Shareholders Attempt to Intervene in Tesco’s Business Plan: A Welcome Change of Mentality
In the second post today, the focus
will be on the news recently that two major shareholders in Tesco, the massive
retail company that engages in multiple avenues of business, have sought to
publicly express
their opposition to the company’s plans to purchase Booker, a wholesale
grocery firm, for a reported £3.7 billion. Whilst there are more elements to this
story which need to be discussed, the sentiment that is emanating from this
news, that shareholders are taking the long-term into account and not
succumbing to the destructive narrative of growth at any cost is the most
important way forward, is a very welcome sentiment indeed. Therefore, this post
will assess these details, and also the importance of this sentiment being
repeated in other arenas.
The attempted merger with Booker,
which was originally made public in January, was billed as a move which would
bring benefits to customers, retailers, and ultimately deliver ‘significant
shareholder value’. However, the deal began under a cloud of acrimony, with
non-executive Director Richard Cousins quitting
Tesco just before the news was made public, in a move we now know was
because he opposed
to Tesco buying Booker. However, that animosity reached a higher level yesterday
with Schroders, a renowned Fund Manager, and Artisan Partners, another large
Fund Manager – who, together, own 9% of the stock in Tesco – both calling for
John Allan, the Chairman of Tesco who was the focus of a recent
post in Financial Regulation Matters,
to pull
out of the deal as soon as possible. The shareholders have been reported as
labelling the move ‘foolhardy’,
and there is a notable reason for this.
Tesco has experiencing a poor
period in its history of late, and for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most
obvious, or at least the most reported issue is the recent fine given to Tesco
by the Serious Fraud Office – a fine of £129 million, potentially
rising to £214 million because of a compensatory package – because the firm
were found to have purposefully
overstated their profits in 2014 by £250 million for the first-half of the year.
However, the problems go back much farther than 2014. Attributing the problems
to the leadership of former Chief Executive Sir Terry Leahy, there are some who
have spoken about the ‘legacy
of the strategic decisions he made’ as causing this recent wave of poor
performance for Tesco. These decisions can rightly be classified as forming
part of a ‘blinkered
pursuit of profit’, which can be seen in the failed endeavours like
the purchases of Giraffe, Dobbies, Harris & Hoole, Fresh & Easy (which
represented a failed attempt to break the U.S. market, Blinkbox, Homeplus
(which represented a failed
attempt to break the Asian market), and finally the Donnhumby data company.
This remarkable period of expansion, based upon an overriding sentiment of
confidence, arrogance, and bravado,
would create incredible losses, and in fact would see Tesco post one of the largest
losses in British corporate history, with an incredible pre-tax loss of
£6.4 billion in 2015. As a result, a new CEO was put in place – Dave Lewis –
and he was tasked with steering the massive company back towards the black,
something which he achieved in 2016 with a pre-tax
profit of £162 million for 2016. However, it appears that this blinkered
pursuit of profit and ‘shareholder value’ is now back on the table, and it is
this that the major shareholders are against.
The two major shareholders make the
point that, at £3.7 billion, the proposed price of the merger would not
represent significant shareholder value and that creating this value would be ‘extremely
challenging’. The manager of Artisan’s global value funds has been reported
as stating that ‘we
just don’t understand, in a business as fragile as retail, why on earth would
we risk distracting ourselves from that huge goal [of simplifying the business]’,
which, in relation to the failed recent history of the firm, is a rational
deduction. However, Tesco officially responded by saying that, although they
value the views of their shareholders, they remain confident that ‘it
will enhance our recovery plans’, to which Dave Lewis added ‘we’re
absolutely, completely committed to the deal’. Lewis points at the response
of the stock market over the past two years as evidence of the move to
recommence the expansionist movement, with former senior executives adding that
the views of Schroders and Artisan do
not represent the general feelings amongst Tesco’s shareholders. There is
clearly a long way to go before the proposed merger takes place, or is
conclusively ruled out.
Nevertheless, the sentiment and activism
displayed by Schroders and Artisan is a positive move. It is not positive
because shareholder activism is always positive, but because the managers of
these socially-central institutions must
be held to account at every turn – although there demise of Tesco is not even
on the table, a hypothetical understanding that if Tesco were to fail, it would
be the taxpayer that saved it, means that it is important that blind campaigns
of growth are kept in check at all times. We can see the reason for that in the
recent punishment by the Serious Fraud Office – companies that seek to expand
in this manner will usually transgress at one of two crucial junctures (and
sometimes both): either as they seek to expand; or as they seek to reduce the
consequences of their failure to expand. In Tesco’s case, the company purposefully and illegally overstated their profits, thus painting a better picture
to investors than was actually the case. Whilst this mode of operating is
usually attributed to large financial institutions, and quite rightly so, we
should be more than aware that it applies to all companies – the recent
post about the transgressions of Rolls-Royce, and now Tesco, should be
clear examples of this understanding. It is vital that shareholders do their
part for society and seek to encourage and insist upon sustainable and responsible
growth, rather than that demonstrated by Tesco under the leadership of Sir
Leahy.
Comments
Post a Comment