Behind Vorwerk, the main shareholder, MBB SE, a German investment company, is also worth a look. MBB shaped Vorwerk into its current form and initiated its IPO to finance its growth.
How do you see the risk that in German politics there is currently a discussion about dropping the priority for underground cabling? That could push many transmission projects toward overhead lines, which would likely leave Vorwerk out. Especially since overhead lines are much cheaper and in some cases faster to build.
Great question – and it’s a valid risk to flag, but I would put it more into the category of headline risk than thesis-breaking risk.
First, it’s important to distinguish between political discussion and actual policy reversal. While there is ongoing debate about flexibility in grid expansion, the current legal framework (especially for major north–south HVDC corridors like SuedLink and A-Nord) is still firmly anchored in underground cabling as the default. Reversing that retroactively would be legally, politically, and practically difficult given permitting status, public commitments, and compensation already paid.
Second, even if future projects allow more overhead lines, this doesn’t automatically exclude Vorwerk.
Many large transmission projects are executed in mixed configurations (overhead + underground sections), especially near urban areas, environmentally sensitive zones, or landfall points.
Vorwerk’s strengths are precisely in technically complex segments (underground HVDC, drilling, landfalls, converter-related infrastructure), which tend to remain underground regardless of cost debates.
Third, from a system-level perspective, overhead lines are cheaper on paper, but often face longer permitting timelines, legal challenges, and public opposition. In practice, underground cabling has frequently been chosen to reduce overall project risk and delays, even if capex is higher. Speed-to-completion matters just as much as headline cost in Germany’s grid expansion.
Fourth, Vorwerk’s exposure is not limited to electricity grids. Gas pipelines, hydrogen retrofitting, district heating, LNG connections, and adjacent infrastructure (CO₂, biogas) provide meaningful diversification. A partial shift in grid policy would affect one growth vector, not the entire business.
Thanks for raising it — exactly the kind of nuance that matters in infrastructure investing.
Behind Vorwerk, the main shareholder, MBB SE, a German investment company, is also worth a look. MBB shaped Vorwerk into its current form and initiated its IPO to finance its growth.
Very nice analysis. Learned about on a company I had never heard of
Thank you very much! That’s exactly what it is about.
Hey and thanks for the great deep dive.
How do you see the risk that in German politics there is currently a discussion about dropping the priority for underground cabling? That could push many transmission projects toward overhead lines, which would likely leave Vorwerk out. Especially since overhead lines are much cheaper and in some cases faster to build.
Great question – and it’s a valid risk to flag, but I would put it more into the category of headline risk than thesis-breaking risk.
First, it’s important to distinguish between political discussion and actual policy reversal. While there is ongoing debate about flexibility in grid expansion, the current legal framework (especially for major north–south HVDC corridors like SuedLink and A-Nord) is still firmly anchored in underground cabling as the default. Reversing that retroactively would be legally, politically, and practically difficult given permitting status, public commitments, and compensation already paid.
Second, even if future projects allow more overhead lines, this doesn’t automatically exclude Vorwerk.
Many large transmission projects are executed in mixed configurations (overhead + underground sections), especially near urban areas, environmentally sensitive zones, or landfall points.
Vorwerk’s strengths are precisely in technically complex segments (underground HVDC, drilling, landfalls, converter-related infrastructure), which tend to remain underground regardless of cost debates.
Third, from a system-level perspective, overhead lines are cheaper on paper, but often face longer permitting timelines, legal challenges, and public opposition. In practice, underground cabling has frequently been chosen to reduce overall project risk and delays, even if capex is higher. Speed-to-completion matters just as much as headline cost in Germany’s grid expansion.
Fourth, Vorwerk’s exposure is not limited to electricity grids. Gas pipelines, hydrogen retrofitting, district heating, LNG connections, and adjacent infrastructure (CO₂, biogas) provide meaningful diversification. A partial shift in grid policy would affect one growth vector, not the entire business.
Thanks for raising it — exactly the kind of nuance that matters in infrastructure investing.
Thanks for the detailed reply and sharing your thoughts.
Thanks for your comment! I agree, Management did a good job here.