flooding

[Thai Bry]

twooks - 2007-07-25 11:29 PM Thai Your philosophy is [unsurprisingly given its source] eminently sensible and logical - imo - at least] the beef is against get rich quick merchants who expect - as of a right - something for nothing well - that's my reading of it B-)

Twooks

I've been trying to get rich quick for the last god knows how many years!!

Thai

[twooks]

forget it Thai

 

the price is way too high

just not worth it

 

settle for being human with a sense of humour and proportion

 

join the club :D :D :D :D

 

 

B-)

 

be happy with what you have and who you are and your life is a success

[Thai Bry]

twooks - 2007-07-25 11:41 PM forget it Thai the price is way too high just not worth it settle for being human with a sense of humour and proportion join the club :D :D :D :D B-) be happy with what you have and who you are and your life is a success

Twooks

I've already got all that!!

Thai

[twooks]

sweet

[GJH]

caraprof - 2007-07-25 8:03 PM

Dave Newell - 2007-07-25 5:28 PM I wasn't surprised to hear today that the water authorities are saying the drainage systems in this country need beefing up to cope but they expect the customers to foot the bill rather than affect their profits and shareholder dividends. I say they should do any and all works necessary and pay for it out of profits BEFORE they pay out any dividends. Only when they've completed upgrading the infrastructure which has been largely ignored since Victorian times should they be allowed to pay out to the shareholders. D.

Mmmm. If I invest my cash in a company by buying its shares I expect a dividend. If I don't get one I'm worse off than if I leave my money in a building society.

No dividends, no shareholders. They'll sell in droves and take their dosh elsewhere.

Most utilities are PLCs so this is a non-starter I'm afraid and apart from that it would be incredibly unfair!

Shareholders are not just fat cats sitting in boardrooms smoking their big cigars. They're pensioners investing their money for better returns than a bank or building society, they're pension funds looking after your pension contributions and all of these large funds represent thousands of ordinary people.

Sorry Dave, it won't happen and it shouldn't!

With all "privatisations" whatever they be (e.g. water, power, railways, council housing) a few people have made a lot of money so I take the point about shareholders not just being fat cats.However, I have to side with Dave. For too long now there has been a culture in this country of many people assuming that whatever investment they make is bound to make money and whinging when that is not the case. The people who bought shares in the privatised industries did so in the hopes of profits but have to realise that they also bought a responsibility to maintain the real assets of the company (the water supply and sewerage infrastructure in this case). If that means that their dividends are reduced then tough. It is up to the water companies to ensure that the drains are regularly and adequately cleaned out. I can't remember the last time I saw a gulley emptier driving round the streets, something which was a regular sight years ago when councils were in charge.What would happen if people did sell their shares in droves anyway? The shares are owned by individuals and institutions, not the water companies. The shareholders made their investment in the water companies years ago so any share dealings now will not affect trading profits/losses.One way in which the water companies can legitimately claim help in improving the sewerage infrastructure is for the government to ensure that developers of new housing estates are made to pay for appropriate upgrades to the sewerage system. Otherwise it is up to the water companies to pay.Graham

[Guest caraprof]

It's a terrible business this free enterprise! We should scrap this system where ordinary people are allowed to buy shares and then have the nerve to expect a return on their investment.

Just imagine how much better off we would all be if we adopted a policy of socialism, where everything is owned and run by the state. There'd be none of this nonsense.

The 150-year-old sewers would magically regenerate themselves without any cost to the taxpayers and we'd all be richer and happier, just like the citizens of China, North Korea, Cuba and the good old Soviet Union.

They don't know how lucky they are those commies!

Anyway, I'm off to London now on my privatised train, which comes from Glasgow and in four years has only once arrived late in Wigan. My first-class return ticket, including breakfast, afternoon tea and use of the First Class Lounge at Euston cost about £70 (booked in advance on the web). Terrible this business of private firms running things, it was much better in the old days!

[GJH]

caraprof - 2007-07-26 8:29 AM

It's a terrible business this free enterprise! We should scrap this system where ordinary people are allowed to buy shares and then have the nerve to expect a return on their investment.

