Connect with us

Business

The water industry is in crisis. Can it be fixed?

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
BBC Montage graphic image showing £20 notes flowing from a tapBBC

Our loos flush and water comes out of our taps. In that sense, the water industry in England and Wales works. In just about every other way, it’s a mess.

The most visible sign of that mess comes after those loos have flushed. Last year England’s privatised water firms released raw sewage for a total of 3.6m hours, more than double the amount recorded the year before.

Millions of customers, surfers and bathers have joined a chorus that former pop star Feargal Sharkey has been singing for years – that the sector is a “chaotic shambles”.

It’s not just our rivers, lakes and coastlines. Some communities have been told to boil tap water to make it safe, others have seen their water supplies cut off for days or even weeks.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed told the BBC some parts of the country could face a drinking water shortage by the 2030s and plans to build new homes have been jeopardised by water supply problems.

Advertisement

Faith in these companies has never been lower and it’s not hard to see why.

There are some common denominators causing stress on the system that will take radical reform to tackle. The government knows this – which is why it has just announced a major new commission to conduct the biggest review of the sector since privatisation 35 years ago.

The independent commission will be led by former Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir Jon Cunliffe and will report back with recommendations next June. Options on the table include the reform or abolition of the main regulator Ofwat.

To critics like Sharkey, the former lead singer of the Undertones who nowadays is vocal about the state of UK’s rivers, it’s an admission that the privatisation of essential monopolies has been a failure. Recently, he described this as “possibly the greatest organised ripoff perpetrated on the British people”.

Advertisement

So how did we get here, how might it be fixed and what will that mean for customers and their bills?

Drowning in debt

Reflecting on water privatisation in her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher wrote that “the rain may come from the Almighty but he did not send the pipes, plumbing and engineering to go with it”.

When her government privatised the water companies in the late 1980s, they were debt free. Today they have a combined £60bn in debt.

Advertisement

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with debt. It can be a cost-efficient way to finance investment in an industry that lenders have been very happy to lend to.

And it’s easy to see why they’ve been so happy to lend to it. Water companies have guaranteed and rising income from customers, who can’t go anywhere else for something they will always need. Regional monopolies of an essential service that provides a guaranteed income have always been considered a safe bet.

The other attraction for shareholders in water companies, like others, is that the cost of the loan repayments can be deducted from earnings to reduce reported profit and therefore their tax bill.

Some shareholders, not all, have pushed this too far and loaded an excessive amount of debt on water companies. That can backfire when the cost of that debt begins to rise – as we have seen over the last two years as interest rates rose to tackle the surge in inflation since 2022.

Advertisement

For example, during the 10 years that Australian investment firm Macquarie was Thames Water’s biggest shareholder from 2007 to 2017, debt rose from £2bn to £11bn, during which time Macquarie and the other investors did not inject any new cash or equity of their own.

Graph showing Thames Water's cumulative debt by year, 2006-23. It rises from approximately £2bn in 2006 to almost £15bn by 2023. Macquarie was the primary shareholder from 2007-17.

In five years out of the 10 that Macquarie was a major shareholder in Thames Water, investors took out more money in dividends than the company made in profit and made up the shortfall by borrowing heavily while letting debt levels soar.

Graphic showing how Thames Water's dividend often exceeded profit. For five of the 10 years Macquarie was a major shareholder, from 2007-17, the graphic shows dividends were greater than the profit made.

Thames Water now stands on the brink of bankruptcy with barely enough cash to last until the end of the year.

Macquarie sold its share of the company in 2017. Newer shareholders, including large domestic and foreign pension funds, recently cancelled an injection of £500m. They did so after they learned that Ofwat would not allow bill rises that the newer shareholders insisted were necessary if their investment was to earn a return for their own pensioners and shareholders.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Macquarie said: “We supported Thames Water as it delivered record levels of investment, which enabled the company to reduce leakage and pollution incidents while improving drinking water quality and security of supply. Much more needed to be done to upgrade its legacy infrastructure, but when we sold our final stake in 2017 the company was meeting all conditions set by the regulator and had an investment grade credit rating.”

Thames Water’s debt today stands at over £16bn and the cost of that debt is rising for the UK’s biggest water company, which one in four people in the UK rely on for their supply.

Advertisement

It is the most extreme example but other companies including Southern Water are in a similar debt-laden boat. Since 2021, Southern’s largest shareholder has happened to be Macquarie.

