Plenty to prove for BT's Bonfield
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.Nineteen ninety-seven could hardly have started out better for Peter Bonfield, the dapper, 53-year-old chief executive of British Telecom. BT was making good money. In the year to 31 March it reported pre-tax profits of pounds 3.2bn on sales of pounds 14.9bn, up 6 and 3 per cent respectively.
Across Europe BT was seen as the front-runner among privatised phone utilities preparing EU telecoms deregulation in 1998. Through its ownership of 20 per cent of MCI, BT lookedpositioned to build a business in the rich US phone market.
Then lightning struck. BT bid for the remaining 80 per cent of MCI but shareholders forced it to scale down the offer. This opened the door to a little-known telecoms company called WorldCom. It stole MCI from under BT's nose - paying $37bn (pounds 22bn) for it, the highest M&A price in history.
All is not lost. BT earned a cool $2.25bn profit on its $4.3bn stake in MCI. This is more than enough money to buy a substitute.
For now, however, Mr Bonfield is exposed. He will have to prove himself next year. Yet there is no clear standard for judging the performance of the heads of Britain's global companies against that of their counterparts overseas.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments