We have looked at the Auto Industry on a few occasions here in Financial Regulation Matters , with posts ranging from industry reorganisation with Peugeot’s purchase of Opel-Vauxhall , the increasing securitisation of auto finance packages , to corruption within the industry . Today, we will review the latest demonstration of an ever-tightening marketplace by looking at the news that Geely Automotive, a significant player in the Chinese electric vehicle market , has recently invested $9 billion for a 9.7%, and largest stake in German automotive powerhouse Daimler . There have been some concerns raised as to the potential effects of the deal, so whilst we shall be focusing upon those, we will also look at the sentiment that this news provides for the direction of the automotive industry. Geely’s purchase of the Daimler shares, making it the largest shareholder, comes on the back of a concerted wave of action by Chinese automotive companies outside of Chinese markets. Geely is the

Before this post starts with any preamble, it is important to note a couple of things. Firstly, this post will not be covering the issue in tremendous depth, mostly because the issue is so large that to attempt to do so in this forum would not do the issue any justice at all – there are many fabulous campaigners that do the issue tremendous justice on account of their continuous and tireless campaign against what is now confirmed as being a systemic issue (see @Spandavia and @Ian_Fraser for just two excellent examples of this). The second thing to note is that the report, which we will focus on in this post, is particularly extensive and requires a thorough examination (the report can be found here ). With those aspects acknowledged, what this post will do is look at some of the ramifications from the report, the scenario within which it was released (which is a remarkable story in itself), and also what it potentially tells us about the relationship between the regulator and t

The case of Carillion has made for a number of posts here in Financial Regulation Matters , ranging from the commencement of the crisis to the fallout, both in regards to the effect upon the sector and also the effect upon the pension fund and the protective framework that exists to protect pension holders from these sorts of crises . However, news that broke today concerning the performance of the pensions regulator in the U.K. and, specifically, its performance in the previous few years regarding the ever-deteriorating situation at Carillion has brought the pensions regulator’s performance to the forefront of discussions. In today’s post, we will review this breaking news and further examine the pensions regulator as, one would assume, the crisis continues and associated authorities are dragged further into the mire in relation to this massive collapse. Rather than restart the examination of Carillion in any great detail, it is best to start with the issue at hand. Today’s n

This very brief post provides a small update on a continuing story that has been covered throughout here in Financial Regulation Matters . Tesco has been in the news a lot recently, whether that be on account of aiming to move into the ‘discount supermarket’ marketplace , or on account of a massive amount of job losses as the company goes through a restructuring process, both on the shop floor and across management . However, our focus today will be on providing an update to the ongoing attempted takeover of the wholesale firm Booker. The proposed takeover of Bookers has been a protracted one, and although the deal has been given the go-ahead, slightly controversially, from competition regulators , there are still a number of hurdles to clear before the deal can be completed. Whilst the approval from the competition regulator was a major hurdle, getting everybody on side is perhaps the largest hurdle and, in that sense, the deal still has some way to go before it can cross the

Here in Financial Regulation Matters we have focused upon Sir Philip Green and his vast business empire on a number of occasions, with most posts assessing the downfall of the British retailer ‘BHS’ and the subsequent fallout that spanned from that. Frank Field MP, who chairs the Parliamentary ‘Work and Pensions Select Committee’ has, by way of the Committee’s mandate, come into direct opposition with Green over the collapse of BHS and the effect on its pension holders, and news today suggests that they are yet again set to resume hostilities over Green’s business plans; so, in this post, we will detail what is at issue this time and look at some of the possible effects that may ensure from this continuation of investigation. The collapse of BHS, and Green’s involvement in the reduction of its pension schemes beforehand, made for a spectacle that was remarkable, but in reality not surprising. We covered the account of Sir Philip Green taking a daring approach to being questi

In today’s post, we will be previewing an article produced by this author that was very recently published in the Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment (available here ). The article is concerned with recent developments within the ‘Principles of Responsible Investment’ (PRI) initiative that is being undertaken by the U.N., with the focus being on the proposed incorporation of the leading credit rating agencies (for the most part) and their products. The emphasis of the article is on explaining the view that, based on the historical development of the credit rating industry, inducting them into the potentially systemic-altering movement carries with it great risk, and it is that risk that is analysed within the article. The article begins by not explaining the developments within the PRI, but by examining a concept known as ‘rating addiction’. Using the literature to provide context for the concept, an assessment is undertaken to examine how the leading rating agencies

