Skip to main content
Log in

A role for preferred stock in the financing decision of a public utility

  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

We have shown that preferred stock has a unique role in the financing of public utility capital expenditures, particulary when returns allowed by regulatory commissions are perceived to be inadequate. From the firm's perspective there is no tax advantage for debt because the commission effectively passes the tax savings through the consumers. If allowed returns on common stock are inadequate and the firm has exhausted its perceived debt capacity, then preferred stock becomes the optimal financing instrument. The regulatory commissions compute the costs of debt and preferred stock so that companies can expect returns to cover payments on debt and preferred stock if the assets being financed are necessary and will be included in the rate base. During extremely bad years when revenues are much less than expected, the companies can delay or miss preferred stock dividends without running the risk of default. The data on new capital sources for the electric and gas utilities indicate that these companies made adjustments which are consistent with the implications of our model, but they did not follow the extreme policy of using only debt and preferred stock when market-to-book ratios for common stock were below one. Regulators have, on occasions, used capital structures for rate-making that differ from actual capital structures, and a utility might be penalized for using an extreme capital structure policy. The main emphasis of regulatory review of capital structure, however, has been on the debt component. One strategy would be to use a debt level that satisfies the regulatory commission and then adjust equity between preferred stock and common stock to maximize value for common stockholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asquith, Paul, and David W. Mullins. 1986. “Equity Issues and Offering Dilution.” Journal of Financial Economics 15 (January–February): 61–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brealey, Richard A., and Stewart C. Myers. 1988. Principles of Corporate Finance. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, Eugene F., Louis C. Gapenski, and Dana A. Aberwald. 1987. “Capital Structure Cost of Capital, and Revenue Requirements.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 119 (January 8): 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, LeRoy D. 1984. “Stock-Bond Swaps in Regulated Utilities.” Financial Management 13 (Autumn): 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, Edwin J., Martin J. Gruber, and Zvi Lieber. 1975. “Valuation, Optimum Investment and Financing for the Firm Subject to Regulation.” Journal of Finance 30 (May): 401–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnerty, John D. 1984. “Preferred Stock Refunding Analysis: Synthesis and Extension.” Financial Management 13 (Autumn): 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Donald E., and Glenn A. Wilt. 1968. “Non-Convertible Preferred Stock as a Financing Instrument, 1950–1965.” Journal of Finance 23 (September): 611–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Myron J. 1967. “Some Estimates of the Cost of Capital to the Electric Utility Industry, 1954–57: Comment.” American Economic Review 57 (December):1267–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Myron J. 1974. The Cost of Capital to a Public Utility. East Lansing: MSU Public Utilities Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Alfred E. 1970; 1971. The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions. Volumes I and II. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litzenberger, Robert H., and Howard B. Sosin. 1979. “A Comparison of Capital Structure Decisions of Regulated and Non-Regulated Firms.” Financial Management 8 (Autumn): 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. A. 1976. “Capital Structure and the Behavior of the Regulated Firm Under Uncertainty.” Southern Economic Journal 42 (April): 600–09.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, R. Charles, M. Wayne Marr, and Robert E. Chatfield. 1987. “Noncovertible Preferred Stock Financing and Financial Distress: A Note.” Journal of Economics and Business 39 (February): 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, Cleveland S. 1984. “The Financing Objectives of Large U.S. Electric Utilities.” Financial Management 13 (Summer): 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettway, Richard H., and Robert C. Radcliffe. 1985. “Impacts of New Equity Sales Upon Electric Utility Share Prices.” Financial Management 14 (Spring): 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, Roger. 1977. “Financial Aspects of Rate-of-Return Regulation.” Southern Economic Journal 44 (October): 240–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, Robert A. 1981. “Rate-of-Return Regulation and Utility Capital Structure Decisions.” Journal of Finance 36 (May): 383–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. K., and Mark S. Gerber. 1986. “Capital Structure Maintenance: A Challenge for Electric Utilities.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 118 (September 4): 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scott, L.O. A role for preferred stock in the financing decision of a public utility. J Regul Econ 1, 21–33 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00150295

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00150295

Keywords

Navigation