Connect with us

News

Smith & Nephew investors urged to oppose ‘excessive’ pay rise for boss

Published

on

Smith & Nephew investors urged to oppose ‘excessive’ pay rise for boss

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Smith & Nephew shareholders have been urged to vote against an “excessive” pay rise of almost 30 per cent for the US-based boss of the FTSE 100 industrial group, the latest salvo in the battle by international companies listed in London to boost executive pay.

Under Smith & Nephew’s proposals, Texas-based chief executive Deepak Nath would be paid up to $11.79mn next year if all targets were met, a 28.9 per cent increase on his current maximum package of $9.15mn. The rise is part of a new executive pay policy that the company, which has had four CEOs in five years, has asked investors to back in an effort to reduce turnover in its top ranks.

Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy adviser, has recommended shareholders reject the plan at next month’s annual meeting, calling it “excessive”.

Advertisement

In an unusual move, Smith & Nephew is seeking to increase the pay of Nath but not its finance boss, who works from the UK, reflecting higher pay packages on offer from American rivals. The company employs 18,000 people in about 100 countries.

ISS said it had “material concerns” about both the size of the increase and the structure of the new policy, which would hand US-based executives more shares in the company, irrespective of their performance. ISS added that “the argument for some adjustments for US-based executives has been strongly made by the company and is understood, and some changes could be justified”.

Meanwhile, Glass Lewis, another large proxy adviser, backed the remuneration policy despite “reservations”. Smith & Nephew had given a “compelling rationale” for paying more to its US-based leaders, Glass Lewis said.

The split in approach between the proxies underlines the differing views in the UK market over the need for international businesses to pay top executives more to compete with US-based rivals.

Companies including the London Stock Exchange Group and AstraZeneca are proposing pay increases for their bosses against a backdrop of concerns about the UK’s international competitiveness. Several companies with large North American operations, including betting group Flutter and building materials group CRH, have decided to quit the FTSE 100 for a primary listing in the US.

Advertisement

LSEG is preparing for a showdown with shareholders at its annual meeting later this month over a pay package for its chief executive David Schwimmer that is benchmarked against big US data groups such as S&P Global, rather than UK businesses.

The group is seeking shareholder approval to raise his pay to about
£11mn from £6.25mn, an increase of 76 per cent. Here too, ISS and Glass Lewis differ in their advice.

ISS is recommending that investors vote in favour of LSEG’s policy. But Glass Lewis believes “the increase is excessive”. It said that while it recognises the LSEG’s “global footprint and associated pay concerns”, the company has not “sufficiently rationalised an un-phased increase of this magnitude”.

In its annual report, Smith & Nephew said it had engaged on its executive remuneration proposals with 52 shareholders comprising two-thirds of its share capital and had received “support and positive feedback from the majority”.

The company declined to comment on ISS’s advice.

Advertisement

Smith & Nephew chair Rupert Soames told the Financial Times last month that the UK’s “current position on pay is not actually sustainable”.

The company’s proposal “is a sensible and pragmatic way of handling an issue where companies listed in London need to be able to recruit talent from markets around the world and those markets have different practices”, said Soames, who is also president of the CBI business lobby group in the UK.

Former chief executive Namal Nawana quit in 2019 after 18 months in the job because the company would not meet his pay demands.

Nath was paid $4.7mn in the last financial year, well below the maximum allocation. The proposed package includes a new restricted share plan worth 125 per cent of salary, vesting over three years. His maximum award under the company’s long-term incentive plan, which is linked to performance, would rise from 275 per cent to 300 per cent of base pay.

Advertisement

News

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Published

on

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Asian and European buyers are battling to source liquefied natural gas after the war in the Middle East choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking a fifth of global supplies.

In an indication of the intensifying contest for LNG since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, a handful of gas carriers have abruptly changed course while sailing to Europe and swung towards Asia instead, according to ship monitoring data analysed by the FT.

Countries across Asia are highly dependent on oil and gas sent through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway where shipping has slowed to a near standstill.

Advertisement

Most of the LNG produced in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is ordinarily shipped through the strait to Asia, and Asian LNG prices surged almost immediately after war broke out, creating an incentive to divert US gas to the region.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are among the countries that need to source LNG to make up for supplies they will not receive from the Gulf, said Massimo Di Odoardo, head of gas and LNG analysis at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Taiwan relied on Qatar for more than 30 per cent of its gas consumption in 2025, according to Citigroup, while for South Korea and Japan the figures were 15 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Asia typically uses more gas than Europe in the hotter summer months because of more air-conditioning use, creating urgency for Asian utilities to secure cargoes.

The vast majority of LNG is sold under long-term contracts rather than on the spot market, but some buyers are able to change the final destination of their purchases and some sellers are willing to break contracts if prices rise high enough.

Advertisement

By Thursday, surging European gas prices and rocketing shipping rates had swung the balance back against diversion of US LNG to Asia, according to data company Spark Commodities.

The decision on where to send gas carriers can depend on the relative levels of the European gas price, Asia’s JKM benchmark for LNG and shipping rates.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

For European buyers, the battle with Asia for LNG supplies is eerily familiar to the situation four years ago after Russia slashed pipeline natural gas flows to the continent following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Competition for spare cargoes then pushed prices to record levels.

On Monday, European gas prices reached as high as €69.50 per megawatt hour, more than double their level before the Iran conflict began. Even so, prices are still far from the €342 per megawatt hour reached in 2022.

JKM gas prices also more than doubled since the start of the war to $24.80 per 1mn British thermal units by Monday, equivalent to €73.10/MWh.

Advertisement

European buyers have learnt from their experience in 2022. “Europe has more weapons at its disposal in this extreme price scenario to try and fight,” said Alex Kerr, a partner at law firm Baker Botts.

Buyers had started putting clauses in contracts to say that suppliers would face much higher penalties if they diverted cargoes for commercial gain, Kerr said.

There is also much more LNG on the market now that is not committed to set destinations, largely because of new projects starting in the US.

While producers such as Qatar impose strict rules on where its LNG can be sent, almost all US exports are allowed to sail wherever buyers want. Several analysts said there had also been an increase in the willingness of some producers to break contracts for financial advantage.

This makes diversions more likely, while the reluctance of some European buyers to sign long-term supply contracts before the outbreak of war this month could prove costly.

Advertisement

Expectations of a global supply glut convinced some European buyers that it would be cheaper to wait until later in the year to sign supply deals.

Wood Mackenzie’s Di Odoardo said the buyers had also held off on LNG purchases because new EU legislation on methane emissions made it unclear whether they could incur penalties in the future.

The risk of prices rising as Europe and Asia fight for available cargoes is increasing every day the Strait of Hormuz stays almost closed.

Gas is more difficult to store and to carry in tankers than oil, making its markets more vulnerable to shortages and price shocks.

“The longer the Strait remains shut, the greater the risk that the shipping disruption turns into a genuine gas shortage, as tankers cannot load and facilities have limited storage,” said consultancy Oxford Economics in a research note.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Harry Dempsey in Tokyo. Data visualisation by Jana Tauschinski

Continue Reading

News

Is Iran another Iraq? : Sources & Methods

Published

on

Is Iran another Iraq? : Sources & Methods
Poor planning, overly ambitious goals, not thinking through the aftermath. These are the parallels that Richard Haass sees between the 2003 U.S. invastion of Iraq and its current air campaign against Iran.Haass was in charge of planning for the invasion as a top official in the State Department. He was a voice of dissent within the administration. Now he’s president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the Home & Away newsletter. He talks to Host Mary Louise Kelly about the Trump administration’s foreign policy and national security apparatus and where he sees it falling short on Iran.Email the show at sourcesandmethods@npr.orgNPR+ supporters hear every episode without sponsor messages and unlock access to our complete archive. Sign up at plus.npr.org.
Continue Reading

News

Concert promoter Live Nation settles US monopoly case over ticket sales

Published

on

Concert promoter Live Nation settles US monopoly case over ticket sales

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Live Nation has agreed to a preliminary settlement with the US government to end a monopoly case brought by the Department of Justice, in a deal that would stop short of breaking up the company.

The DoJ and some US states have reached a deal with Live Nation, which is the parent company of Ticketmaster, less than a week after trial began in New York, according to a senior justice department official. But 27 other state attorneys-general have refused to join the agreement, arguing it benefits Live Nation. 

The DoJ in 2024 sued Live Nation, accusing it of operating a monopoly that “suffocates its competition” in the live entertainment industry. The government alleged that the company illegally dominated the market for ticketing and concert promotion, using “exclusionary conduct” to wield an outsized influence over the majority of live concert venues across the US.

Advertisement

The lawsuit came amid growing discontent among fans, rivals, artists and US lawmakers, who have accused Live Nation of abusing its market power by charging exorbitant fees and retaliating against venues that choose to work with rivals.

It followed a fiasco during the ticket sale of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in 2022, when Ticketmaster’s website was overwhelmed by massive demand.

The terms of the deal, which will have to be confirmed by a federal court, include Live Nation offering a product that will allow other ticketing companies to use its technology. It would also let go of 13 amphitheatres it owns or controls — a number that may rise if other states join the agreement. 

The deal “opens up markets for other competitors, which will allow for competition that previously didn’t exist in primary ticketing and in the live entertainment space”, said a senior DoJ official. 

“That competition is going to have a direct impact on prices coming down,” he added. “It’ll also give consumers more options and not feel like they just have to go through Live Nation or Ticketmaster.”

Advertisement

But New York state attorney-general Letitia James, who has led a bipartisan group of states suing Live Nation, on Monday said in a statement that the agreement “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers. We cannot agree to it.”

“[W]e will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry,” she added.

Live Nation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending