Connect with us

Published

on

This is a crucial week for the water industry.

Regulator Ofwat will on Thursday give its “final determination” on how much bills will rise over the next five years.

Before then, Britain’s largest company Thames Water hopes to win court approval for a £3bn bridging loan to stop it running out of cash in the spring.

Together they amount to the greatest test of the water system, the only fully privatised network in the world.

To understand how we got here, and what might happen next, it pays to go back to the beginning.

In 1989, 10 state-owned regional water and sewage companies in England and Wales were sold off by Margaret Thatcher’s government, raising £7bn for the Treasury. The companies were sold debt-free but never intended to stay that way.

The rationale was that the private sector could raise the billions required to upgrade the Victorian sewage network, and fund it from customer bills, so the state didn’t have to.

So borrowing was always part of the plan and, as of this year, the companies have accrued £70bn of net debt, at a ratio to equity (gearing) of around 85%.

In water the problem with debt is not the total, but whether the companies can afford to service it, and what they did with the money.

The answer to the first question varies by operator, but water companies have poured billions into infrastructure and other investments. Adjusted for inflation, investment has run at between £4bn and a record £9bn last year, a total of £210bn in today’s prices, spending that has reduced leakage and improved water quality on some measures.

But it has not been enough to meet public expectation of basic services, of sewage control, or to the challenges of climate change and a growing population. To pick one example, the UK has not built a new reservoir since 1992.

At the same time, the companies’ shareholders have extracted dividends of £83bn (as calculated from Ofwat figures by the University of Greenwich and adjusted for inflation).

But like debt, dividends are a deliberate feature of the privatised system. Investors in any industry need to make a return.

Water UK, the companies’ trade body, says that since 2020, when the regulator began paying closer attention to payouts, dividends have averaged 2.7%.

The level of dividends and executive bonuses have become harder to defend with the emergence of the water industry’s dirty secret; sewage outflows.

These occur when the pipes shared by sewage and rainwater become inundated and, as a failsafe, are deliberately discharged into waterways through storm overflows to prevent sewage backing up into homes and businesses.

For decades the full extent of their use was unknown, with industry, regulators and the public in the dark because of the absence of monitoring. That has changed in the last decade, with full monitoring of almost 15,000 overflows in England revealing more than 460,000 sewage outflows in 2023.

Sewage overflow into a river. File pic: iStock
Image:
Sewage releases have caused controversy. File pic: iStock

Public outrage has pushed the issue up the political agenda, increasing the pressure on companies.

The water industry can point to some success in improving water quality since privatisation, with a reduction in levels of phosphorus and ammonia and 85% of bathing water classified as “good” or “excellent” by the Environment Agency.

But none of those are in rivers, where wild swimming, and the public activism that comes with it, is a recent phenomenon. And as public expectations for water quality rise, so do costs.

The challenge for the industry is that the cost of addressing the mess – whether physical, financial or of their own making – has just got more expensive.

Water was once a haven for long-term investors who enjoyed reliable returns from monopoly providers of an essential resource. For many years, water enjoyed a “halo effect” with cheaper borrowing costs than other industries.

This chart shows yields for water industry bonds, effectively the interest rate on their debt, compared to an index of other UK corporate bonds. While borrowing costs for everyone increased following the global inflation spike in early 2022, water remained cheaper.

In July 2023, after the full scale of the crisis at Thames Water emerged, the lines crossed over and water debt became more expensive. Water now has a premium attached, growing to almost a full percentage point by the end of this year.

And it is not just Thames. Ratings agencies have downgraded several water companies, damaging confidence in the entire sector. All companies face higher costs for borrowing, from the publicly listed Severn Trent, to distressed Thames, trying to secure terms on a £3bn bridging loan at an eye-watering 9.75%.

To meet these rising costs of capital water companies are now arguing that Ofwat should not only let them raise customer bills, but that investors need a greater return to commit money to the sector.

Luke Hickmore, investment director at abrdn, part of the Thames Water creditors’ group, said: “Water companies are facing a significantly higher cost of funding at the same time as seeing a growing need for infrastructure investment to maintain water and sewage systems.

“Investors have placed a risk premium on the entire industry because of uncertainty over whether the regulatory framework can support this increased investment need, and this drop in confidence has accelerated since Ofwat’s Draft Determination in July.

“Weaker companies with higher debt have suffered more, right at the time when many of them are looking for additional capital to meet the needs of customers and environment for the next five years and beyond.

“This financial strain and deteriorating investor support means higher cost of borrowing, which eventually feeds through to customer bills.”

All of which means your water bill is about to go up, though how much depends on where you live, and unlike other privatised utilities you can’t switch.

In July, Ofwat said bills could rise by an average of 21% to fund £88bn of spending, but the water companies are now asking for 40% to cover an investment of £107bn.

Wherever Ofwat draws its line this will be the most significant bill hike since privatisation. For decades the regulator and politicians were focused on affordability, leaving bills lower in real terms today than they were a decade ago.

But it is clearer than a chalk stream that this approach stored up trouble, and whether you blame poor management, corporate greed, slack regulation, political indifference, or the principle of privatisation itself, the industry faces a critical moment.

Continue Reading

Business

Former chancellor Osborne is shock contender to head HSBC

Published

on

By

Former chancellor Osborne is shock contender to head HSBC

George Osborne, the former chancellor, has emerged as a shock contender to become the next chairman of HSBC Holdings, one of the world’s top banking jobs.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that Mr Osborne, who was chancellor from 2010 until 2016, was approached during the summer about becoming the successor to Sir Mark Tucker.

This weekend, City sources said that Mr Osborne was one of three remaining candidates in the frame to take on the chairmanship of the London-headquartered lender.

Naguib Kheraj, the City veteran who was previously finance director of Barclays and deputy chairman of Standard Chartered, is also in contention.

The other candidate is said to be Kevin Sneader, the former McKinsey boss who now works for Goldman Sachs in Asia.

It was unclear this weekend whether other names remained in contention for the job, or whether the board regarded any as the frontrunner at this stage.

Mr Osborne’s inclusion on the shortlist is a major surprise, given his lack of public company chairmanship experience.

More from Money

With a market capitalisation of almost £190bn, HSBC is the second-largest FTSE-100 company, after drugs giant AstraZeneca.

The bank has been looking for a replacement for Sir Mark for nearly a year, but has run what external critics have labelled a chaotic succession process.

Sir Mark, who has returned to the helm of insurer AIA as its non-executive chairman, stepped down at the end of September, but remains an adviser to the board.

Brendan Nelson, the former KPMG vice-chairman, became interim chair of HSBC last month and will remain in place until a permanent successor is found.

If he got the job, Mr Osborne would be a radical choice for one of Britain’s biggest corporate jobs.

Since stepping down as an MP, he has assumed a varied professional life, becoming editor of the London Evening Standard for three years, a post he left in 2020.

Since then, he has become a partner at Robey Warshaw, the merger advisory firm recently acquired by Evercore, where he remains in place.

If he were to become HSBC chairman, he would be obliged to give up that role.

Mr Osborne also chairs the British Museum, is an adviser to the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase and is chairman of Lingotto Investment Management, which is controlled by Italy’s billionaire Agnelli business dynasty.

During his chancellorship, Mr Osborne and then prime minister David Cameron fostered closer links with Beijing in a bid to boost trade ties between the two countries.

“Of course, there will be ups and downs in the road ahead, but by sticking together we can make this a golden era for the UK-China relationship for many years to come,” he said in a speech in Shanghai in 2015.

Mr Osborne was also reported to have intervened on HSBC’s behalf as it sought to avoid prosecution in the US in 2012 on money laundering charges.

The much cooler current relationship between the UK – and many of its allies – and China will be the most significant geopolitical context faced by Sir Mark’s successor as HSBC chairman.

While there is little doubt about his intellectual bandwidth for the role, it would be rare for such a plum corporate job to go to someone with such a spartan public company boardroom pedigree.

His lack of direct banking experience would also be expected to come under close scrutiny from regulators.

HSBC’s shares have soared over the last year, rising by more than 50%, despite the headwinds posed by President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs regime.

When he was appointed, Mr Tucker became the first outsider to take the post in the bank’s 152-year history – and which has a big presence on the high street thanks to its acquisition of the Midland Bank in 1992.

He oversaw a rapid change of leadership, appointing bank veteran John Flint to replace Stuart Gulliver as chief executive.

The transition did not work out, however, with Mr Tucker deciding to sack Mr Flint after just 18 months.

He was replaced on an interim basis by Noel Quinn in the summer of 2018, with that change becoming permanent in April 2020.

Mr Quinn spent a further four years in the post before deciding to step down, and in July 2024 he was succeeded by Georges Elhedery, a long-serving executive in HSBC’s markets unit and more recently the bank’s chief financial officer.

The new chief’s first big move in the top job was to unveil a sweeping reorganisation of HSBC that sees it reshaped into eastern markets and western markets businesses.

He also decided to merge its commercial and investment banking operations into a single division.

The restructuring, which Mr Elhedery said would “result in a simpler, more dynamic, and agile organisation” has drawn a mixed reaction from analysts, although it has not interrupted a strong run for the stock.

During Sir Mark’s tenure, HSBC continued to exit non-core markets, selling operations in countries such as Canada and France as it sharpened its focus on its Asian operations.

HSBC has been contacted for comment, while Mr Osborne could not be reached for comment.

In late September, HSBC said in a statement: “The process to select the permanent HSBC Group Chair, led by Ann Godbehere, Senior Independent Director, is ongoing.

“The company will provide further updates on this succession process in due course.”

Continue Reading

Business

Direct cost of Jaguar Land Rover cyber attack which impacted UK economic growth revealed

Published

on

By

Direct cost of Jaguar Land Rover cyber attack which impacted UK economic growth revealed

The cyber attack on Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), which halted production for nearly six weeks at its sites, cost the company roughly £200m, it has been revealed.

Latest accounts released on Friday showed “cyber-related costs” were £196m, which does not include the fall in sales.

Profits took a nose dive, falling from nearly £400m (£398m) a year ago to a loss of £485m in the three months to the end of September.

Money blog: Apple launches £220 iPhone ‘sock’ today – fans are divided

Revenues dropped nearly 25% and the effects may continue as the manufacturing halt could slow sales in the final three months of the year, executives said.

The impact of the shutdown also hit factories across the car-making supply chain.

Slowing the UK economy

The production pause was a large contributor to a contraction in UK economic growth in September, official figures showed.

Had car output not fallen 28.6%, the UK economy would have grown by 0.1% during the month. Instead, it fell by 0.1%.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How cyber attack ‘effectively hacked GDP’

Read more from Sky News:
Telegraph future in limbo again as RedBird abandons £500m deal

Reacting to JLR’s impact on the GDP contraction, its chief financial officer, Richard Molyneux, said it was “interesting to hear” and it “goes to reinforce” that JLR is really important in the UK economy.

The company, he said, is the “biggest exporter of goods in the entire country” and the effect on GDP “is a reflection of the success JLR has had in past years”.

Recovery

The company said operations were “pretty much back running as normal” and plants were “at or approaching capacity”.

Production of all luxury vehicles resumed.

Investigations are underway into the attack, with law enforcement in “many jurisdictions” involved, the company said.

When asked about the cause of the hack and the hackers, JLR said it was not in a position to answer questions due to the live investigation.

A run of attacks

The manufacturer was just one of a number of major companies to be seriously impacted by cyber criminals in recent months.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Are we in a cyber attack ‘epidemic’?

High street retailer Marks and Spencer estimated the cost of its IT outage was roughly £136m. The sum only covers the cost of immediate incident systems response and recovery, as well as specialist legal and professional services support.

The Co-Op and Harrods also suffered service disruption caused by cyber attacks.

Four people were arrested by police investigating the incidents.

Continue Reading

Business

Telegraph future in limbo again as RedBird abandons £500m deal

Published

on

By

Telegraph future in limbo again as RedBird abandons £500m deal

The future ownership of the Daily Telegraph has been plunged back into crisis after RedBird Capital Partners abandoned its proposed £500m takeover.

Sky News has learnt that a consortium led by RedBird and including the UAE-based investor IMI has formally withdrawn its offer to buy the right-leaning newspaper titles.

In a statement issued to Sky News, a RedBird Capital Partners spokesman confirmed: “RedBird has today withdrawn its bid for the Telegraph Media Group.

“We remain fully confident that the Telegraph and its world-class team have a bright future ahead of them and we will work hard to help secure a solution which is in the best interests of employees and readers.”

Money blog: Apple launches £220 iPhone ‘sock’

The move comes nearly two-and-a-half years after the Telegraph’s future was plunged into doubt when its lenders seized control from the Barclay family, its long-standing proprietors.

RedBird IMI then extended financing which gave it a call option to own the newspapers, but its original proposal was thwarted by objections to foreign state ownership of British national newspapers.

A new deal was then stitched together which included funding from Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere and Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the billionaire owner of sports streaming platform DAZN.

Under that deal, Abu Dhabi-based IMI would have taken a 15% stake in Telegraph Media Group.

Read more from Sky News:
Lloyds clinches £120m deal for digital wallet provider Curve
Starmer and Reeves in U-turn over income tax
‘Staggering’ 20-year fall in domestic UK flights

In recent weeks, RedBird principal Gerry Cardinale had reiterated his desire to own the titles despite apparently having been angered by reporting by Telegraph journalists which explored links between RedBird and Chinese state influences.

Unrest from the Telegraph newsroom is said to have been one of the main factors in RedBird’s decision to withdraw its offer.

The collapse of the deal means a further auction of the titles is now likely to take place in the new year.

Continue Reading

Trending