Greedy shareholders and bosses?

As a result of all this, there is a widespread belief among the public that investors and executives have sucked out money in dividends and pay that should have been invested in improving water firms’ infrastructure. The Liberal Democrats capitalised on this perception during this year’s general election, gaining dozens of seats after making the state of the reform of the industry one of their key campaign pledges.

According to Ofwat, water companies have paid out £52bn in dividends (£78bn in today’s money) since 1990. Many feel that was money that could have been spent helping to prevent sewage spills rather than ending up in investors pockets.

Advertisement

But over the same time frame water companies have invested £236bn, according to Water UK, which represents the sector.

Last year, it adds, the England and Wales water sector invested £9.2bn, which it says is the highest capital investment ever in a single year.

And it’s important to note that not all water companies are the same.

A few are well run, have manageable debts and have invested steadily in their infrastructure over the three decades since privatisation, while delivering dividends to the shareholders who have provided the capital required by a privatised model.

Advertisement

Regardless, lenders are now demanding higher rates from other water companies, too, as the whole sector appears a riskier bet.

The regulator Ofwat allowed this increase in debt to happen as for many years it did not consider that it had the requisite powers to dictate how companies chose to structure their finances.

Bad regulation

Which brings us neatly to the next factor in this slow-motion car crash – poor regulation.

Advertisement

Ofwat not only failed to police the levels of debt piling up on water company balance sheets. It has also been accused of getting its priorities wrong by putting too much emphasis on keeping bills low and not enough on encouraging investment.

In the years after the financial crisis, the cost of borrowing fell very sharply – one reason that companies loaded up on debt.

The regulator decided, with nudges from government, that cash-strapped customers needed bills to be kept as low as possible. In fact, bills rose less quickly than inflation – so in real terms were getting cheaper.

But that meant less money in real terms for investment.

Advertisement

Water industry expert John Earwaker, a director at the consultancy First Economics, has suggested that the rapid fall in financing costs could and should have made room for more investment while still keeping bill rises modest.

But regulators take their cue and their powers from government. There have been negative comparisons with the telecoms industry and its regulator Ofcom, which was prompted by the government to ensure things like fast broadband received adequate investment.

Climate and population change

It’s not just a matter of supply. Demand is an issue, too. The size of the population and its concentration in cities have both risen while the weather is getting wetter.

Advertisement

I recently went to see rusting pipes laid near Finsbury Park in London during Queen Victoria’s reign over 150 years ago being replaced with bright blue plastic ones.

When the old pipes were laid, the land above them was semi-rural. Today, water company engineers are working underneath housing estates with all the disruption and expense that entails.

In more recent history, population density in cities has gathered pace. In 1990, when water companies were being privatised, 45 million people lived in urban areas. Today that number is 58 million – and increase of nearly 30%.

Meanwhile, there has been a 9% increase in rainfall in the past 30 years compared to the 30 years before that, according to the Met Office, and six of the 10 wettest years since Queen Victoria was on the throne have been after 1998.

Advertisement

Heavier and more intense rainfall overwhelms ageing infrastructure like storm drains that then discharge sewage into nearby waterways. And replacing this infrastructure requires enormous investment.

Company incompetence

As Ofwat CEO David Black recently pointed out, many companies are often keen to blame everyone and everything but themselves for bad outcomes.

Two weeks ago, Ofwat announced fines of £168m for three water firms over a “catalogue of failures” in how they ran their sewage works, resulting in excessive spills from storm overflows.

Advertisement

Then, Mr Black told the BBC: “It is clear that companies need to change and that has to start with addressing issues of culture and leadership. Too often we hear that weather, third parties or external factors are blamed for shortcomings.”

Sewage discharges may have some external causes but effective monitoring, reporting, rising gripes about complaints handling and billing errors are hard bucks to pass.

Some executives privately complain they are in a doom loop. They can’t charge enough to invest what’s needed, the infrastructure fails and then they are fined – leaving them even less money to invest in the very things they were fined for.

How do we fix it?

Advertisement

That is the job Sir John Cunliffe is now charged with. In the coming six months he will hear evidence from customers, companies, engineers, climate scientists, environmental activists and many others.

The setting-up of the commission was welcomed by Water UK on behalf of the sector: “Our current system is not working and needs major reform,” a spokesperson said.

All options are on the table, according to the environment secretary, including the abolition of Ofwat, set up by Margaret Thatcher at the time of privatisation in 1989, and its replacement with a new regulator.

