logo
Hapless Thames Water finally drinking in last chance saloon

Hapless Thames Water finally drinking in last chance saloon

The Guardian3 days ago

This time Thames Water really is drinking in the last chance saloon
Call yourself barbarians at the gate? Actually, KKR hates the decades-old description, but the US private equity firm is still meant to have a fearsome reputation for doing its homework, being a cute judge of political risks and going where others fear to tread. All of which makes its eleventh-hour abandonment of its £4bn bid for Thames Water very odd.
The suggestion is that the big bosses in New York couldn't stomach the political and reputational risks of owning the UK's largest and most crisis-ridden water company. If that's the reasoning, though, KKR should explain itself. The political risks aren't obviously worse than six months ago – and arguably are lesser now that the government's water commissioner, Sir Jon Cunliffe, is talking aloud about 'how to restore the stability and predictability of the regulatory system' in his interim report published co-incidentally on Tuesday. Thames's reputation is still in the gutter, but that's not fresh news.
The government, too, seems to have been as keen as mustard on KKR. But, as the US firm should know, there are still limits on how many soft promises can be made, and how far the regulatory regime can be bent out of shape ahead of Cunliffe's final report. And, if you can't handle the odd political spat over executive bonuses, the UK water industry was probably never the place for you.
KKR was not an unproblematic rescuer, as argued here previously, but, in two important ways, it is a shame it has scarpered. First, KKR was a grown-up international name in infrastructure and was imagining a 10-year commitment to Thames before listing it on the stock market, a good end-point. Second, Thames's fall-back plan – a recapitalisation led by the bondholders – is messy.
There are 100 financial institutions in the creditor group owed £13bn collectively. They are all, apparently, aligned in support of a version of a debt-for-equity proposal, but the sheer number of firms involved can only add complexity. The exercise may not be quite like herding cats, but at least there was only one KKR.
Nor, to put it mildly, do all 100 members of the creditor group fit Cunliffe's description of the preferred type of shareholder for water companies: those who seek 'low risk, low returns', such as pension funds, for the very good reason that treating sewage and supplying drinking water is not meant to be exciting.
Silver Point Capital is a US hedge fund that describes itself as 'a leader in global credit investing'. In other words, debt, not equity, is its game. Fellow US hedgie Elliott is a jack of all trades, but note its un-Cunliffe description of its thrill-seeking style when owning equity – 'positions with a high asymmetry of reward to risk' and 'a high degree of optionality.'
Others in the creditor group will be debt-only funds that aren't allowed to own equity. Maybe the coalition will hold out of fear that special administration, AKA temporary nationalisation, would mean a worse outcome for all. But plan B is plainly sub-optimal. There were good reasons why KKR was selected as 'preferred bidder'.
An open question, though, is why Thames's board, from a field of six, selected only KKR. An obvious alternative would have been CK Infrastructure, which owns 75% of Northumbrian Water. The need for speed and exclusivity apparently trumped everything, but that now looks a poor call. If it really is too late to summon CKI back, it is only the creditor group's proposal that is standing in the way of special administration. It may feel like Thames has been drinking in the last-chance saloon for about two years, but this time it genuinely is.
From the government's point of view, a good outcome at this point may be one in which the creditors shuffle the pack among themselves, with cuddlier names such as Aberdeen emerging as core would-be shareholders and the debt opportunists relegated to minor roles. That could be a workable fudge for a while. But the position is now properly unstable. A lot of time has been wasted on KKR's non-bid. Special administration, the outcome the government has desperately been trying to avoid, is a real possibility.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kemi Badenoch admits she is still learning how to lead the Tories: ‘It takes a while'
Kemi Badenoch admits she is still learning how to lead the Tories: ‘It takes a while'

The Independent

time18 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Kemi Badenoch admits she is still learning how to lead the Tories: ‘It takes a while'

