Home | Log In | Register | Our Services | My Account | Contact | Help |
Speculators piled into BP shares Monday, sending the stock up more than 9% in London. Their excitement was based not on the prospects that this week could see a cap successfully fitted on the leaking well but on hopes that there may be a bid for the company.
They could be disappointed. Despite the recent battering of the share price, still mired almost 40% below the level it hit before the crisis despite Monday's bounce, BP still has a market capitalization of about 75 billion (about $113 billion). That is less than half that of the mighty ExxonMobil but, with the bid premium that would undoubtedly be demanded, it would be a big mouthful even for that giant.
Put aside the price though and ask what board would possibly countenance a bid for a company facing such uncertainties as BP. The ultimate bill for the Macondo disaster is, as yet, unquantifiable. It would be a brave company that volunteered to take on such unlimited liabilities.
Carl-Henric Svanberg, chairman of BP, speaking at the White House last month.
Any potential bidder would also surely want to wait until the various inquiries into the causes of the oil spill had reported. Was this a one-off occasioned by human error or evidence of the results of rampant cost-cutting that might be expensive to rectify? The first of the U.S. investigations is due to be completed by September. BP's own inquiry, the results of which it intends to make public, should have some preliminary findings to release before the fall with the final report scheduled for October.
In the meantime, the company is seeking to raise cash through asset sales and apparently finding plenty of interest. But the board cannot dismiss the prospect of a bid further down the line. It needs to be asking whether, in that event, it would be well placed to mount a defence and the answer has to be "Not with the current leadership."
Neither the chairman nor the chief executive have acquitted themselves well in this affair. Carl-Henric Svanberg may have been told by his chief executive early on in the affair that his presence in the US was not required. If so, it was advice he should not have heeded. It has left him looking as if he was not up to the job, no matter how he has since tried to reassure investors to the contrary.
As for Tony Hayward, the picture of him stone-walling as he was subjected to a congressional grilling will linger embarrassingly long after the well is capped. This disaster happened on his watch and he is going to have to pay the price, however much he would like the chance to try to stay long enough to redeem his reputation.
BP now has at its helm a couple of lame ducks. This is an unsustainable situation and there seems little point in delaying the action that is required to put it right. There are potential successors close at hand. Paul Anderson, the former chief executive of BHP Billiton, who joined the board as a non-executive director in February, is being talked of as a suitably qualified successor to Mr. Svanberg. Bob Dudley, who had been a contender for the chief executive's role before it was handed to Mr. Hayward, would be a reassuring choice to take over from him now. He has already been charged with over-seeing happenings in the Gulf of Mexico and could continue to do so while wearing the chief executive's hat.
The BP board has much to occupy it at the moment, not least the prospect of legal actions being launched against individual directors. It may argue that it would be premature to make any changes ahead of the results of the inquiries. Yet if a predator were then to come sniffing around the company, it would be too late to change the top team.
There seems little to be gained by not taking action soon and much to be lost.
Take down the ring fence
The U.K.'s Conservative party made an election pledge that the drastic public expenditure cuts to come would leave the National Health Service unscathed. It is continuing to insist that this is the case and that the treasured NHS. would be spared the pain to be inflicted elsewhere. Yet there are clearly savings to be made.
The restructuring that Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has announced, stripping out tiers of bureaucracy and handing muchmore power to general practitioners, should yield significant savings in the longer term, even if there is short-term disruption.
More immediately, the Department of Health itself could surely yield up some sacrifices for the national economic health. Its Web site lists a dizzying array of press officers, media advisors and speech writers. They may each be excellent at their jobs but is it really necessary, in an age of austerity, to have so many people employed in the publicity machine rather than the operating theatre?
Kremlin seeks cash
Perhaps his timing could have been better. Just days after ten Russian spies had been flown out of the U.S., President Dmitry Medvedev decided to make a plea for the U.S. and the European Union to invest more in his country.
"We need special alliances for modernization," said the President in a speech to Russian ambassadors. He listed "Germany, France, Italy, the EU in general and...the United States" as preferred partners.
Tacitly acknowledging that there are some qualms about the business climate in Russia, the president said "We believe in the triumph of law and that we can stamp out corruption...for the success of modernization." But those words may not be sufficient to quell fears of those who are nervous about the strength of property rights in the country or the scale of corruption.
It is to help with the modernization of the country's infrastructure that the president is particularly anxious to secure foreign investment. Perhaps the ten spies would have been more productive for the country had they been acting as investment advisors.