Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Outlook: Water companies escape a soaking

Wednesday 23 September 1998 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

HERE'S A fascinating irony. Since Labour came to power in May of last year, committed to curbing the supposed excesses of the "fat cat" water industry, water shares have been among the best performers in the stock market. This has been particularly the case since 17 July, when the onset of the bear market brought the defensive qualities of water and electricity fully into their own. But actually, these shares have been pretty consistent outperformers from the day Labour was elected. Is this a question, then, of Labour's bark being worse than its bite? There may be an element of that.

The windfall profits tax could have been a good deal harder on the water companies than it was, while so far the sort of numbers being talked about for higher environmental spending and lower bills are well within City expectations.

It may be that Ian Byatt, the water regulator, has a nasty shock in store for investors when he publishes his price review next month, but if so, he's keeping it very close to his chest. The 10 per cent one-off reduction suggested yesterday by Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister, was no worse than the City was expecting. Nor were his numbers for extra capital spending. Of the additional pounds 8.5bn announced, only pounds 4bn is real additional spending.

In any case, as far as the City is concerned, the more spending the merrier. Not only are water companies allowed under the conditions of their licences to earn a defined rate of return on all capital spending, but they also have the opportunity to better that rate through efficiency savings. The more spending, then, the less scope there is for reductions in bills and the more there is for enhancing profits.

Water shares suffered a bit yesterday after Mr Meacher's announcement, but this was hardly the sort of stuff to melt confidence in a sector which, set against what's going on in many other industries, seems to be a haven of safety and reliability. So much for "regulatory risk", the catchphrase attached to these stocks before Labour came to power. With the pound and interest rates so high, and the world economy teetering on the brink of recession, industries with regulatory risk seem the place to be.

The risk of oppressive regulation may in any case be something of an illusion. The lesson of British Gas, which famously accused the regulator of the biggest smash and grab raid in history, is that these utilities are capable of taking the very worst the regulator can throw at them and still come up smelling of roses. There is continued and considerable scope for efficiency gains in water companies, and that's before the wave of consolidation and merger activity being planned for this sector in the City.

Mr Byatt is going to have to raid shareholders' capital on a truly heroic scale to stop these companies continuing to deliver the real increases in dividends investors in the water industry have come to expect. He is bound to be harsh, but on past form, he's not going to be that harsh.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in