Kemi Badenoch has admitted she is still learning how to lead the Conservatives after seven months in job, amid dire poll ratings for the party. The Tory leader on Friday said 'it takes quite a while to learn how to do the job ' and that 'every week it gets better and better'. It came a day after her shadow chancellor promised she 'will get better', with the Conservatives tumbling in the polls and falling to fourth in a Scottish by-election on Thursday. 'She will get better through time at the media, she will get better through time at the dispatch box at PMQs,' Mel Stride said. Asked about his comments on Friday, Ms Badenoch said: 'People often assume that the minute you come into a job like being leader of the opposition, that you are ready to go. 'It actually takes quite a while to learn how to do the job, and what I have been saying is that every week it gets better and better. 'Every week I have more experience, and this is what every leader of the opposition has found from Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron.' She added that lots will change before the next general election, highlighting the outbreak of Covid and the war in Ukraine in the last election cycle. And Ms Badenoch said: 'There is going to be so much more that people are going to see, not just from me, but from the Conservative Party. 'We were down at the last election, but we are not out.' It came as the Tory leader shifted her party decisively in favour of pulling Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a stance her leadership rival Robert Jenrick has long called for the Conservatives to adopt. Ms Badenoch said the convention has become a "sword" to "attack democratic decisions", resulting in Britain being unable to police its borders and deport foreign criminals. 'This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn't just damaging our security, it's also damaging our prosperity,' she said. She stopped short of vowing to adopt leaving the ECHR as policy, but said 'I do believe that we will likely need to leave'. And she said she had tasked a team of legal experts to look at how Britain could pull out of the convention and what the impact would be, promising to announce the results at the party's conference in October. Ms Badenoch all but guaranteed a set-piece moment at the Manchester meet in which she will formally call for Britain to ditch the ECHR. Delivering her speech in Westminster, Ms Badenoch also sought to stress that the Conservatives are still the main opposition to Labour, despite the party's dire performance in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. The Tories won just 6 per cent of the vote, with Labour fending off Reform UK and the SNP to win the seat. Answering questions after a speech on Friday, Mrs Badenoch dismissed Reform as a "protest party" and said claims it was the real opposition were "nonsense". Describing Reform as "another left-wing party", she said: "What they're trying to do is talk this situation into existence. "Labour is going to be facing the Conservative Party at the next election and we're going to get them out."

50,000 letters sent to minister over controversial Flamingo Land plans
50,000 letters sent to minister over controversial Flamingo Land plans

The National

time21 minutes ago

  • The National

50,000 letters sent to minister over controversial Flamingo Land plans

More than 50,000 people have written to the Public Finance Minister, Ivan McKee, in just two weeks, demanding that the Scottish Government withdraw its approval for Flamingo Land's Loch Lomond mega-resort planning application. In September 2024, the Yorkshire-based theme park operator, Flamingo Land Ltd, had their planning permission in principle rejected after all 14 board members of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Planning Authority. However, the decision to reject the £40 million resort plans was overturned by a Scottish Government official last month, when the developers appealed the decision. READ MORE: More than £1m in funding announced for restoration projects for Scottish coastline The proposal for the resort includes plans for more than 100 holiday lodges, two hotels, a waterpark, a monorail, 372 car parking spaces, shops, and more on the site called Lomond Banks. According to the Scottish Greens, more than 50,000 people have used a portal on their website to call on the Scottish Government to overturn the decision and scrap the development. Greens MSP Ross Greer (below) said the public's opinion on the proposal, which is the most opposed in Scottish planning history with more than 155,000 individuals lodging objections, 'couldn't be clearer'. (Image: PA) He said: 'The Scottish Government has got this badly wrong. They are about to allow a greedy developer to trash the gateway to our National Park. It is not too late for a u-turn though. They can still save Loch Lomond. 'In just two weeks the Planning Minister has heard directly from over 50,000 people calling on him to block these proposals. Public opinion couldn't be clearer and it is backed up by experts including the Government's own environment watchdog. 'I have campaigned side by side with local residents in Balloch for nearly ten years now to stop Flamingo Land. At every stage we have won on the basis of the overwhelming evidence against their plans, but that has all now been overturned by the Scottish Government.' Organisations such as the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust, the Ramblers, and the Scottish Government environment watchdog, SEPA, also raised objections against the plans. Greer added: 'I do not understand why the Scottish Government are determined to cosy up to greedy theme park operators rather than protect Scotland's world famous natural heritage. 'It's time for Government Ministers to actually listen to the people of Scotland and save Loch Lomond.' The news comes after Scottish ministers refused planning permission for a trotting track for harness racing on the historic Bannockburn battlefield site. The Scottish Government ruled that the proposals would 'introduce new development and urbanisation in one of the few remaining undeveloped parts of the battlefield'. As such, it ruled the development 'would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the battlefield, its setting and sense of place'. The site is where in June 1314 Robert the Bruce and his Scottish army famously defeated English troops led by King Edward II. The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.

