Pension funds in fresh broadside against London Stock Exchange
The exchange’s recent push to soften boardroom rules for listed companies has come under renewed attack by a group of local council schemes.
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.A group of local council pension funds has launched a fresh attack on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) for what it sees as a push to lower boardroom standards for listed firms.
The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), which represents 87 local authority schemes, said it was “resolute” in its concerns about the stock exchange boss Dame Julia Hoggett’s recent push to reforming listing rules.
As well as being the LSE’s chief executive, Dame Julia leads the Capital Markets Industry Taskforce (CMIT), an industry group that has resisted attempts to strengthen the UK’s corporate governance code.
These include proposed rules to make companies report on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics which were ultimately scrapped earlier this year.
Dame Julia has also publicly complained that chief executives on the stock exchange are not paid enough to attract the best candidates for top jobs, compared to outsized salaries and bonuses in the US.
This has led to concerns that governance rules on pay could be watered down, such as a requirement for companies to engage with investors when more than one-fifth of them revolt over directors’ remuneration.
Doug McMurdo, chairman of the group of local authority funds, wrote that the push “does not present the requisite analysis and/or evidence that would stand up to market rigour. It is on this basis we remain firm”.
The letter, dated August 30, is the third time the forum, whose members manage £350 billion of assets, has complained on the matter.
Meanwhile, the CMIT has argued that easing listing rules will attract more company founders to choose London as their desired location to float on the stock market, rather than alternatives such as New York.
We would point out that the cost of capital is set by investors in the markets, not lawyers, nor the sell-side, yet those are the only interests that have been represented by the CMIT, in our view
The stock exchange has faced criticism for a lack of companies listing in London in recent years, particularly after British microchip company Arm snubbed the exchange for the US in 2023.
But Mr McMurdo wrote: “We would point out that the cost of capital is set by investors in the markets, not lawyers, nor the sell-side, yet those are the only interests that have been represented by the CMIT, in our view.”
He added: “It is a case study in how governance of capital markets should not be conducted.”
The LSE Group was approached for comment.