Defence group Saab lands profit beat, raises 2025 outlook
The maker of the Gripen fighter jet in a statement said operating earnings rose to 1.98 billion Swedish crowns ($204 million) from 1.33 billion a year ago, beating a mean forecast of 1.71 billion seen in a LSEG compilation of analyst forecasts.
Saab, which makes military equipment ranging from missiles and advanced electronics to submarines, said it expected like-for-like sales to grow 16-20% this year, raising its outlook from anticipated growth of 12-16%.
It repeated it expected operating profit to rise even faster than sales.
($1 = 9.7292 Swedish crowns)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Israel eyes changing CPI publication to before markets open
JERUSALEM, July 20 (Reuters) - Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics said on Sunday it was considering moving up publication of its monthly consumer price index (CPI) to before financial markets open partly in a bid to boost trading activity. The bureau currently publishes the CPI, a key measure of inflation that is also used for determining cost-of-living adjustments for wages and in central bank interest rate decisions, after markets close at 6:30 p.m. local time, usually on the 15th of the month when the date does not coincide with Saturday. It said that the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange requested the change in publication permanently to 10 a.m. on the 15th, just as stock and bond markets are opening and similar to that of many Western countries. Other options are also being considered but the bureau did not elaborate. The bureau has asked for public comment until August 1. Pushing up the CPI publication would, it said, expand trading opportunities in CPI derivatives, bonds and Treasury bills during trading hours, as well as allow for direct market reaction and analysis of the CPI without "offsetting events between post-market publication and the next trading day."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Outwitted': have water companies managed to sidestep Labour's bonus ban?
It started before the election. Against a background of growing fury about the conduct of the water companies, Labour promised to end the injustice of their executives getting bonuses while sewage was dumped in England's rivers and seas. In March 2024, Steve Reed, the then shadow environment secretary, said: 'Since the last election the water bosses have paid themselves £25m in bonuses. Labour will ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses until they have cleaned up their filth.' The policy became a significant part of the election campaign two months later. The manifesto promised: 'We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways.' Once in power, Labour went straight into action. One of the first big laws it passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. The legislation contains provisions to ban performance-related payments to senior executives of water companies that repeatedly pollute England's waterways with sewage. Reed, now environment secretary, described it as a means to end the 'undeserved' payments. Under the act, the government banned six water firms including Thames Water from awarding bonuses for this financial year after seven major pollution incidents. However, it was not long before flaws in this plan began to emerge. Thames Water has faced particular challenges this year, with regular discussions over its possible collapse, even as customers' bills soar to pay for infrastructure. In February, as the legislation was going through parliament, a court ruled that Thames could proceed with a controversial £3bn loan from a group of creditors, at a 9.75% interest rate, in order to stabilise the company. In May, the chair of Thames, Adrian Montague, told MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs (Efra) committee that bosses were in line for 'substantial' bonuses linked to the loan, on the insistence of creditors. The company needed to pay the bonuses, he said, 'because we have to keep staff. It is a very competitive marketplace out there … If we are unable to pay bonuses, people will come knocking and try to pick out of us the best staff we have. That is not in customers' interests.' Soon afterwards, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to use the act to block Thames bosses taking bonuses. A week later, Reed appeared in front of the same committee, telling MPs that the bonuses had been withdrawn. At the same hearing Montague conceded in a letter that he may have misspoken when he said the bonuses were insisted upon by creditors. Reed told the committee that Thames Water had 'appeared to be attempting to circumvent that ban, calling their bonuses something different so they can continue to pay them'. Thames responded, saying that rather than having been withdrawn, the bonuses were paused. But in July the Guardian revealed that Thames had already paid bonuses totalling £2.46m to 21 managers on 30 April, and was refusing to claw the money back. Although it had paused the bonus scheme, or management retention plan (MRP), it did not promise that the next tranches would not also be paid, with the managers due to receive the same sum again in December and a further £10.8m collectively next June. Under the Water (Special Measures) Act, the only bonuses that can be stopped to those at the very top of the company, such as the chief executive, the chief financial officer and the chair. Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, has voluntarily declined his 300% bonus, because, he said, it would have been a 'distraction'. The water campaigner and former Undertones frontman, Feargal Sharkey, campaigned with Keir Starmer during the general election. But Sharkey has been left unimpressed by the bonus ban. He said: 'Driving forward eye-catching policies designed to do nothing more than grab headlines is no way to fix the biggest problem facing this country in the 21st century, the government has been outwitted and outmanoeuvred by the water companies.' Was the Thames package designed to circumvent the rules? Documents it released to the Efra committee show that when designing the payments package, the company hired top consultants and law firms including Rothschild & Co, Linklaters and Mercer to help it come up with a retention programme that was legally sound and would get past regulators. During Thames board meetings set up to discuss the bonuses, members asked 'if any pressure to waive bonus would be a risk generally or under the water (special measures) bill', according to the documents The board was told the bonuses were in line with the specifications of the legislation: 'The [remuneration] committee requested to reconfirm whether the MRP was consistent with the Water (Special Measures) Act and related Ofwat consultation and it was confirmed that the MRP was a retention payment rather than a bonus, and had no performance-related element. As such, it was not restricted by the Water (Special Measures) Act.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Thames Water and its lawyers and advisers believe they could pay its chief executive and chief financial officer under the scheme if they wanted, because they are retention payments. If this loophole remains open, any water company that breaches pollution rules could continue to pay out millions in bonuses to their executives, as long as the payments are not labelled performance related. In a letter to the Efra committee in July, Reed would not directly answer whether these bonuses would be banned. He said: 'Should Ofwat determine Thames Water have breached the performance-related payments rule, then I expect them to take appropriate enforcement action.' A Defra spokesperson followed up and said: 'It is for companies to follow these new rules and help rebuild trust with their customers.' Water companies can also get round the bonus ban by hiking the pay of executives to make up for the lack of compensation. The Guardian revealed this week that Southern Water has nearly doubled its chief executive Lawrence Gosden's annual pay package to £1.4m. Southern has already been allowed to increase average bills by 53% over the next five years and is appealing to the Competition and Markets Authority to charge more. Ofwat says it may bring forward a planned review of the bonus ban, currently set for 2027, to look at the scope of the rules and see whether the net needs to be widened. The regulator added that executive salaries were a matter for the water companies, but said it expected them to be appropriate when taking bonus bans and company performance into account. A Defra spokesperson said: 'Undeserved bonuses for water company bosses have now been banned as part of the government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. Any instances of companies trying to circumvent the new rules are completely unacceptable. 'The government will leave no stone unturned against any bosses being made these outrageous payments.' Southern Water said the rise in its chief executive's salary was not an attempt to evade the bonus ban but part of a 'long-term incentive plan' as part of an effort to turnaround the company. It added that the payments were 'common industry practice'. A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP and has received no payments. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator and the Efra committee.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
British Gas boss warns Miliband against ‘outrageous' energy bill divide
Forcing households with gas boilers to pay higher green taxes than those with heat pumps would be an 'abomination', the boss of British Gas has warned. In a stark warning to Ed Miliband, Chris O'Shea said that removing net zero levies from electricity bills would punish the poor and amount to a 'terrible distortion of the market'. It comes amid reports that the Energy Secretary is considering stripping green levies from electricity in a bid to encourage the adoption of heat pumps. Instead, the costs would be moved on to gas, making a boiler more expensive to run. Mr O'Shea, the chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, warned Mr Miliband to resist such an 'outrageous' overhaul and instead focus on protecting billpayers from the soaring cost of net zero. 'It's a preposterous idea,' Mr O'Shea told The Telegraph. 'The idea you'd put the levies on gas bills will mean those better-off people with heat pumps will be subsidised by those poorer people with gas boilers. That's nonsense. 'I think those of us with the broadest shoulders should help those of us who have the most need. 'To put them on gas bills would be an abomination, outrageous and a terrible distortion of the market. It would also be unfair because the people [who have] gas boilers the longest will also be those who can least afford to pay higher bills. 'I have heard the argument that it will encourage more people to use electricity. But encouraging people to use subsidised electricity by forcing gas users to pay just doesn't make any sense.' Mr O'Shea said the Government should shift the cost of green levies on to general taxation rather than creating an energy bill divide between households. 'Hostage to fortune' The Climate Change Committee, a Government quango, has urged Mr Miliband to remove the taxes from electricity bills to encourage more people to buy heat pumps and electric cars. However, experts have warned such a move risks increasing the average gas bill by £120 a year. Mr Miliband is considering the reforms as part of a radical rethink on clean power, as he fights to defend Britain's goal of reaching net zero by 2050. An announcement is expected this autumn. Mr O'Shea's plea to protect households with gas boilers came as he warned that Mr Miliband's net zero targets would be challenging. 'I don't think they are a work of fiction, and it's good that we have stretching targets,' he said. 'But even if you were to speak to those who helped to set them, then even they would say it will be difficult. But I don't think it's impossible.' The Centrica boss also cast doubt over Mr Miliband's pledge to cut household energy bills by 2030, supposedly aided by Britain's move to a greener economy. Mr O'Shea said he was sceptical that the Energy Secretary's promise to lower bills by £300 this parliament was 'achievable'. 'The energy transition is not cheap and it is not simple,' said Mr O'Shea. 'If it were, then we would have done it already. He urged the Government to take a more honest approach when it came to net zero. 'What renewables will do is give you more price stability,' he said. 'You will get fewer highs and fewer lows. Home-grown renewables give you more security than imported gas. 'But I wouldn't have made the £300 statement because it makes you a hostage to fortune.' As Britain's second-largest energy supplier behind rival Octopus, Centrica takes an 'agnostic' view when it comes to net zero, according to Mr O'Shea. That means the company is as comfortable building gas-fired power stations as it is investing in heat pumps. However, he said the business has abandoned wind and solar investments in the UK because they do not make enough money. Instead, Centrica is exploring wind investments in Ireland. Mr O'Shea was also critical of Mr Miliband's pledge to ban all new drilling in the North Sea, even though Centrica no longer conducts any exploration activity in the basin. 'I don't agree with the decision,' he said. 'If you take it from an environmental point of view, we import LNG [liquefied natural gas]. 'If you produce gas domestically, then it will have a lower carbon content than the LNG that we import. And the reason is the cost of shipping and the cost of turning the gas into a liquid.' Zonal pricing row By taking a less fiercely aggressive approach on net zero, Mr O'Shea has set himself apart from Greg Jackson, his counterpart at Octopus, who has made a virtue of being a clean-energy champion. This distinction came to the fore in recent months amid the fierce debate over zonal pricing. Unlike British Gas, Mr Jackson was a vocal supporter of plans to divide up the country into different energy pricing zones in an effort to incentivise developers to build wind and solar farms where demand – and prices – are highest. However, the proposals were highly controversial because they would have in practice meant higher bills in the South for electricity than in the North. 'It has been a very divisive debate,' said Mr O'Shea. 'We did not want a postcode lottery.' Mr Miliband recently abandoned the proposal, which British Gas believes was the right decision. Octopus disagrees and claims the Energy Secretary missed a vital opportunity to lower bills by billions of pounds. Mr O'Shea said: 'There was one very, very vocal proponent of it, and I think the benefits were all quite theoretical. 'For a company that purports to put the customer first, I don't know why they would want a system that would be more complex. I think they missed the point. 'I don't know why they went so hard on it and why they were so vicious about the Government's decision. One of their guys made a post on social media saying 'good game, well played'. This is not a game. People are struggling to pay their energy bills. 'I think that a lot of things have become too polarised. And energy is no different.' Rough decisions Now that the battle over zonal pricing is over, Centrica is turning its attention to Rough, the gas storage facility it runs 18 miles off the coast of East Yorkshire. It accounts for about half of the capacity the UK has to store gas. However, Mr O'Shea has warned that Rough risks closure by the end of the year unless ministers agree to help fund the site's redevelopment. 'Rough is going to lose about £100m this year and we can't sustain that,' he said. 'I think we have probably got to see something by the end of this year. 'If we get towards the end of the year and we've got a situation whereby we've got no prospect of making a profit, then we're just throwing good money after bad. It would be like a charitable donation, and that's not our business.' Rather than securing a handout, Centrica has asked ministers for a so-called cap and floor mechanism to help transform the 40-year-old site to store hydrogen as well as natural gas. This would provide a guaranteed minimum revenue level for the project - the floor – as well as limited excessive profits – the cap. Centrica has already stopped filling the facility amid mounting losses. Mr O'Shea said a full closure would involve the loss of hundreds of jobs. As well as impacting the local community, such a move threatens to deal a hammer blow to Britain's energy security, just years after the country recovered from one of its worst-ever energy crises following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Worse still, it also sends the wrong message to our allies in Europe, according to Mr O'Shea. 'If Rough closes, then the UK has just six days of gas storage available, compared to 100 in France, Netherlands and Germany. 'If we get into a crisis and the UK hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure it will flow from the Continent. 'Politically, if you're the prime minister of France or Germany and you look at a country that hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure that will work. There is a need for us to recognise the risk that no one likes a freeloader.'
