James Moore: Rule-breaking Bellway must be voted down
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 Compared with what the Americans say StanChart has been up to, Bellway's sins seem rather small by comparison. All the builder has done is drive a coach and horses through the UK's Combined Code on Corporate Governance.
Yesterday it announced that John Watson, the current chief executive and 34-year veteran of the company will be taking over as chairman. That this violates the code on just about every level seems to have passed the company by. The change was simply presented in its trading statement as a fait accompli.
Of course, companies are allowed to deviate from the code's provisions if they provide an explanation. Still waiting for that.
Bellway has form on this front. It was losing votes on its remuneration report before voting "no" became fashionable among the fund management community during the Shareholder Spring. That's quite an achievement. Before that, it usually took a two-fingered salute from the chairman of the remuneration committee to get an institutional investor to so much as abstain.
There are good reasons for companies having independent chairmen (or women), which Mr Watson is not. They should, in theory, bring fresh, external perspectives to companies as well as providing objective oversight of chief executives and boards. That's not going to happen at Bellway.
If institutional investors have any understanding of the concept of "fiduciary duty", they should now act in their clients' and in Bellway's best interests by voting down Mr Watson's appointment. The company's next annual meeting should be an interesting one.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments