Here’s a bright idea to improve accountability in the water sector

Proposal to make all water firms publicly listed is not a cure-all but would force them to be more transparent

To the surprise of nobody who follows the English and Welsh water sector, the two companies that have been hit with the heaviest penalties for missing performance targets this year are the usual suspects: Southern Water and Thames Water. The dirty duo last year had to return £99m between them to customers after Ofwat’s annual tally of outcomes in areas such as water supply interruptions, pollution incidents and sewer flooding. This time the figure is £80m.

The top end of the league table, note, is also familiar. Severn Trent and United Utilities outperformed targets, as last year, and thus get rewarded by being allowed to recover more money via bills (which may feel less rewarding from the point of view of customers). Correlation doesn’t always imply causation, but it’s worth asking: do different ownership models help to explain the persistent gulf in operational performance?

Southern and Thames were two of the firms that were loaded with debt during the private-equity-led takeover boom soon after the turn of the century. Severn Trent and United escaped that fate and are two of only three big water firms still listed on the stock market, where games of extreme financial engineering are harder to perform.

Certainly, Jonson Cox, who in June stepped down as chair of Ofwat, seemed to join the dots in front of a Lords select committee last month. He bemoaned the old regulatory mantra that said capital structures were for companies to determine, and he took a swipe at investment banks for the role in the takeover and high-leverage spree of the 2000s.

First, it created “the predisposition of thinking of water companies as financial assets”, he argued. And, second, risks were made asymmetric: leverage juices up equity returns for owners when things go well, but the costs fall on customers when they don’t. It was not a surprise, said Cox, that three of the most highly leveraged structures ran into difficulties. “I regret there aren’t more publicly listed companies because it gives real visibility,” he said.

Ofwat must also be blamed for general timidity, of course. The industry’s replacement of equity with debt, and extraction of dividends, happened under the nose of regulators. In the Lords session, Cox congratulated himself and Ofwat for forcing a change of ownership at Southern last year (though it is still in private hands) and a recapitalisation at Thames but skipped over the fact that those changes happened only years after a stink was obvious to everyone.

But he was probably on to something in turning the spotlight on ownership structures. On that score, an intriguing idea has been pitched by Jonathan Ford, podcaster (A Long Time in Finance) and former FT leader writer: all the big privatised water companies should be listed on the London Stock Exchange; and it should be a condition of holding a licence that at least 25% of the shares are publicly traded.

The proposal is obviously not a cure-all for faults that have been 30 years in the making, but even fans of nationalisation (who might reflect that sometimes, like now, a cost-cutting government would be in charge) should consider the advantages. Highly leveraged structures would have to be dismantled on return to the stock market, thereby injecting capital and forcing managements to think more about running their companies better. Owners would protest, but so what?

And transparency should improve, since it is harder to hide when you’re in the glare of a regular six-monthly reporting cycle and have to publish financial accounts that ordinary mortals can understand. Excessive boardroom pay, admittedly, might not change one jot, but that’s another story.

Some political party or other should take up the stock market idea. It’s not perfect, but quoted status imposes a certain discipline and accountability on boards. If results are usually better too, parliament should just make it happen.

Spare us the sermon, Vodafone

The old thinking said four large mobile operators was the minimum needed to ensure competition in the UK market. Now comes the latest attempt to test the regulatory breezes: Vodafone and Three, which is owned by CK Hutchison, want to combine their UK businesses.

Has the landscape changed radically since a Three-O2 combo was blocked in 2016? That’ll be the argument. Vodafone’s confirmation of talks contained a mini-sermon on how the rollout of 5G companies required companies to earn their cost of capital.

The claimed customer-friendly benefits would be easier to swallow, however, if BT’s share price had not risen 4.4%, presumably on the prospect of less price competition for its EE operation. A full Competition and Markets Authority inquiry is essential: these mergers, once done, are impossible to undo.

Contributor

Nils Pratley

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Vodafone has hung up on Nick Read, now it needs to set a radical tone | Nils Pratley
The complacent conglomerate desperately needs a free-thinking chief executive

Nils Pratley

05, Dec, 2022 @6:42 PM

Article image
Thames Water needs to clean up its act after yet more fines | Nils Pratley
Nationalisation would be a costly way to fix the industry – the regulator should push a lot harder on behalf of customers

Nils Pratley

15, Jun, 2017 @11:20 AM

Article image
Ofwat may want to supply better evidence of being tough on water firms | Nils Pratley
The regulator approved a rescuer of Southern that hardly had a clean record in the sector

Nils Pratley

16, Aug, 2022 @6:27 PM

Article image
Has Vodafone finally got the right Idea in India?
After taking a £5.4bn hit from a rival, the telecoms group’s merger plan could make it joint owner of the market’s leading player

Nils Pratley

30, Jan, 2017 @7:07 PM

Article image
Water company fat cats give Labour a soft target for nationalisation talk
Remuneration committees have put too much stock in balance sheets over common sense

Nils Pratley

05, Jun, 2018 @7:42 AM

Article image
An activist investor could be just what Vodafone needs
The telecoms major has been trying to simplify its business but the group’s returns remain disappointing

Nils Pratley

31, Jan, 2022 @7:35 PM

Article image
Now Amazon wants the MGM studio. Is this a classic case of corporate sprawl?
The tech giant already has fingers in many, many pies, from cloud computing to groceries, pharmacies to TV streaming

Nils Pratley

18, May, 2021 @6:38 PM

Article image
Vodafone is still not moving the dial for its unhappy investors | Nils Pratley
However much the telecoms company talks itself up it isn’t doing enough to rescue the share price

Nils Pratley

15, Nov, 2022 @7:13 PM

Article image
Tesco boss got the Booker deal past the watchdog – can he convince investors?
The CMA’s decision to clear the £3.7bn takeover is baffling, and seems unlikely to get the thumbs-up from all shareholders

Nils Pratley

15, Nov, 2017 @9:52 AM

Article image
Vodafone dividend cut is a cautious move, not cause for panic | Nils Pratley
Telephony firm’s U-turn looks bad but in investment terms it’s a safe and dull bet

Nils Pratley

14, May, 2019 @6:19 PM