Off to Grocers Hall in the City for the Growth Company Awards where we sip champagne in a beautiful red velvet room adorned by paintings of well known grocers of shopping days past, including er…. Lord Carrington. I’m not sure what his connection is; perhaps like me he worked at Sainsbury’s while he was a student (though somehow I doubt it).
The Awards are sponsored by Sharemark, promoting its leading alternative share-trading platform which allows small businesses to raise liquidity (even for businesses already quoted on another exchange). These events can become a bit indistinguishable from each other especially after plenty of liquidity of the bubbly kind and so it was good to see that Gavin Oldham, the founder and CEO of Share plc, Sharemark’s parent company, was the headline speaker to kick the evening off.
Mr Oldham always has something memorable to say, based on his many years in the City and having set up not only Share plc but also Barclays Stockbrokers. He is a fierce advocate of private shareholder rights and not afraid to point his finger at the City when he feels it appropriate, and that was what he did this evening. He had taken part in a breakfast seminar with a dozen CEOs of AIM companies and all were questioning the benefit of staying on the market; not surprising when you consider that 257 companies delisted from AIM last year.
The thrust of his talk was that too often companies are taken down the IPO route onto AIM or PLUS but that thereafter they get little support from advisers in making the most of their listing, and become “stranded”. The problem is often that too few companies focus on liquidity or get support from advisers on managing liquidity. This in turn is usually due to the IPO process almost invariably being satisfied by a placing to institutional shareholders and having too few retail shareholders on board. He suggested that City brokers should get retail brokers involved so the company has more private shareholders on its share register. These are the people who provide liquidity through frequent trading whereas institutional shareholders tend to hold their shares and not trade frequently and sometimes the shares stagnate due to minimal trading.
You can’t fault Mr Oldham’s logic but equally looking at this commercially from a City brokers point of view, it’s much easier to just talk to a few institutions and get the placing done rather than deal with tens or hundreds of private shareholders. Of course, Mr Oldham would point out that Share plc can handle this nightmare for City brokers, but this is too rational an argument; the City, despite its dynamic image, is actually quite slow at changing its ways whatever those ways are. Hence, Mr Oldham’s rallying call that this area requires a change of attitude from corporate advisers.
An excellent evening overall, and a good point made by Mr Oldham, but I was left wondering why something called the Growth Company Awards only has two of its nine awards for growth companies and the remainder for City advisers. Surely shome misthtake as they say after too much fizzy liquidity.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Thursday, 18 February 2010
"M&S – You wouldn’t run your own company like this. Why do boards allow it?"
“If we don’t learn from history we’ll repeat the same mistakes.”
That’s an annoying phrase but in the case of Marks & Spencer it seems very appropriate.
You can’t have failed to notice that M&S has appointed a new chief executive and terms have finally been agreed with him. Marc Bolland will start on 1 May and will be paid a base salary of £975,000. Not excessive you might think except that there are six other components to his remuneration package which could mean that he receives £14.8m in his first year. This is quite a staggering amount for someone who until he joined Morrisons, had never worked in retail and who at Morrisons hasn’t had any experience of non-food retailing, which makes up the bulk of M&S revenues.
So, how did the board of M&S get to a situation where they have had the same CEO and then Executive Chairman for six years but haven’t got around to grooming one of their 75,000 employees to take over? If they had, they might find that they didn’t need to pay £15m to Stuart Rose’s successor. What does it also say about Sir Stuart Rose that he hasn’t been developing his executive team for the top job?
In any Chief Executive role, whether M&S or running your own small business, leadership skills are usually the most important characteristic of success. Every CEO should have as one of their objectives that they develop their successor and infact in good companies there will be two or even three potential successors who are then motivated to perform strongly with the hope of getting the top job. In smaller owner-managed businesses of course, the good Chief Executive develops the management team so as to make the company less reliant on him/herself which in turn makes the business more saleable at some point in the future.
In a business like M&S which has a board of directors of the great and good, how could the succession issue never have been addressed in all that time? Especially as M&S had been here before; Stuart Rose himself had been parachuted in during 2004 replacing internally-sourced CEO Roger Holmes, who clearly wasn’t the man for the job but had got the role anyway. Poor Mr Holmes was probably the least bad person for the CEO role at that time and might have muddled through had it not been for the hostile bid from Philip Green, at which point everyone recognised that he wasn’t the right person for the job after all. Stuart Rose came to the rescue having been snubbed for the CEO role previously as the M&S board obviously thought they had it covered when they didn’t.
What does this say about how large company boards operate? Well, its not an encouraging sign especially after the debacles of poor board performance at other companies over the last year or two such as Northern Rock and RBS. What does it mean for owner-managed businesses in Enterprise Britain? Probably too much to go into detail in this column but it raises questions you should ask about how effective your board is and whether your board members add value and have accountability (yes even the non-execs!) and whether you are building a strong management team and developing your high-flyers. Because if these things aren’t happening then sooner or later, like M&S shareholders, you may end up paying a hefty price to compensate for those failings.
That’s an annoying phrase but in the case of Marks & Spencer it seems very appropriate.
You can’t have failed to notice that M&S has appointed a new chief executive and terms have finally been agreed with him. Marc Bolland will start on 1 May and will be paid a base salary of £975,000. Not excessive you might think except that there are six other components to his remuneration package which could mean that he receives £14.8m in his first year. This is quite a staggering amount for someone who until he joined Morrisons, had never worked in retail and who at Morrisons hasn’t had any experience of non-food retailing, which makes up the bulk of M&S revenues.
So, how did the board of M&S get to a situation where they have had the same CEO and then Executive Chairman for six years but haven’t got around to grooming one of their 75,000 employees to take over? If they had, they might find that they didn’t need to pay £15m to Stuart Rose’s successor. What does it also say about Sir Stuart Rose that he hasn’t been developing his executive team for the top job?
In any Chief Executive role, whether M&S or running your own small business, leadership skills are usually the most important characteristic of success. Every CEO should have as one of their objectives that they develop their successor and infact in good companies there will be two or even three potential successors who are then motivated to perform strongly with the hope of getting the top job. In smaller owner-managed businesses of course, the good Chief Executive develops the management team so as to make the company less reliant on him/herself which in turn makes the business more saleable at some point in the future.
In a business like M&S which has a board of directors of the great and good, how could the succession issue never have been addressed in all that time? Especially as M&S had been here before; Stuart Rose himself had been parachuted in during 2004 replacing internally-sourced CEO Roger Holmes, who clearly wasn’t the man for the job but had got the role anyway. Poor Mr Holmes was probably the least bad person for the CEO role at that time and might have muddled through had it not been for the hostile bid from Philip Green, at which point everyone recognised that he wasn’t the right person for the job after all. Stuart Rose came to the rescue having been snubbed for the CEO role previously as the M&S board obviously thought they had it covered when they didn’t.
What does this say about how large company boards operate? Well, its not an encouraging sign especially after the debacles of poor board performance at other companies over the last year or two such as Northern Rock and RBS. What does it mean for owner-managed businesses in Enterprise Britain? Probably too much to go into detail in this column but it raises questions you should ask about how effective your board is and whether your board members add value and have accountability (yes even the non-execs!) and whether you are building a strong management team and developing your high-flyers. Because if these things aren’t happening then sooner or later, like M&S shareholders, you may end up paying a hefty price to compensate for those failings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)