If you read my posting properly you will see that I said "The people who bought shares in the privatised industries did so in the hopes of profits but have to realise that they also bought a responsibility to maintain the real assets of the company" - rather different from saying that people should not expect a return.Jill and I run a small business which has been entirely funded by ourselves, one which will never make us a fortune. We went into it knowing that the first year or two of trading would probably result in a loss - and we bore that loss.The purchasers of shares in the water companies knew (or should have done) that the sewerage system was 150 years old and would need major investment. Nobody forced them to buy the shares.Graham

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

In 1990 we built a house, and had to pay the Infrastructure Charge (£600).

 

This was shared between the water and sewage elements, and was intended to pay for the new water works, sewage works, pipelines, etc that would be required to service all the new houses being built. I understood it would be put into a special kitty, until required. Hmmmm, maybe thats fair.....

 

I now suspect it was put into the general fund and was either used to pay the Fat Cats, or was snatched by HMG in excess profit tax.

 

Having paid my share up front, I now see that they are going to increase water rates (including mine) to pay for the new infrastructure.

 

Way back before the Thames Barrier, every council that fronted the Thames was required to produce a flood defence plan. The councils contracted with civil engineers to provide this service. Years later, somebody looked into this, and found that every council had contracted with the same civil engineers. That would not have been a problem if only ONE council was flooded at a time.... Fills you with confidence, doesn't it?

 

602

[GJH]

W3526602 - 2007-07-26 8:39 AM

 

Hi,

 

In 1990 we built a house, and had to pay the Infrastructure Charge (£600).

 

This was shared between the water and sewage elements, and was intended to pay for the new water works, sewage works, pipelines, etc that would be required to service all the new houses being built. I understood it would be put into a special kitty, until required. Hmmmm, maybe thats fair.....

Seems fair to me as well. Presumably the charge would cover new works on the building site and an element for increasing the capacity of the existing systems to which the new works were connected.

 

W3526602 - 2007-07-26 8:39 AM

I now suspect it was put into the general fund and was either used to pay the Fat Cats, or was snatched by HMG in excess profit tax.

If any water undertaking (public or private) or HMG did misappropriate the funds then somebody needs to be prosecuted for fraud.

 

Graham

[Guest caraprof]

GJH - 2007-07-26 8:36 AM

caraprof - 2007-07-26 8:29 AM

It's a terrible business this free enterprise! We should scrap this system where ordinary people are allowed to buy shares and then have the nerve to expect a return on their investment.

If you read my posting properly you will see that I said "The people who bought shares in the privatised industries did so in the hopes of profits but have to realise that they also bought a responsibility to maintain the real assets of the company" - rather different from saying that people should not expect a return. Jill and I run a small business which has been entirely funded by ourselves, one which will never make us a fortune. We went into it knowing that the first year or two of trading would probably result in a loss - and we bore that loss. The purchasers of shares in the water companies knew (or should have done) that the sewerage system was 150 years old and would need major investment. Nobody forced them to buy the shares. Graham

Regrettably, this isn't how real life works! If I buy shares in a company I buy them to expect a return. You are saying that some OAP who decides to buy shares in a firm so as to maximise his return, should do the kind of research only available to the big finance houses! Apart from which, when the government sold off the utilities we were not totally aware of the scale of the problem.

This however is totally irrelevent. If you make a success of your business, and I hope that your enterprise is rewarded by the way, you will eventually retire with, hopefully, a few bob to ease that retirement.

So you put a few thousand into some shares. Later on that comapny tells you that, for whatever reason, it is paying a much reduced, or no dividend. Be honest, what will you do? If you've any sense you'll sell quickly and put your dosh somewhere else. The company will then realise its mistake (although no firm that I can think of would take this action in the first place) and reinstate its dividend.

One other point that you have glossed over is this: If the utilities had not been privatised, who do you think would now be paying for the sewer upgrades? Why you of course as a taxpayer! So there's  really going to be no change. You however, wish to relieve the taxpayer and the customers from this unpleasant reality and force the entire costs onto shareholders, who include retired people who've put their lump sum where they thought it was reasonably safe and pension funds investing money on behalf of most of us (retired folk that is).