How the Glazer family cost Manchester United £1.2bn
How the Glazer family cost Manchester United £1.2bn

BBC News

time23 minutes ago

  • BBC News

How the Glazer family cost Manchester United £1.2bn

On 28 June 2005, the Glazer family completed their takeover of Manchester United Football loaded the club with debt, and over the next 20 years, BBC Verify has found about £1.2bn has been spent on debt interest, debt repayments, dividends and fees to the fund the deal, the Glazers borrowed millions of pounds from hedge funds and left the club with debts of £ year on, the club had already paid £53.2m in debt interest to its lenders and in fees to the Glazer family. June 2025 marks the 20th anniversary of the Florida-based Glazer family taking full control of the Premier League was a deeply controversial takeover from the beginning because of the financial implications for 22 June 2005, the Glazer family paid £790m to buy out the club's exiting shareholders and to remove the club from the London stock it was a deal mainly funded by borrowed money and loaded £604m in debts on to the club, which had previously had borrowings of only £ club's board had warned, external in April 2005 about the dangers of this amount of debt, saying it was not "prudent" and risked "a downward spiral in both team and financial performance".The takeover provoked protests from fans, which continue to this by BBC Verify - based on an analysis of the club's published accounts and stock market announcements - show that since the Glazer family's acquisition of the club in June 2005 it has paid out:£815m in debt interest repayments£166m in dividends to shareholders£10m in management and administration fees to Glazer family companies£197m in external net debt repaymentsThis means that, in total, £1.187bn in cash left the club between 2005 and 2024 which it is reasonable to argue would not have done so in the absence of the Glazer is a conservative estimate, too, because it does not include various fees to banks, financial advisers and other financing costs, including currency also does not include the cash that has left the club in the form of directors' the Glazers re-listed a portion of the the club's shares on the New York Stock Exchange in 2012, £125m has also been paid out in compensation to the club's half of the directors were Glazer family members, it's likely half of this sum - about £63m - went to Verify asked the club to comment on the findings and they said they would leave the accounts to speak for themselves. Have the Glazers added value? The Glazer family can legitimately point to the fact they have significantly grown the value of the club over the past two the Glazers' two decades of full ownership, United's annual commercial revenues have risen more than fivefold - from £55m in 2006 to £303m in 2024. This is reflected in the implied market value of the Glazers acquired United for £790m. The stock market implied value of the club in May 2025 was more than £ the financial terms of the sale of a stake in the club to Sir Jim Ratcliffe in 2024 implies an overall valuation of £ family can also point to the fact that, under their ownership, the club has spent more than £2bn on signing new players since 2012. This compares well with expenditure by most of the club's rivals, external over that the pitch, United have won 15 major trophies under the Glazers, but only five have those have come since the retirement of legendary former manager Sir Alex Ferguson in season they finished 15th in the Premier League - the lowest they have ended a campaign since a year in the second tier in was acknowledged in the club's quarterly accounts, released on executive officer Omar Berrada said it had been "a difficult season in the Premier League, which we all know fell below our standards and we have a clear expectation of improvement next season". How much have the Glazers invested themselves? The Glazers mainly used borrowed money to buy the club in 2005, but the accounts show they also put in £273m of their own they have invested no money of their own investments in the squad have come from the club's own internally generated cash resources and from debt secured on the club directly and on the ownership shares in the family have also realised considerable value from their 2012 and 2022 the Glazer family sold £555m in shares in the club, including the proceeds of a £150m 2012 listing on the New York Stock the sale proceeds, £484m went to them directly, though £71m went to partially pay down the debt they took out to buy the club. What has happened to the debt? In 2005, Manchester United PLC's total gross debt was just £ Glazers' leveraged buyout increased the gross debt listed in the accounts to £604m in 2006 - this was partially secured on the club's assets directly, and partially secured on the Glazer family's ownership have been been some major refinancing of the debt over the two decades, including in 2010 and 2015. But in 2024, the club's gross debt still stood at £547m. Other measures of debt which factor in the future cost of transfers put this figure at almost £ annual interest costs since 2005 have been £42m with costs of £37.2m in the most recent financial year of 2023-24. How has Jim Ratcliffe's involvement affected the finances of the club? In 2024, the Glazer family sold £732m in shares to Ratcliffe, leaving him with roughly a 30% ownership stake and control of the football part of the deal, Ratcliffe injected a further £236m of his own funds directly into the club for investment into the infrastructure of their Old Trafford additional investment was not funded by additional Jim told the BBC in March 2025 the club had been set to run out of money by the end of this year, forcing him to drastically cut costs.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store