Today’s post will preview a recent article by this author that was published by European Company Law, entitled ‘Scope Ratings: The Viability of a Response’ (details here ). The short preview will discuss the rationale for the article, some of its aims and achievements, and then the wider picture with respect to the continuing Viability Of articles, with this article representing the fourth in the series. This article, as mentioned above, represents the fourth edition of the Viability Of series produced by this author, which is a series which aims to examine and assess the growing number of alternatives to the Big Three rating agencies (S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch) that dominate the credit rating marketplace. Details of the first three are available here , here and here (although the titles are different in these last two articles, they are still in the same series) and this current article operates on exactly the same lines. The rationale for these articles is straightforwar

In the second post today, we will take a brief look at the latest development from a regulator (loosely termed) that we have looked at many occasions – the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). In responding to actions taken in the midst of the Crisis, news today confirms that the Office has charged Barclays for loans the bank made to Qatar at the same time investors from the Country provided the necessary lifeline which allowed the bank to survive the Crisis without governmental support. The impact of the prospective action could be far-reaching, so in this post the details of the allegations will be examined, as will the potential fallout. During the Crisis, the British-based bank tapped investors for nearly £21 billion, with almost £4.5 billion coming from Qatar Holding – part of the State’s Sovereign Wealth Fund – and Challenger Universal, the investment vehicle of the former Qatari Prime Minister . Furthermore, the bank acquired more than £7 billion more from the two vehicles, along

In the first of two posts today that focus on the banking sector, we will start by looking at the troubled bank RBS. We have looked at RBS on a large number of occasions here in Financial Regulation Matters , with posts ranging from its incredible losses since the Crisis, the bank trying desperately to keep its high-ranking officials (mostly former) out of the court room , and also its appalling treatment of SMEs . In continuing the first and third areas of focus, news recently adds developments to these stories which detail a bank on its knees. However, by adjoining these analyses with the examination of the Government, its regulators, and also Parliamentary committees, the bank’s future comes into focus and is, seemingly, in a particularly precarious phase for a number of reasons. Looking first at the issue regarding the bank’s treatment of SMEs, via its notorious ‘Global Restructuring Group’, we are no strangers here in Financial Regulation Matters to the developments in th

In today’s post, the focus will once again be on the massive retailer Tesco, with news this time relating to a potentially record-breaking claim making its way up the legal ladder. We looked on Tuesday at the protracted fraud case involving Tesco executives , which subsequently collapsed, but today the retailer is making the headlines as part of a concerted legal push against a number of the top supermarkets in the U.K., all on the same basis. In this post we will assess the particulars of the claim, and look at the potential effects for the retailer, and the sector moreover. On a number of occasions here in Financial Regulation Matters , we have assessed the concepts of equality and equal-pay between the genders on a number of occasions, with most posts focusing upon the lack of diversity within companies (see here , here , and here ). Today’s post however focuses on the claim from the law firm Leigh Day, acting as a representative for potentially more than 200,000 Tesco staff,

Today’s brief post looks at the fraud case concerning three Tesco Executives that has been rumbling on for months at great expense. Today, there was a major development which raises the question as to whether the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) will continue its action against the three Executives, bearing in mind the many different factors that must now be taken into consideration; in this post, those factors will be laid before we assess whether it is (a) worth the SFO continuing its action and (b) what the effects of that decision, either way, may be. We have looked at this case before , albeit briefly, in Financial Regulation Matters when we looked at the decision of the Financial Reporting Council to discontinue investigations into PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in the wake of the massive accounting scandal that saw the SFO fine Tesco £129 million for the accounting transgression. The current case is concerned with three individuals in particular – Carl Rogberg, John Scouler, a

Yesterday Financial Regulation Matters was a year old and, coincidentally, a number of stories covered throughout the first year of the blog have had some significant developments over the past few days; so, in today’s post, we will have a whistle-stop tour of these developments and ask how the recent developments may impact upon a number of parties concerned with these impactful business stories. Samsung Heir Released from Prison On the 25 th August 2017, we assessed the impact of the changing political, legal, and business landscape within South Korea with the massive news that Lee Jae-yong, the heir to the massive Samsung empire, was to be imprisoned for five years on counts of bribery, embezzlement, and perjury amongst a whole host of criminal infractions as part of his attempt to consolidate his, and his company’s position as one of the leading ‘ chaebols ’. The news today, that Lee’s sentence was reduced to a suspended sentence after just a year in prison , should b