All options, that is, apart from renationalisation which many have called for. Free-market competition doesn’t work when you have no choice which pipe you get your water out of, some argue.

Advertisement

But Mr Reed, the environment secretary, is adamant that is not the solution: “It will cost taxpayers billions and take years during which time we won’t see more investment and the problems we see today will only get worse.”

Ruling that out means that the tens, perhaps hundreds of billions needed to fix and future-proof our water industry will have to come from private investors – who will want to get their money back, plus a return for their own shareholders or pension scheme members.

That means one thing is certain – even if the loos continue to flush and the water continues to flow from the taps, the failures of the past will mean significantly higher bills in the future.

Asking people to pay more for their loo to flush when the service is seen to have failed will be a hard sell.

Advertisement

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Business

Disappointing earnings by HUL drags FMCG stocks sharply lower- The Week

Published

on

Disappointing earnings by HUL drags FMCG stocks sharply lower- The Week

Fast-moving consumer goods companies saw a sharp sell-off on Thursday, as earnings of Hindustan Unilever (HUL), the largest in the segment in the country, left investors disappointed.

HUL closed 5.8 per cent lower at Rs 2,502.95 on the BSE, a day after the maker of Surf detergent and Bru coffee reported a 4 per cent year-on-year drop in standalone second-quarter net profit. Its revenue also rose only 2 per cent, with company officials stressing moderating growth in urban markets. Earlier, Nestle India and Tata Consumer Products too had pointed to consumer spending woes in urban areas.

Against this backdrop, investors seemed to have lost some appetite for FMCG companies. On Thursday, Dabur, Godrej Consumer, Nestle, Hatsun, Colgate Palmolive, Varun Beverages, Marico, Emami and Heritage Foods among others declined 2-5 per cent. The BSE Sensex ended flattish, down 17 points or 0.02 per cent.

HUL has declined a little over 15 per cent over the past one month, compared with a 5.7 per cent decline in the Sensex.

Advertisement

ALSO READ: After Nestle India, Hindustan Unilever points to urban demand pressures hurting growth

“While rural market is seeing a gradual recovery, moderation in urban (also voiced by Nestle and Tata Consumer) has come as a negative surprise,” noted Mehul Desai of JM Financial Institutional Securities.

HUL, in particular, saw volumes de-grow in low-single digits in foods and refreshments as well as personal care segments.

“Demand environment is unlikely to see acceleration as gradual recovery in rural is offset by moderation seen in urban market (primarily in large cities),” said Desai.

Advertisement

In the backdrop of the weak growth in the July-September quarter earnings, analysts have cut their earnings estimates for HUL by 2 per cent to 4 per cent. However, not all is negative, said some analysts.

“The portfolio (home care, and beauty and wellbeing) that represents three-fifth of the sales and two-thirds of the EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) is in good health, with topline growth in a high single-digit and margin expansion,” noted Nitin Gupta of Emkay Global Financial Services.

The recent correction in the stock factors in the near-term slowdown, he said.

Naveen Trivedi of Motilal Oswal Financial Services also pointed to the 7-8 per cent underlying growth in the core home care, beauty and wellbeing portfolio and opined out that with macro improvements, HUL can see “volume acceleration” in the ensuing quarters. The price hikes that the company is taking to offset inflation in certain segments, should also support revenue growth, he added.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Dutch government averts collapse after Wilders backs down

Published

on

Dutch government averts collapse after Wilders backs down

Far-right leader reverses at last minute on emergency law to curb immigration

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

FirstFT: UK consumer and business confidence fall to lowest levels this year

Published

on

FirstFT: UK consumer and business confidence fall to lowest levels this year

Also in today’s newsletter, US backs huge lithium mine and CIA and Mossad chiefs to meet

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

a new route to private markets?

Published

on

Individual investors are about to be offered a new route into private market assets, with the arrival of the UK’s first long-term asset fund (LTAF) aimed at the retail wealth management market. How should individuals judge this new arrival on the investment block?

LTAFs are the UK’s version of the so-called semi-liquid fund structures used in other markets to hold illiquid, private market assets while allowing investors — mainly wealth management and private banking clients — periodic windows in which they can exit. 

In contrast, traditional private market funds — structured as institutional limited partnerships — require cash to be locked away for 10 years or more.

