Roll up, roll up, who wants to be the acceptable face of Sir Philip Green’s holding company? At £125,000-a-year, the money is decent for a part-time chairship with no real powers, such as the ability to fire key personnel. It would help if, like the last two incumbents, you are well-known but, in current circumstances, the main qualification may be a willingness to tolerate some personal heat on the publicity front.
The latter demand provided too irksome for Karren Brady, or so it seems. The baroness did not explain her resignation from Taveta Investments but one suspects the charge of hypocrisy – she is, after all, a champion of women’s rights at work – became too uncomfortable after the allegations against Green of sexual harassment and racial abuse (he denies any unlawful behaviour).
A fortnight ago, the idea of quitting was dismissed by Brady as an easy way out, but a re-think should surprise nobody. Brady has other business interests and none were being advanced by a high-profile association with Green. She’ll now have to explain why she didn’t reach that conclusion years ago since she was on board from 2010 so knew (or should have done) what she was taking on as chair in 2017.
On the plus side, she at least avoided an encounter with hostile MPs. Lord Grabiner QC, Brady’s predecessor as chair, departed when the damning verdict of two Commons select committees on the BHS debacle was still fresh in mind. Grabiner’s performance as non-executive chair was “deplorable” and “the apogee of weak corporate governance”, said the MPs’ report.
Green will be desperate to show he is not entirely friendless in business circles and retains the power to hire another big name. It looks an uphill task – but, critically, also a pointless one if he intends to hang around as an active boss. The best commercial solution, even for Green, would surely be his own exit from day-to-day involvement. Take a back seat as owner. Any chair worth hiring would probably advise as much.
The show rolls on at Hammerson
We’ll flog more properties and try to prove our worth. Hammerson’s latest strategic revamp is par for the course if the directors truly believe the company’s assets are worth twice as much as the stock market says they are. The astonishing part, though, is that the chair, David Tyler, and the chief executive, David Atkins, have been left in charge.
Few would have bet that way last April when the double-act was forced to abandon its plan A, the £3.4bn takeover of smaller shopping centre rival Intu. Hammerson shareholders rose in rebellion against the deal and events show they were right to do so. On the deal’s announcement in December 2017, Hammerson valued Intu at 254p a share. Price today: 114p.
The Intu saga was quickly followed by Hammerson’s refusal of a bid approach from the French group Klépierre at a fat premium. The combination of events seemed likely to spell the end of the road for either Tyler or Atkins, probably the chair. But, no, the show rolls on. How?
The answer may lie in the creation of an “investment and disposal committee” comprising four non-executive directors, none of whom will be Tyler. This a governance oddity. Disposals of assets – maybe 15% of the portfolio – is the top priority for Hammerson but the chair won’t be sitting on the key committee overseeing the process. Indeed, two entirely new non-executive directors will be hired in the interests of greater independent scrutiny.
It seems to be enough (for now) to satisfy agitating hedge fund Elliott Advisors, which has agreed to play nice for 12 months, but beneath the calm corporate exterior it’s not hard to spot the hand of frustrated investors at work. The chair can stay for the sake of stability, but he’ll be surrounded by new faces.
Still, it’s a bonus for shareholders in Sainsbury’s. Wearing his other chairing hat, Tyler can now spend more time finding a way to extricate the supermarket chain from its Asda-sized hole. That bid also looks likely to end in retreat.
Provident on the back foot
Exciting times in the world of subprime lending. Provident Financial, the ailing giant of the sector, is on the receiving end of a zero-premium bid from Non-Standard Finance, an upstart led by its own former chief executive, John van Kuffeler. It doesn’t like it one bit and is screaming about the approach being “opportunistic” and “irresponsible”.
Well, maybe, but delaying the unveiling of the full-year results for three weeks is an odd response. The numbers should not be altered one jot by the takeover approach. So why not publish on schedule? Provident is on the back foot since many of its big shareholders are supporting Non-Standard, and delay won’t help the case for the defence.
