Skip to content
Research

Roundtable 17 September: Highlights

Sandy Arbuthnott

2 min read

Our September 2025 roundtable brought together a full house of senior investors, regulators, utilities, and policymakers to explore how the macroeconomic environment since the 2022 structural break is reshaping infrastructure investment - and what to do about it.

We set out to answer one central question:

Can ambitious infrastructure investment still be delivered in today’s macro environment?

Macroeconomics underwent a large structural break in 2022…

20-year real bond yield, zero coupon

  • Gilt yields highest since 1998
  • +100 bps long-term inflation
  • Gold price hits record high
  • Stock-bond correlation flips

… while infrastructure is shifting from a yield to growth regime

  • Electricity Transmission
  • Electricity Distribution
  • Rail
  • Water & Wastewater
  • 2020 – 2025103

    Electricity Transmission 7 · Electricity Distribution 11 · Rail 55 · Water & Wastewater 29

  • 2025 – 2030169

    Electricity Transmission 33 · Electricity Distribution 13 · Rail 63 · Water & Wastewater 60

63% increase

Show the data as a table
Electricity TransmissionElectricity DistributionRailWater & Wastewater
2020 – 20257115529103
2025 – 203033136360169

Schematic based on the original figure

Figure 1. Macroeconomics underwent a structural shift in 2022, increasing cost of capital just when investment is most neededSource: Bank of England gilt yields data; ET: Ofgem: RFPRs & RIIO-T3 Business Plans, DESNZ: Appendix I: Electricity Networks Modelling; ED: Ofgem: RFPRs & DESNZ: Appendix I: Electricity Networks Modelling; Water: Ofwat APRs & PR24 FD, 2nd NIA; Rail: ARs (Network Rail & HS2), NIC: 2nd NIA

The conversation unfolded across three themes:

Global supply (and pricing expectations) of infrastructure capital

Vallorii's VAPRI model shows substantially higher return expectations for equity infrastructure investments (especially for higher risk assets) since 2022.

Roundtable participants stressed the divergence between global and UK conditions. International appetite for infrastructure investment remains strong, particularly for investment in the US.

The UK was seen as a more challenging environment, however: construction costs are high, regulatory uncertainty weighs heavily, and equity investors are increasingly selective. While political ambitions for growth are substantial, capital deployment lags, with the cost of raising even core infrastructure funds now at 12–15% (nominal).

VAPRI ranked a selection of UK infrastructure assets by risk - with gas and electricity distribution assets showing the lowest risk, and greenfield infrastructure projects at the high end. Airport risk changed depending on leverage and regulatory protections in place.

RiskSectorAsset / Company
1Gas Transmission & DistributionNorthern Gas Networks
2Electricity DistributionUK Power Networks
3Gas Transmission & DistributionNational Gas
4Electricity DistributionNational Grid ED
5Electricity DistributionSSEN
6Electricity TransmissionNational Grid ET
7Electricity DistributionScottish Power
8Gas Transmission & DistributionCadent Gas
9Gas Transmission & DistributionSGN
10AirportsLondon Heathrow (excl. 3rd runway)
11WaterHARP DPC
12WaterCheddar II DPC
13AirportsLondon Gatwick (excl. 2nd runway)
14Electricity TransmissionSSEN
15Electricity TransmissionScottish Power
16AirportsManchester
17WaterBeckton Water Recycling DPC
18Electricity GenerationOffshore wind (2025 AR7 CfD)
19Electricity GenerationSizewell C (RAB)
20Telecoms5G Auctions
21Electricity GenerationHinkley Point C (2015 CfD)

Risk runs from Lower risk (1) to Higher risk (21).

Note: Additional assets are continually added

Figure 2.

A majority of attendees felt that the UK infrastructure pipeline cannot be fully delivered without providing higher equity returns, or government underwriting more risk.

How will the infrastructure supply-demand gap be resolved?

  • No action needed: capital will flow shortly4
  • Consumers/Govmnt provides higher returns to investors11
  • Consumers/Govmnt underwrites risks at current conditions14
  • Pipeline will not materialize8
Show the data as a table
Number of responses
No action needed: capital will flow shortly4
Consumers/Govmnt provides higher returns to investors11
Consumers/Govmnt underwrites risks at current conditions14
Pipeline will not materialize8
Figure 3. Poll of 25 roundtable attendees (participants could select more than one option)

Bond Market Risks and the potential for a bond market crash

We stress-tested how bond-market volatility could affect infrastructure returns. Using Heathrow as a case study, VAPRI modelling suggested that highly geared assets face outsized risks - adding 480bps to Heathrow's cost of equity (mitigated by the ability to pass through a portion of increased cost of debt to passengers under the regulatory framework).