Asset manager Schroders is set to launch the new vehicle through advisers and wealth managers in the coming weeks, with a minimum investment of £10,000, far below the six-figure sums required to gain entry to conventional private markets funds. Its LTAF will channel investors’ money into Schroders Capital Semi-Liquid Global Private Equity, a £1.8bn Luxembourg-regulated fund that holds stakes in around 280 small and mid-market private companies in Western and Asian markets.

Advertisement

The UK approved the LTAF framework in 2021, initially to enable “defined contribution” pension schemes, where retirement outcomes depend on investment performance and contributions, to invest more in illiquid assets such as private equity, private credit and infrastructure. It was then adapted for the retail market with these versions now appearing structured as open-ended investment companies (OEICs).

However, mindful of the liquidity problems that have plagued commercial property OEICs at times of market stress, LTAFs do not offer daily dealing. Instead, they accept new money once a month and require at least 90 days’ notice for redemptions. Even then, there is no guarantee investors will be able to withdraw all their money — LTAFs limit liquidity to 5 per cent of the fund’s net asset value (NAV) each quarter. If sell orders exceed that level, redemptions are gated so the fund can avoid a fire sale of assets.

Industry figures say the high-profile collapse of a flagship equity income fund run by former star stock picker Neil Woodford, trapping 300,000 investors, cast a long shadow over illiquid assets.

“Gating in the UK market has very negative connotations because of what happened in the property sector and at Woodford,” says James Lowe, sales director for private assets and investment trusts at Schroders. “I’ve had lots of conversations with wealth managers about this, quite rightly.

Advertisement

“Gating is not inherently bad — it protects the integrity of the underlying assets and the remaining shareholders in the fund. As long as it’s explained clearly at the start and investors go in with their eyes open, it can be a reasonable mechanism to allow us to have open-ended funds that sit somewhere between investment trusts and limited partner funds [with 10-year lock-ups].”


This highlights a key issue with LTAFs that would-be investors and their advisers must consider — the trade-offs that are inherent in the fund structure.

As open-ended funds, LTAFs allow investors to buy and sell units at the fund’s net asset value (NAV), avoiding the risk of having to accept a discount to NAV when they sell, as can happen with closed-end funds such as investment trusts. LTAFs also deploy investors’ money within a few weeks of their investment. With limited partnership funds, by contrast, investors commit money at the outset but do not hand all of it over at once. Instead, they must have capital available so that it can be called on in stages over the first few years of the fund’s life as the managers acquire new assets.

The quid pro quo for this ability to invest at NAV and start generating a return on their capital almost immediately is that the fund’s liquidity is periodic and limited in size.

Advertisement

That, in turn, requires a further trade-off. Managers that launch LTAFs must satisfy regulators that they are holding enough liquid assets in the fund to meet likely redemptions. For a private equity LTAF, that in practice means holding up to 20 per cent of its NAV in cash and other liquid assets — enough to provide 5 per cent quarterly liquidity for a year ahead. This inbuilt “cash drag” is likely to mean that the returns investors see from LTAFs do not keep pace with those reported for institutional funds.

Then there is the question of fees. In the case of the private equity LTAF that Schroders is about to launch, annual fees are expected to be around 2.89 per cent. Ongoing charges excluding performance fees for private equity-focused investment trusts range from 0.8 per cent to 2.8 per cent, according to Winterflood data.


Retail LTAFs, such as the Schroders vehicle, sit in the category of Restricted Mass Market Investments, which opens them up to advised and discretionary private clients while retaining protections that apply to other products targeted at retail investors. If LTAFs are ultimately offered to self-directed investors via execution-only platforms, people that buy them will be classed as Restricted Investors and will have to undertake not to put more than 10 per cent of their investable assets into them. There is no clarity so far about how platforms would police this 10 per cent limit. 

The arrival of retail LTAFs signals the start of a trend in the UK that is well advanced in other markets. The leading US-based private market managers regard private clients as a key fundraising priority — private wealth assets at Blackstone, the market leader, total $243bn, including semi-liquid funds. Continental Europe had around €37bn in Luxembourg-regulated semi-liquid “evergreen” funds by the first quarter of 2024. Another €13.6bn was held in ELTIFs, the EU equivalent or LTAFs, at the end of 2023, up 25 per cent in a year, according to Scope Group, the alternative investments analyst.

