David Prosser: Pru's shareholders hold it to account
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 is too early to say whether Tidjane Thiam can carry on as chief executive of Prudential in the wake of his misjudgement of the willingness of investors to back the insurer's purchase of AIA. But what has happened at Pru is that this has been a triumph for those who want shareholders to assert themselves more aggressively.
If only, for example, leading investors in Royal Bank of Scotland had been prepared to stick their heads above the parapet in this way, rather than supinely accepting that the bank's management knew best when it got into a bidding war for ABN Amro just as the credit crisis was taking hold.
For too long, the attitude of many large institutional investors has been that it is not their place to make a fuss at the companies in which they hold stakes. At the extreme, investors have reduced their exposure to companies where they disagreed with management decisions. More commonly, they have simply shrugged their shoulders and not bothered voting their shares at the AGM.
That bred a generation of executives who knew their actions would very rarely be scrutinised by those to whom they were in theory accountable. This was one reason why bank bosses were able to expose their companies to the sorts of risks that eventually prompted the credit crisis.
Does the Pru rebellion – and the fact that shareholders' revolts over pay are now so much more common – prove that investors have learned their lesson? Well, to a point. It is to be welcomed that shareholders are now more likely to challenge their executives. But engagement does not have to be so confrontational – there has been rather too much grandstanding during the Pru affair.
This, by the way, is the problem for Mr Thiam. It should be possible for a chief executive to propose a course of action only to change his mind after a reasoned debate with leading shareholders. In Pru's case, the debate became a public fight in which the loser was eventually humiliated. It may be too late to restore relations.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments