In Alison Cooper’s first six years as chief executive of Imperial Brands, as Imperial Tobacco calls itself these days, the share price doubled. In the last three, it has halved. She’s back where she started, although there’s no need to shed tears for one of the UK’s top executives in the deathstick business – she’s been paid roughly £30m in that time.

One should add that Imperial’s shareholders have collected about £10bn in dividends in the same period, so the reversal in the share price is not the whole story. The cigarette trade remains cash-generative, for companies as well as governments.

But the collapse in Imperial’s valuation shows something’s up and here it is: a shocker of a profits warning, sending the share price down 13% on Thursday. The vaping revolution – the industry’s hope for long-term reinvention – is stalling amid a regulatory crackdown in the US, worries about unexplained illnesses and concern over an e-cigarette “epidemic” among children.

Imperial itself, with its Blu brand, isn’t involved in any investigation. But Walmart in the US wants to clear its supermarket shelves of everybody’s ranges and other stores are banning promotions. Imperial had expected revenues of about £400m from its “next-generation products” this year but now reckons the figure will be closer to £300m.

In the context of group revenues of £7.5bn, the difference doesn’t sound much, but the strategic fog around Imperial is thickening. The growth in gaspers lies in parts of Asia but Imperial is concentrated in the US and Europe. The company was also late into the “next-gen” market and bet almost exclusively on vaping, as opposed to the heat-not-burn technology that is not under the same regulatory scrutiny. Philip Morris’s each-way gamble looks smarter.

In July, the Imperial cash machine wheezed when Cooper said 10%-a-year dividend hikes would be abandoned in favour of increases in line with earnings. Now the earnings line has gone stale: it will be “broadly flat” this year, versus a previous promise of a rise of 4%-ish. Again, the difference is not much, but Imperial’s image as a safe place for non-ethical investors has suffered another dent. The whole sector is down, but Imperial is a laggard.

Cooper’s innings is surely drawing to a close – nine years is a long time – but she’ll probably have to wait for chairman Mark Williamson to make his escape first. He announced his departure in February but hasn’t yet found a replacement, an unsurprising outcome since many FTSE 100-chairing types won’t go near a tobacco company. As Thursday’s severe share reaction suggests, a crisis is brewing.

After fund suspension Neil Woodford re-invests in FTSE 100 companies – like Imperial and BA’s owner IAG

It was a strong day for profit warnings from FTSE 100 companies – aside from Imperial, Pearson (down 14%) and British Airways owner IAG (down 4%) delivered shocks for shareholders.

In an office block outside Oxford, one imagines fund manager Neil Woodford was banging his head on a table. As he tries to repair his career, he’s been shifting his Equity Income fund into blue-chip stocks and updating investors on progress. To date, 84% of sales from the illiquid portion of the portfolio have been re-invested in FTSE 100 companies, he revealed this week. And which three stocks did he highlight as new investments since his flagship fund was suspended?

Well, one was BT, where all seems quiet. But the other two were Imperial and IAG. Unfortunate, to put it kindly.

Fund managers’ campaign against bloated executive pensions will have an impact in the boardroom

City fund managers (most, anyway) have been complicit in the upwards march in boardroom pay over the past two decades, but they can claim to have stirred in the past year on the specific issue of executive pensions.

The Investment Association (IA), their trade body, took a stand on a point of fairness: executives should get the same pension, as a percentage of salary, as their workers. And a voting campaign had an impact, notably at Standard Chartered, which is still bruised after a 40% shareholder rebellion.

The IA is now taking its gradualist approach to the next stage by targeting companies where existing directors who get 25% or more as a pension top-up will be in the frame – that’s unless there is a “credible” plan to fall in line with the workers by 2022.

Given the rows of 2018, that should prompt some rethinking in boardrooms. So it should. Companies have abused the system disgracefully. Cash payments “in lieu” of pension contributions have become salary supplements dressed in more pleasing clothes.

If only the fund managers could show the same backbone on bonus schemes that are designed to pay out something in all weathers, we might get somewhere.