[GJH]

caraprof - 2007-07-27 10:56 AM

Regrettably, this isn't how real life works! If I buy shares in a company I buy them to expect a return. You are saying that some OAP who decides to buy shares in a firm so as to maximise his return, should do the kind of research only available to the big finance houses!

Sorry but I disagree. I just went to the Halifax Bank site (no special reason other than we have dealt with them in the past) and find on their Share Dealing page the statement "Please remember the value of your investments and the income from them can go down as well as up. You may not get back the full amount you have invested. If you're in any doubt about the suitability of any our products, or whether to buy or sell shares, you should consult an appropriate Financial Adviser.".

caraprof - 2007-07-27 10:56 AM

Apart from which, when the government sold off the utilities we were not totally aware of the scale of the problem.

A case of Caveat Emptor?

caraprof - 2007-07-27 10:56 AM

This however is totally irrelevent. If you make a success of your business, and I hope that your enterprise is rewarded by the way, you will eventually retire with, hopefully, a few bob to ease that retirement.

Thank you for your good wishes. As it happens it is a part time business which does provide a little extra on top of the pension from the former day job.

caraprof - 2007-07-27 10:56 AM

So you put a few thousand into some shares. Later on that comapny tells you that, for whatever reason, it is paying a much reduced, or no dividend. Be honest, what will you do? If you've any sense you'll sell quickly and put your dosh somewhere else. The company will then realise its mistake (although no firm that I can think of would take this action in the first place) and reinstate its dividend.

All investments carry a risk of loss. Those which offer higher potential payouts usually carry a higher risk. Buying shares - the value of which can go down - is one form of investment which carries a higher risk. Anyone investing either knows this or fools themselves

caraprof - 2007-07-27 10:56 AM

One other point that you have glossed over is this: If the utilities had not been privatised, who do you think would now be paying for the sewer upgrades? Why you of course as a taxpayer! So there's really going to be no change. You however, wish to relieve the taxpayer and the customers from this unpleasant reality and force the entire costs onto shareholders, who include retired people who've put their lump sum where they thought it was reasonably safe and pension funds investing money on behalf of most of us (retired folk that is).

I think that point is totally irrelevant. The fact is that the utilities are not now owned by the taxpayer. If I sell something - a house say - am I responsible for anything which goes wrong with it forever? Of course not. Graham

[Guest caraprof]

I really do give in! Of course shares can go up as well as down, that is not the issue. The issue is that you say that they cost of sewer refurbishment should fall on shareholders. The reality is that it cannot happen as the shareholders will cease to exist i.e. they'll take their money and run!

This whole debate is about who should pay for the replacement costs - you think that the shareholders should be responsible. I'm trying to explain that that is a pipe-dream and again I reiterate, the taxpayer would have paid anyway, so we're no worse off.

No matter how you try to defend the indefensible, it simply isn't going to happen because shareholders will vote with their feet, and their money of course.

[GJH]

caraprof - 2007-07-27 11:41 AM

I really do give in! Of course shares can go up as well as down, that is not the issue. The issue is that you say that they cost of sewer refurbishment should fall on shareholders. The reality is that it cannot happen as the shareholders will cease to exist i.e. they'll take their money and run!

So let's say shareholders do try to sell their shares:1. They are unsuccessful because nobody wants to buy the shares with their attached liabilities. The original shareholders are still shareholders.2. They are successful. The original shareholders are replaced by new shareholders.Either way shareholders exist.

caraprof - 2007-07-27 11:41 AM

This whole debate is about who should pay for the replacement costs - you think that the shareholders should be responsible. I'm trying to explain that that is a pipe-dream and again I reiterate, the taxpayer would have paid anyway, so we're no worse off.

Of course taxpayers are worse off. Taxpayers have not benefitted from the profits made by the companies.

caraprof - 2007-07-27 11:41 AM

No matter how you try to defend the indefensible, it simply isn't going to happen because shareholders will vote with their feet, and their money of course.

See above.Graham

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

Talking from ignorance here, but thats never stopped me before....

