Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

James Moore: Another candidate for a kicking at the Pru

Friday 11 June 2010 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Outlook It seems that barely a day goes by without one shareholder or another coming out and calling for heads to roll at Prudential in the wake of the £450m the insurer wasted on its failed attempt to buy Asian insurer AIA.

The storm whipped up by Monday's bruising annual meeting – when one small shareholder described the company's recent conduct as "a disgrace" to loud applause – has yet to abate. That's not least because Prudential doesn't appear to see that it has a problem. Which raises questions about just what James Ross, the senior independent director, is doing.

The role of the SID was created because it was felt that company chairmen were all too easily prone to losing their objectivity and turning a tin ear to their shareholders at times of corporate strife.

The SID should, in theory, provide a conduit through which shareholders can give vent to their concerns when this happens. There were a few protests when the idea was floated – lots of hand wringing about what a dreadful slur such a suggestion was on "honourable" company chairmen and women and how it could create friction in the boardroom – but the concept appears to have worked well in practice and is now a well established part of the British corporate scene. Until now.

When a fund manager like Schroders feels the need to go public with its discontent, a company has a problem. The latter is no headbanger, quite the reverse. It is one of those that usually only puts its head above the parapet when it is seriously unhappy. That shows the scale of the difficulties Prudential is now facing. Something is clearly going badly wrong with the way the company is communicating and managing relationships with its shareholders. Mr Ross, a former chief executive of Cable & Wireless, therefore has some serious questions to answer.

Because what's really disturbing about what is happening at Prudential is that this company is a major institutional shareholder. Its fund manager, M&G, tends to maintain a studied silence when companies in which it invests, have issues. Perhaps we now know why. If Prudential can't get its own house in order how on earth can M&G lecture other companies on good corporate practice.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in