Pilkington Glass, P&O, the telecoms firm O2, and Mowlem. All British companies unlikely to remain so for very much longer. In the past few days bids have gone in for all of them.

And more foreign predators are hovering around the BOC group, Cable & Wireless, Hanson, Centrica and Gallaher. Lots of activity, but not much discussion about its underlying significance. Whether what’s ‘right’ for shareholders might not be good for the long term prosperity and security of UK plc. Take Marconi, for instance, a once hugely rich and powerful British marque sold off last week to Erricson. It went under the hammer because it failed to win a key contract from British Telecom for next generation technology. They were perfectly capable of supplying what BT wanted but their bid was deemed too expensive. The contracts went to several overseas outfits including a state owned (ie subsidised) Chinese company. From the moment it lost the contract Marconi decided it was effectively ‘in play’.

BT is headed by a Dutchman but I don’t blame him for making a purely commercial decision. So whose job is it to protect the national interest? Or when it comes to business, is such a notion dated or indeed dead?
It certainly isn’t in virtually any other country you care to mention. Especially when assets are perceived to have strategic importance.

France for instance went all Gallic when an American company was rumoured to be taking an interest in Danone, a maker of not- very- good yoghurt. ( I am not sure which year yoghurt began to assume either strategic or, indeed, tactical significance in France).They complained, despite the fact that their [State owned Electricity company](http://www.edfenergy.com/html/showPage.do?name=welcome.til) was allowed to buy London Electricity a few years back, and they’re currently bidding for Britain’s biggest plasterboard manufacturer.

The Americans aren’t afraid to act either. They just stopped the Chinese grabbing one of their middle order oil companies on national interest grounds. Yet they still consider themselves the home of free trade. Ironically there’s speculation that the Americans could scupper a P&O takeover. The company owns ports in Newark, Baltimore and Miami so US regulators will have a say in any deal.
It would be interesting if - for its own national interest reasons- the US were to enable P&O to continue to fly the red ensign.

Meanwhile, what to do? I am not suggesting we go as far as the ludicrous French but if I was sailing this ship I would ask whether shareholders’ interests and the national interest could be made to coincide more frequently than they do in the UK? For instance, instead of the London Stock Exchange waiting around to be ravaged by the Germans, the French or, as seems now quite likely, the Americans, why doesn’t it go out and do some ravaging itself? Like most of the operations discussed here, it’s not a failing enterprise, it’s a healthy company which many banks would be happy to help leverage toward an aquisition or two. Look at Pilkington, for instance, it’s currently threatened with a takeover by a Japanese company half its size. Where is Nippon Sheet Glass getting the £2billion it needs? No one really knows except Sumitomo, but the real question is where are Pilkington’s own ambitions?

The way forward may well be a limit on the size of the shareholding any director or chairman is allowed to have in any public company they run. When you stand to make, personally, many millions of pounds from a successful takeover it becomes quite difficult to see where the interests of your company stop and your own interests begin.

Labels: Did you notice a mountain, volcano thing?

[ 0 comments ]