 

Way back when, the City Fathers of an English city bought a Welsh valley, and turned it into a reservoir.

 

Then the reservoir was nationalised, but I don't know if the English city was compensated.

 

Then the reservoir etc were privatised again. At which point, the Nationalists considered that they now owned the reservoir. The English city disagreed. I don't know the result. Anybody???

 

Welsh water in England costs more than Welsh water in Wales. But that was because the English infrastructure had been paid for a long time ago, while the Welsh infrastructure is still being paid for. BUT...sometime soon, the English infrastucture will need to be replaced.....then watch the balance change. My problem is working out who is paying for the future investment, and who will collect the dividends. ???

 

If Mr Moderator wants to delete this mail, I'm quite happy for him to do so.

 

602

[Guest caraprof]

OK GJH, a basic lesson in the market. Shares rising and falling are nothing to do with dividends. If I own a tranche of shares in a large company I tend not to worry about rising or falling markets. I know that the FTSE is currently 6350 and that last week it was 6800 and that two or three years ago it was down to 4000. I'm not too worried because I know that the market fluctuates and that eventually it's still the best way for long term growth.

However, I also rely on annual dividends from my shares and if a company stops paying a dividend then it becomes unattractive to me, so I sell my shares and buy some more that do pay a dividend.

So, a company declares that it is no longer paying a dividend and the shareholders retreat in droves. Now of course the shares still exist, but the price is driven down dramatically because no one will buy them at the normal price.

This has two serious effects, eventually the company's value may become less than its issued share capital and it is technically insolvent. Or, its shares may be so low that its value is dramatically reduced.

Now take a large utility PLC. All of these companies run their businesses on borrowed money and it is vital that they have access to funds, particularly when there is a need for a huge capital injection, in this case the enormous cost of renewing our crumbling infrastructure.

But they cannot borrow the money! No lender will extend a loan to a company whose shares are at rock bottom because the company is now worth a fraction of what it was prior to the price crash.

The facts are these - whether you like it or not a company cannot simply increase its capital investment by robbing the shareholders of a reasonable return on their investment! How would you feel if your building society told you that it needed to upgrade its buildings and that in order to do so it was  no longer going to pay you any interest on your savings?

This is absolutely no different from what you are proposing. I put it to you that if you had your life savings in a water company and it suddenly cancelled its dividend, then you would sell in a hurry and if you didn't, you'd be very foolish.

Just because it's a water company, it doesn't mean that the rules are different. If Tesco suddenly decides that it wants a large sum to expand into Russia, or to upgrade its stores, it does it by borrowing. It doesn't do it by stopping paying a dividend, that is commercial suicide!

As I've said, no water company will stop rewarding its investors. To do so would be commercial suicide and morally wrong.

[GJH]

caraprof - 2007-07-27 5:34 PM

 

OK GJH, a basic lesson in the market. Shares rising and falling are nothing to do with dividends.

 

SNIP

 

So, a company declares that it is no longer paying a dividend and the shareholders retreat in droves. Now of course the shares still exist, but the price is driven down dramatically because no one will buy them at the normal price.

 

SNIP

Ah, I see. Shares rising and falling are nothing to do with dividends but if dividends aren't paid the share price drops.

 

A different kind of logic from that which I'm used to - it's obvious, therefore, that we are never going to agree so I'll make this my last word on this thread.

 

Graham

[Guest caraprof]

GJH - 2007-07-27 7:13 PM

caraprof - 2007-07-27 5:34 PM OK GJH, a basic lesson in the market. Shares rising and falling are nothing to do with dividends. SNIP So, a company declares that it is no longer paying a dividend and the shareholders retreat in droves. Now of course the shares still exist, but the price is driven down dramatically because no one will buy them at the normal price. SNIP

Ah, I see. Shares rising and falling are nothing to do with dividends but if dividends aren't paid the share price drops. A different kind of logic from that which I'm used to - it's obvious, therefore, that we are never going to agree so I'll make this my last word on this thread. Graham

Now you are being silly! You said that you'd been into a building society and you quoted me the warning that shares may rise or fall, which quite frankly, is a statement of the obvious. I'll try to make it even more simple for you.

Normal share fluctuation has nothing to do with dividends. Dividends come out of profits. However, if a company refuses to pay a dividend, as you are suggesting, then the shareholders will sell. If the shareholders all sell then the shares plummet and the company's value on the stock market falls. Are you with it so far?

If a company is suddenly worth a fraction of what it was then its credit rating drops and it can't borrow money. Hence no capital investment and in this case no new sewers!

There are threads on this forum that I never contribute to, the reason being that I know nothing of the subject and I'm happy to leave these (mainly technical discussions) to the few people who really know what they are talking about. I just hope to pick up a few crumbs, as I did the other day about oil changes on new vehicles for instance.

There are however, some subjects that I do know about and this is not a case of just disagreeing with you.

Your suggestion that water companies fund their investment in new infrastructure by simply refusing to pay dividends to their shareholders is simplistic, unworkable and hasn't a cat in hell's chance of ever happening!

In a recent thread I mentioned that problems booking for weekends didn't affect motorhomers as much as caravanners, which is still mainly true. Someone pointed out that whilst this is the case many retired motorhomers still want to go at weekends as they join their families.

I realised that they were right and that I hadn't thought of that and acknowledged the same in my next post.

I really do wish that you would accept that your premise is completely wrong and is unworkable and immoral, rather than continuing to defend the indefensible.

Finally, I ask you again - you've got your life savings in a water company and it suddenly tells you that it will no longer pay you a dividend - what will you do? Will you shrug your shoulders and say: "Ah well, I'm happy to pay for the new sewers and I don't want their other millions of customers who aren't shareholders to have to pay a bit more for their water"? Or do you sell your shares and put them into another company which will give you a reasonable return"?

Now if you can honestly say that you'd do the former then I'll be the first to sign up for the committee for the beatification of GJH and you'll soon be Saint Graham!

[enodreven]

Hi, Have you ever heard of the phrase win the battle but lose the war ? this is becoming boring ?

[Guest caraprof]

No it's not, it's fun! I love a good debate. Anyway, I suspect that it's over now! I've finished anyway!

This is what a forum is for. It's where people meet and discuss and debate. It's a bit like moaning about what's on TV. If anyone doesn't like a particular thread then there is always the metaphorical 'off switch' or in other words, don't read it and move on to one that interests you!

I've now had a good debate with GJH but it's forgotten. I think he's wrong and he may think that I am, although I really hope that I've convinced him!

However, the next time that we are in a thread together this little argument will not affect my dealings with him in any way. I wish that this were the same with everyone!

[enodreven]

I think you are in the minority on this as i really don't think the majority appreciate your level of input ??

caraprof - 2007-07-27 8:45 PM

No it's not, it's fun! I love a good debate. Anyway, I suspect that it's over now! I've finished anyway!

This is what a forum is for. It's where people meet and discuss and debate. It's a bit like moaning about what's on TV. If anyone doesn't like a particular thread then there is always the metaphorical 'off switch' or in other words, don't read it and move on to one that interests you!

I've now had a good debate with GJH but it's forgotten. I think he's wrong and he may think that I am, although I really hope that I've convinced him!

However, the next time that we are in a thread together this little argument will not affect my dealings with him in any way. I wish that this were the same with everyone!

[Guest caraprof]

enodreven - 2007-07-27 8:57 PM I think you are in the minority on this as i really don't think the majority appreciate your level of input ??

Now that is a very unpleasant thing to say. Most of my contributions are serious and are about the thread. Yes, I like a good debate but check my other contributions, such as on the banking debate for instance. I accept that there may be many posts on one subject, but that's because we get into a good discussion.

Is Michele posting too much, are you, is Brian Kirby? Perhaps you think that we should have a limit?

You'll find times when I hardly ever post, as I'm out or away for the day but this evening for instance I'm at home with nothing to do and I'd rather chat on here than watch TV, is that OK with you?

[enodreven]

FrankThat is the way i feel after reading your input, and i refer you to the last paragraph on your previous post where you actually state "this little argument" that in my opinion says it all ? I don't contribute to this forum to get into little or big arguments I can't speak for other members ?

caraprof - 2007-07-27 9:06 PM

enodreven - 2007-07-27 8:57 PM I think you are in the minority on this as i really don't think the majority appreciate your level of input ??

Now that is a very unpleasant thing to say. Most of my contributions are serious and are about the thread. Yes, I like a good debate but check my other contributions, such as on the banking debate for instance. I accept that there may be many posts on one subject, but that's because we get into a good discussion.

Is Michele posting too much, are you, is Brian Kirby? Perhaps you think that we should have a limit?

You'll find times when I hardly ever post, as I'm out or away for the day but this evening for instance I'm at home with nothing to do and I'd rather chat on here than watch TV, is that OK with you?

[Guest caraprof]

Of course there will be debates that verge on argument! It's the nature of debate where people disagree about anything, especially things that they feel passionately about, and especially in this, which is an 'Off Topic' section of a forum.

But what is more unpleasant is not people who may argue because they do believe in something, but those who, like you have just done, make unpleasant comments about people, whose views they may not like. I've just had a good debate with GJH about the virtues of of a certain financial matter but I bear him no malice after it.

Check my input into other threads, where I hope I am mainly to the point and where, if I can, I try to help others as some have helped me.

I know that I can't resist a good debate (or even an argument) but that's what forums are for. This would be a dull place if it was all about A Frames and silver screens!

One of my biggest problems on this forum is just a small number of people who seem to hold grudges for ever because we've debated vigorously in the past.

Finally, if you didn't join this forum to get into arguments with other members, why have you precipitated this one with your very unkind intervention? It must have been obvious to anyone that the 'dividends or not' debate was over. GJH had finished and because of that so was I.

Edited to say: I've just noticed that there has been movement in only two threads since late this afternoon. The flooding and banking threads. Without mine and Graham's debate and my (and one or two others) input into the banking thread this forum would be a total dead duck - and who would visit it then I wonder?

[Mel B]

caraprof - 2007-07-27 10:45 PM

One of my biggest problems on this forum is just a small number of people who seem to hold grudges for ever because we've debated vigorously in the past.

Finally, if you didn't join this forum to get into arguments with other members, why have you precipitated this one with your very unkind intervention? It must have been obvious to anyone that the 'dividends or not' debate was over. GJH had finished and because of that so was I.

Frank please if you haven't anything nice to say stop saying things like your first sentence above. You keep saying that you bear people who you've 'debated' with no malice, but you keep throwing up phrases like this, which is actually the opposite, you are actually insulting people no matter how you dress it up which is hardly forgiving? :-(

Edited to say: I've just noticed that there has been movement in only two threads since late this afternoon. The flooding and banking threads. Without mine and Graham's debate and my (and one or two others) input into the banking thread this forum would be a total dead duck - and who would visit it then I wonder?

Silence is sometimes golden. :-D

[Guest caraprof]

Mel B - 2007-07-28 6:56 PM

caraprof - 2007-07-27 10:45 PM

One of my biggest problems on this forum is just a small number of people who seem to hold grudges for ever because we've debated vigorously in the past.

Finally, if you didn't join this forum to get into arguments with other members, why have you precipitated this one with your very unkind intervention? It must have been obvious to anyone that the 'dividends or not' debate was over. GJH had finished and because of that so was I.

Frank please if you haven't anything nice to say stop saying things like your first sentence above. You keep saying that you bear people who you've 'debated' with no malice, but you keep throwing up phrases like this, which is actually the opposite, you are actually insulting people no matter how you dress it up which is hardly forgiving? :-(

Edited to say: I've just noticed that there has been movement in only two threads since late this afternoon. The flooding and banking threads. Without mine and Graham's debate and my (and one or two others) input into the banking thread this forum would be a total dead duck - and who would visit it then I wonder?

Silence is sometimes golden. :-D

Here she goes again with her usual trick of resurrecting a debate that was over 24 hours ago!

And to explain again in simple terms Mel so you'll understand - I bear no malice to anyone after a debate. My point is that a few people don't take the same attitude with me - you're coming top of the list at present. Now go away please and leave me alone will you?