A R2.3-billion loss, R19.6-billion in irregular expenditure, net cash from operations declining by 21.81% from R45.8-billion to R37-6-billion, total debt increasing by 55.04% from R387-billion to R600-billion, raising only 22% of the R72-billion borrowing commitment, a firm commitment to increase funding to 62% of the 2018/19 borrowing requirement, a qualified audit, and current trade union demands for a wage increase of 7% to 7.5%.

Add to this the CEO’s admission that “the poor results were compounded by allegations of corruption and mismanagement, challenges of governance and negative investor sentiment”. And, as reported by Fin24.com in March, Moody’s Corporation downgraded the credit rating of the company (name concealed for now) from B1 to B2, citing the absence of concrete plans to place the company on a sound financial footing. B2 is the fifth rung of subinvestment-grade debt.

A healthy business? Would you invest in it? We will all agree that a healthy business it is not, but whether you would want to invest in it is another matter. Such a decision would depend on whether you expect to get a return on your investment or whether you intend to make a donation. No rational individual would willingly make such an ‘investment’, unless he or she did so under duress or for noncommercial reasons.

Would you do business with this entity? It depends – primarily on whether you would be paid, in which case there must be not just a realistic expectation to be paid, but an unwavering guarantee that you would be paid. In this instance, you would want to know whether there would be someone who would underwrite or guarantee any debt that might result. How many such businesses do you know of?

By now you would have guessed that the business is not a regular business. It is quite unlikely and highly improbable, considering the introduction, that this would be a private- sector business. So, what type of business is this? Actually, ‘business’ might be an inappropriate word to describe this type of entity, which is best known by a three-letter acronym, SOE, which stands for State-owned enterprise.

Identifying the SOE in question might be more challenging. It might well have been easier had the SOE returned a profit. While we are at it, can you name an SOE that made a profit in 2018? The SOE that made a R2 300 000 000 loss is a public utility company established in 1923. It was established as Escom, the Electricity Supply Commission, and the Elektrisiteits-voorsieningskommissie (EVKOM). From the combination of these acronyms, a single acronym, Eskom, was derived. At its establishment, as a public electricity utility, it was effective and efficient, devoid of all the overinflated salaries and management structures that were introduced in recent years.

The decline of cash from operations from R45 800 000 000 to R37 600 000 000 is attributed by Fin24.com to leadership and operational challenges. As to what financial impact the leadership and management of Eskom felt for their lack of performance and their inability to overcome operational challenges, this is not stated, it would be fair to assume that people in these positions were immune from any consequences.

Conveniently, the reflection on the past offers ‘insight’ into present circumstances. Blame it on the predecessors! What would South Africa or South Africans do without the past? Without it, there would be no ‘plausible’ excuse for our shortcomings.

But what about the present? A Johannes- burg daily newspaper has reported that an independent audit opinion has cast “significant doubt” on Eskom’s ability to continue as a going concern. Would this be explained by the challenges of the recent past?

So, what is Eskom delivering currently? It is not delivering sufficient electricity, for there is a shortfall. It is, however, delivering escalating operating costs. The shortfalls and escalating operating costs are seemingly the defining feature of an SOE.

Oh, how reminiscent this is of Leonard Cohen’s song, Darkness: “I caught the darkness, Drinking from your cup. I said: Is this contagious? You said: Just drink it up.”