Nationwide must hope it doesn't get dropped by Garner like Openreach

As if BT Openreach didn’t have enough problems, with Ofcom conducting a review and its rivals urging a break-up, the chief executive is planning to log off. Joe Garner is trading copper wires, connectivity and a vicious fight about whether BT should be allowed to keep its hands on a company that is supposed to deliver ultrafast broadband to millions of Britons, for the more prosaic world of trying to make a profit from savings and loans at a time of near-zero interest rates with Nationwide.

It isn’t hard to see the attraction of Mr Garner from the building society’s perspective. He has previously run HSBC’s UK arm and his CV is peppered with senior financial services roles. It doesn’t hurt that his enthusiasm for the industry is very obvious. Moreover, the last three chief executives of Nationwide were internal appointments and the society should benefit from an external hire this time.

Mr Garner’s new regulators, who these days keep a close eye on the people that deposit-taking institutions hire to run them, should be happy too. He ticks all the right boxes and should sail through his regulatory interview. But one of the things that makes Nationwide unique is that its members get a say. What might give them pause for at least a little thought is Mr Garner’s decision to abandon his previous employer at such a crucial juncture. Could the same happen to them a couple of years down the line?

But ultimately the society is the winner here, a fact about which its more active members are no doubt aware. So they’ll give Mr Garner their backing, although one or two of them might be inclined to have a bit of fun with him at the next annual meeting if they’ve had a bad experience with Openreach. But that’s about the worst they’ll throw at their new king. And their complaints will be a mite easier to brush off than those of Vodafone boss Vittorio Colao or Sky’s Jeremy Darroch, whose bricks will be crashing though his successor’s window before they’ve even had a chance to redecorate his old office.

While the debate over security took centre stage in the immediate aftermath of the bloody atrocities in Paris, the issue of terror financing was justifiably being given a greater airing yesterday.

“We have agreed to take further important steps to cut off the financing that terrorists rely on,” Prime Minister David Cameron said, addressing the theme at the G20. Good-o. Perhaps it might be time for some of his colleagues to take a brief look at Transparency International’s assessment of the UK’s anti-money-laundering (AML) framework, then.

Here’s what it says: “The AML regime in the UK is inadequate and structurally unsound. This greatly increases the risk of the UK being used to launder illicit funds, including the proceeds of corruption and terrorist financing.”

As I highlighted in this column last week, TI has already had some pointed words for the G20 on the failure of its members to adopt laws that would end the secrecy that makes it all too easy for the corrupt to hide their identities and shift money across international borders. There has been an awful lot of talk, rather less in the way of action. The action that TI would like to see is the setting up of strong, well-resourced AML supervision across sectors, transparent enforcement to deter non-compliance, and for individuals to be held to account for failures.

Its case is made all the more compelling by what happened at the weekend. The work required to starve the terrorists of funding may not generate politicians headlines like drone strikes and security clampdowns will, but if it’s results they are after, it should be right at the top of the agenda.

Rowan Gormley rode his Naked Wines into Majestic on a wave of goodwill that sent the shares soaring. It would be deeply unfair to say he was wearing the emperor’s new clothes, but reality has since taken a big bite out of the share price. After it initially fell on the back of the interim results, investors decided they liked what was in Mr Gormley’s tasting glass and pushed it back up.

To be fair, while those results weren’t exactly classed as growth quality, they were a bit better than vin de table. Sales at Majestic stores open at least a year were up a bit, and “adjusted” profits were flat, although a string of one-offs meant the headline pre-tax figure was down sharply.

And Mr Gormley is doing the right things. He’s overhauled management and ditched the silly six-bottle minimum purchase that was holding back sales. His new strategy will see the end of the rush to open new stores, with the focus moving to customer retention, combined with a pledge to boost sales to £500m by 2019.

It isn’t just the supermarkets feeling the heat from the likes of Lidl. Majestic is too. The German grocer has grabbed 6 per cent of the wine market, and extended its value proposition into the quality end of it too. There aren’t many outlets that will sell you a bottle of Barolo for a tenner.

Majestic will always struggle to compete with prices like that, but if it can make its customers feel loved it shouldn’t need to. Meanwhile Naked Wines, which has supported young and innovative winemakers through crowd funding, is growing fast. Without it, Majestic might look rather exposed.