sector
The regulatory aspect of this watery tale is crucial. At a basic level, Ofwat tries to keep bills low whilst also making water companies investable to fund infrastructure. Price limits are set every five years using regulatory capital value (RCV), which is Ofwat’s measure of a water company’s market value. From RCV, Ofwat calculates regulatory gearing, the ratio of a company’s net debt to its RCV, to inform its approval of water company business plans. It also stipulates that all water companies must have a minimum of two BBB-credit ratings to keep their water licence and avoid fines. Finally, Ofwat allows water companies to undergo “securitisation”, creating holding companies outside the regulatory ringfence to issue more debt and receive dividends, taking money out of the sector.
The point is that regulation drives the UK water sector. Thames has the highest RCV and regulatory gearing, and now has a “junk” (below BBB-) credit rating from both S&P and Moody’s, putting it at risk of losing its operating license. Thames also has a holding company, called Kemble Water, to which it pays dividends and issues debt to fund infrastructure improvements.
Water companies would love to invest instead of paying dividends, as this will increase their RCV and therefore prices they can charge. The problem is that Ofwat is torn between keeping consumer costs down and keeping water companies profitable. It has set limits on water company infrastructure investment at sub-optimal levels to keep bills low. The dividend conversation has largely damaged Thames’ reputation only, since Ofwat regulates dividend levels too.
Thames failed to complete 108 upgrade projects to reduce sewage spills
Since 2022, ageing infrastructure has led to high depreciation costs and a series of fines for sewage spills, reducing cash available to service debt. With over 50% of Thames’ debt being index-linked, the recent inflation surge did not help. Even when Ofwat approved investment, Thames failed to complete 108 upgrade projects to reduce sewage spills, demonstrating a failure of company management.
In 2024, Ofwat watered down Thames’ 2030 plans to raise bills by 52% and reduced proposed expenditure. Company CEO Chris Weston says this will prevent “the turnaround and recovery of the company”. Without price increases being approved, current and potential investors are not keen to inject more cash before Thames runs out of it next year.
Where does this leave us? We have a punitive regulator preventing price increases, limiting Thames’ ability to finance debt and attract investors. We have failed owners, who increased net debt and failed to finish approved infrastructure projects. We also have a negative PR environment as anger mounts about sewage spills, scaring investors and increasing fines. Together, this leaves Thames in its current near-underwater situation, with its future likely to involve temporary nationalisation or a listing on the stock market.
Comments (2)
A Review of “Why Thames Water is drowning in debt”
Reading about Thames Water’s financial quagmire is a bit like watching a slow-motion train wreck, except the train is a 150-year-old sewage pump, and the passengers are shareholders, regulators, and customers. The article dives into the murky waters of how the UK’s largest water supplier ended up teetering on the brink of insolvency. It’s a tale of debt, dividends, and dysfunction, served with just enough context to make you question how anyone thought privatising water could work. Let’s wade through the piece’s key points, shall we?
Strengths of the Article: A Deep Dive into a Shallow Pool
The article excels at providing a comprehensive overview of Thames Water’s predicament. It starts with a compelling premise: water companies, with their monopolistic positions and essential services, should be boringly safe investments. Yet Thames Water has managed to become the financial equivalent of a leaky faucet—constant drip, drip, drip of bad decisions and worse outcomes.
The historical context is a strong point. By tracing the roots of the UK water industry from nationalisation in 1973 to privatisation in 1989, the article sets the stage for understanding how Thames Water got into this mess. The explanation of regulatory mechanics, particularly Ofwat’s role in setting price limits and monitoring regulatory capital value (RCV), is clear and digestible. Even if you don’t know your EBITDA from your elbow, you’ll come away with a solid grasp of how Thames Water’s business model operates—or, rather, doesn’t.
The piece also balances technical details with narrative storytelling. For instance, the description of Thames Water’s various owners—from German energy conglomerates to Macquarie, the Australian bank with a knack for debt-fueled acquisitions—paints a vivid picture of a company passed around like a hot potato. It adds personality to what could otherwise be a dry recitation of facts and figures.
Humour and Tone: A Light Splash, but Could Go Deeper
The article dips its toes into humour but doesn’t quite cannonball in. There are moments of wry observation—like the juxtaposition of Thames Water’s massive debt with its inability to complete infrastructure projects—that elicit a smirk. However, the overall tone remains relatively serious. Given the inherent absurdity of the situation (a water company drowning in debt, sewage spills making headlines), the piece could have leaned further into satire. After all, if you can’t laugh at a water company circling the drain, what can you laugh at?
A more irreverent tone could have made the article more engaging without sacrificing its informational value. For example, comparing Ofwat’s regulatory framework to a Rube Goldberg machine or likening Thames Water’s debt strategy to a Ponzi scheme for pipes might have added some zing.
Analysis: A Clear Stream with the Occasional Ripple
The article is at its best when dissecting the interplay between regulation and corporate behaviour. It explains how Ofwat’s dual mandate—to keep bills low and water companies investable—creates a tension that Thames Water has been unable to navigate. This is a classic example of regulatory capture: when the entities being regulated manipulate the system to their advantage. Thames Water’s use of debt to fund dividends while underinvesting in infrastructure is a textbook case.
However, the article could delve deeper into the implications of Thames Water’s woes. For instance, what does this mean for the broader UK water sector? Are other companies facing similar challenges, or is Thames Water an outlier? The piece hints at these questions but doesn’t explore them fully. A wider lens could have provided a richer understanding of the systemic issues at play.
Critique: A Few Drops Short of a Flood
While the article is thorough, it occasionally veers into repetition. The point that regulation drives the UK water sector is made multiple times, almost as if the writer is worried readers might forget. Once is informative; twice is emphasis; thrice is overkill. A tighter edit could have kept the narrative flowing more smoothly.
The article also skirts around potential solutions. It mentions temporary nationalisation and a possible stock market listing as likely outcomes but doesn’t explore these options in depth. What would nationalisation entail? Would it solve Thames Water’s problems or simply shift them onto taxpayers? Similarly, a stock market listing might provide a cash injection, but how would it address the company’s underlying operational failures? These are the questions readers are left pondering.
The Takeaway: A Thirst for More
Ultimately, the article succeeds in shining a light on Thames Water’s predicament, offering a blend of historical context, regulatory analysis, and financial scrutiny. It’s a solid primer on a complex issue, accessible enough for the layperson yet detailed enough to satisfy a more informed audience.
However, it stops just short of greatness. A sharper focus on the broader implications and a bolder embrace of humour could have elevated it from a competent explainer to a memorable piece of commentary. As it stands, the article is like Thames Water itself: it gets the job done, but you can’t help feeling it could do so much better.
Thank you for your comment