Sustained yields above 8% could eliminate dividends - VAPRI calculates an 18% probability of 10-year UK gilt yields exceeding 10% before 2030.

Case study: VAPRI estimates CoE of 7.0-8.5% for Heathrow H8 based on asset-specific forward-looking risks, and regulatory underwriting

Cost of Equity, (real %). Excluding LHR 3rd runway

2%14%
  • CAPM (historical): LHR BP

    8.87

  • CAPM (historical): CoC Lab, 60% gearing

    8.60

  • CAPM (historical): CoD (CAA/LHR)

    3.7–4.4

  • Capital market conditions

    6.5–7.7

  • Bond market risks

    11.3–12.5. + 480 bps. Based on granular 10yr maturity forward yield curve modelling, at 82% gearing of Heathrow

  • CoD pass-through to WACC

    7.0–8.5. + 50-80 bps. Passthrough of notional gearing (60%) interest payments to passengers

Show the data as a table
%
CAPM (historical): LHR BP8.87
CAPM (historical): CoC Lab, 60% gearing8.60
CAPM (historical): CoD (CAA/LHR)3.7–4.4
Capital market conditions6.5–7.7
Bond market risks11.3–12.5
CoD pass-through to WACC7.0–8.5
  1. 1 Current market conditions

    6.5–7.7% CoE based on:

    • Long-term equity market returns
    • 86–108 bps increase in expected market return due current capital supply shortage
  2. 2 Asset-specific risk

    Asset-specific, forward-looking risk based on AI-generated stochastic modelling

  3. 3 Risk allocation

    Fine-grained risk allocation within regulatory framework

Figure 4. Case study: VAPRI estimates CoE of 7.0-8.5% for Heathrow H8 based on asset-specific forward-looking risks, and regulatory underwritingSources: 6.6-8.2% CoE determined using 5.5-7.4% ERP using “in-cycle” interpretation implied by infrastructure funds’ NAV discounts, beta calculated using 5y estimation window, SVT and UU as comparator companies, RfR defined as 20y UK real gilt yield; Construction risk defined as risk of capex cost overrun, counterparty risk defined as risk of water company default resulting in missed payments or CAP termination; asset health risks defined as risk of performance penalties and terminal payment discount due to lower asset health quality; contractor underwriting defined as EPC covering cost overruns up to 110% of capex, consumer underwriting defined as consumers covering cost overruns in excess of 50% and reducing likelihood of counterparty payment default by 20%

How to mitigate bond market risks for infra, particularly for heavily geared assets

The group then explored how regulatory financing models affect resilience. Under the UK RAB framework, equity returns rise with leverage—but so too does exposure to bond market volatility. Lower gearing can reduce risk but also significantly dilute returns, underlining the importance of trade-offs and timing in financing strategies - see Heathrow example below.

Under the UK RAB framework, equity returns rise with leverage—but so too does exposure to bond market volatility.

VAPRI shows that lower Heathrow gearing reduces CoE by ~30 bps, but reduces equity IRR by ~380 bps

Lower gearing reduces risk but significantly dilutes equity returns

ScenarioCost of Equity, real (%)Equity IRR, real (%)
70% Gearing6.7 to 7.95.2 to 6.8
82% Actual Gearing7.0 to 8.28.4 to 11.1

~30 bps lower CoE as bond yield risk premium falls

~380 bps lower equity IRR as similar returns are measured against higher initial equity investment

Key insights

  1. Hypothetical lower gearing of 70% (due to reduced debt level and higher equity level) would reduce both CoE and equity IRR

  2. Bond yield risk premium falls due to debt–paydown lowering interest expense

  3. Equity IRR falls as cash flows to equity are measured against a larger denominator

Figure 5. VAPRI shows that for Heathrow, reducing gearing reduces risk but significantly dilutes equity returnsSource: Vallorii analysis

WACC-based regulation came under fire from some participants for under-rewarding equity and incentivising higher leverage - with the empirical limitations of CAPM also emerging as a common theme.

We'd be delighted to discuss any of these topics, and show how Vallorii is bringing together advanced financial theory, analytics and AI to transform infrastructure risk and valuation.

Send us a message (opens in a new tab) to get in touch and set up a call. Find out more about applying VAPRI to your asset or portfolio here.

Talk to us about this research

See how these methods work on your own assets.