Advertisement

“What happens in the US spreads around the rest of the globe,” says Will Normand, a partner at law firm Travers Smith who specialises in structuring semi-liquid funds for asset managers. “So, Asia-Pacific trails the US but is ahead of Europe and Europe in turn is ahead of the UK. In Europe and the UK we are in the foothills of this.”

Allocations to private markets by their traditional users — institutions such as endowments, defined benefit pension schemes, sovereign wealth funds and family offices — have mushroomed over the past two decades. According to the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association, US states’ pension schemes achieved annual net returns of 11 per cent from their private equity portfolios over the 23 years to June 30, 2023, compared with 6.2 per cent for a global equity benchmark. 

However, returns from illiquid assets have been weak recently as rising interest rates have pushed up the cost of debt used to fund deals. Advocates also argue that besides attractive net returns, adding private markets exposure to portfolios also brings diversification benefits. 

UK private investors already have several ways to access private markets. Unlike many other countries, the UK has a large and varied group of listed closed-end funds — investment trusts — that hold assets including private equity, infrastructure, property and private credit. These are well understood by advisers and offer daily dealing — although large discounts to NAV can open up when markets become stressed.

Advertisement

Certified high net worth investors and self-certified sophisticated investors in the UK can now access limited partnership private market funds for themselves through online providers, such as Moonfare. Founded in Germany in 2016 by former KKR executive Steffen Pauls, Moonfare now has €3bn under management and says the UK is its second-biggest market in the Emea region, with more than 1,000 investors and total UK assets under management of more than €800mn.


How will LTAFs fit into the UK’s financial landscape? Much will depend on how the big wealth management firms decide to develop their private markets offering. A recent report by Bain & Co suggests assets under management in private markets will grow more than twice as fast as public markets between now and 2032, spurred by increasing interest from private investors. Wealth managers therefore have a strong incentive to provide access to these asset classes.

Data from Research in Finance, a consultancy, suggests that around 45 per cent of UK investment advisers and discretionary fund managers currently recommend or provide exposure to private market investments for clients. 

Among mass-affluent discretionary fund managers and high net worth advisers the proportion rises to 60 per cent, with diversification and high potential returns among the main attractions cited.

Advertisement

About half of the high net worth advisers surveyed were familiar with LTAFs and 38 per cent found them appealing. However, the research also showed that more than a quarter of such advisers had clients that were already investing in private markets through conventional, limited partnership funds.

This suggests that LTAF providers face several challenges: building awareness and support for these products among wealth managers and investment advisers, and especially overcoming recent bad memories of the liquidity problems that have bedevilled open-ended funds that contain illiquid assets.

Beyond that, they will need to articulate a clear case explaining how this new type of fund fits into a set of portfolio options that ranges from highly liquid vehicles such as investment trusts at one end through to illiquid limited partnership funds at the other, and for which types of clients LTAFs are most appropriate.

And, of course, they will have to demonstrate the LTAFs can deliver the enhanced returns — after fees — and the diversification benefits that investors look for in private markets.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

‘Beetlejuice’ and the lost art of soft horror

Published

on

Today we are pulling on our striped demon ghost suits for a special Halloween episode: a deep-dive on Tim Burton’s 1988 classic, Beetlejuice. It persists in our cultural memory, remade as an animated series, a theme park ride, a musical, and as of last month, a legacy sequel, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. We talk about why it’s endured with such ferocity, how the sequel compares, and whether films like it even exist anymore. We also share our own, and listeners’, top Halloween films. Lilah’s joined by FT horror movie superfan Topher Forhecz and political columnist, film buff and Beetlejuice hater Stephen Bush.

——-

We love hearing from you. Lilah is on Instagram @lilahrap, and email at lilahrap@ft.com. And we’re grateful for reviews on Apple and Spotify!

——-

Advertisement

Clips this week courtesy of Warner Bros

View our accessibility guide.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the US election looks in the swing states

Published

on

If you live outside a swing state, you might — if you really try — almost forget there is a tumultuous US election under way. If you live inside one, not so much.

Lawn signs. Billboards. Text messages. So many text messages. In the seven battleground states that will decide the US election, political ads are everywhere, all the time. The White House race is inescapable.

As one of the tightest presidential elections in living memory enters its final days, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are criss-crossing the country to make their final pitch to voters in the swing states.

Their campaigns are there 24/7. While some people elsewhere in the US can tune out of the frenzy, voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are being inundated with some of the most sophisticated and targeted messaging and advertising in political history.

Advertisement

And some of that is just downright blunt.

There are the classic campaign placards pitched on lawns and in windows and crowding verges along roads, as well as television ads flooding the airwaves.

Added to the campaigns’ arsenals are digital ads, particularly on social media, and a steady stream of personalised text messages pleading for donations and urging people to turn out to vote on November 5, or before.

The 2024 election is on track to be the most expensive ever, with the vast majority of funds going to advertising.

The Harris campaign and its affiliated committees have pumped more than $1.1bn into advertising, almost double the $602mn spent by the Trump campaign and its aligned committees, according to the FT’s ad tracker

The swing states that will decide the vote have received $1.36bn of the two campaigns’ combined spending. The biggest share — $373.5mn — has gone to Pennsylvania, considered the most crucial battleground state.

“I think everyone is just ready for it to be over,” said Tracee Malik, a real estate agent from the Pittsburgh area. “Pretty much the only commercials that we have now are the political commercials.”

Harris’s most-aired TV spots have focused on her prosecutorial and middle class background, defence of reproductive rights, and claims that Trump cares only about the wealthy. Others focus on her rival as being “too unstable to lead”.

Advertisement

Trump’s most-aired ads have been about the economy, blaming Harris and President Joe Biden’s economic agenda for the high cost of living. But his most played spot attacks the vice-president for supporting gender affirming care for prison inmates, telling voters: “Kamala’s agenda is they/them, not you.”

In Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada, Trump ads also slam Harris over immigration, while in Georgia and North Carolina, pro-Harris ads concentrate on abortion rights.

Is the barrage working? It’s unclear.

FT Edit

This article was featured in FT Edit, a daily selection of eight stories to inform, inspire and delight, free to read for 30 days. Explore FT Edit here

Advertisement

“I hate that advertising,” said Vallon Laurence, a retired member of the US Navy who lives in Atlanta, Georgia. “If you go by the advertising . . . you don’t want either one of them.”

Local issues also feature in the campaigns. Pro-Harris ads in North Carolina link Trump to Mark Robinson, the Republican gubernatorial candidate who has been embroiled in a scandal over allegations — vehemently denied by him — that he posted racist comments on a pornography website.

Simultaneously, pro-Trump groups are sending texts assailing Harris and the Biden administration for a slow recovery effort from Hurricane Helene, which devastated the western part of the state.

On social media, the campaigns can target small groups of voters, tailoring content based on age, gender or even interests using memes, news or a chain email format.

The Harris campaign has spent more than $10mn promoting generic-looking Facebook pages with titles such as “The Daily Scroll”, boosting favourable news articles.

Democrats have also taken advantage of digital targeting tools to address women, particularly on abortion rights, blaming Trump for the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs Wade.

More than a quarter of the Harris campaign’s Facebook and Instagram ads have been seen by an audience that is at least two-thirds women. Virtually none had the same margins for men.

Pro-Harris super Pacs — political action committees, or fundraising and spending groups, that aren’t allowed to co-ordinate with the campaigns — have been targeting women even more aggressively: 51 per cent of their Meta ads reached a predominantly female audience, compared to only 2 per cent at equivalently male audiences.

Advertisement

But irritation with the flood of propaganda has spread, even to down-ballot races. A ferocious battle for a US Senate seat from Montana — which could decide which party controls the upper chamber of Congress — has exhausted local residents.

The state has had the highest ad spending per voter in recent weeks, surpassing the battlegrounds, according to Financial Times analysis.

“It just hits you in the face,” said Emma Fry, 21, a student in Bozeman who recently came home to find a pile of political flyers and letters on her porch.

“They’re absolutely everywhere. And at some point people are just annoyed,” she said. “We’ve got to pray for the day it’s just over, because we need to wrap this up.”

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Myles McCormick in Atlanta and Bozeman, Montana, and Oliver Roeder in New York; video editing by Jamie Han

Campaign signs for former President Donald Trump and Pennsylvania Republican senatorial candidate Dave McCormick are seen in Washington Crossing, Pa
Campaign signs for former president Donald Trump and Pennsylvania Republican senatorial candidate Dave McCormick in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania © Francis Chung/AP
Campaign signs for the Harris-Walz presidential ticket and various Pennsylvania Democratic down-ballot candidates are seen in Washington Crossing, Pa
Signs for the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz presidential ticket and various Pennsylvania Democratic down-ballot candidates in Washington Crossing © Francis Chung/AP

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com