Reeves sells Britain short: Applauding an overseas takeover is like cheering for an own goal, says ALEX BRUMMER
That went badly for Britain's leading smart-chip designer, which is now quoted in New York.
Admittedly, pension consolidator Just Group is not a tech pioneer. But it is a London-quoted company which has accumulated £27billion in pension fund assets, serving some 500 smaller firms.
It is a key player in a sector where the UK's biggest insurers Legal & General and Aviva are leaders.
So, it is somewhat bizarre to hear Rachel Reeves trumpeting the £2.4billion takeover by Brookfield as reinforcing her narrative that Britain is good for business.
Doubtless the big 75 per cent premium to Just Group's share price will be irresistible to shareholders, which include several heavyweight UK fund managers such as Schroder and Baillie Gifford.
Brookfield is pledging to merge Just with its own pensions' buyout operation Blumont and keep headquarters in London.
At a time, however, when the Chancellor is busy shredding the City rulebooks to attract and keep listings in London, her support is an own goal.
Brookfield may well be an investor in London – it is the owner of Canary Wharf – but it is effectively a private equity outfit that buys and sells assets, and uses a debt financing model.
As broker AJ Bell points out, the Just deal is the tenth such takeout offer of more than £1billion this year. There are currently some £25billion worth of assets set to leave the FTSE indexes.
Applauding Just's new ownership is the equivalent of putting up a 'For sale' notice shouting come and get us.
Preposterous!
Power booster
Several prominent UK listed companies are going through transition.
Unilever, under the gaze of activist Nelson Peltz, is retreating from food to focus more on personal care and beauty.
It is ironic that its best-performing business – ice cream, where sales are soaring – is heading for a listing in Amsterdam.
Miner Anglo American is another company rapidly changing shape with a focus on copper. It is struggling with the disposal of 'diamonds are forever' De Beers.
Despite De Beers' grand brand it is suffering from a price drop for sparklers, partly caused by the prevalence of lab-grown diamonds.
Critically, the relationship between De Beers and Botswana, which owns 15pc of the equity, is deteriorating, amid a threat to take full control of a strategic asset.
Then there is Rolls-Royce. Since 'Turbo' Tufan Erginbilgic took the controls in January 2023 the turnaround has been nothing short of astonishing.
The stock (which I hold) has rocketed by more than ten times, taking its valuation past £90billion.
It has gone from near insolvency in the pandemic to being a national champion.
Markets have discovered Rolls is in most of the world's fastest-growing industrial sectors. Problems with the Trent 1000 engine have been overcome.
Demand for its power generation systems is surging as the AI revolution drives demand for data centres.
And when next generation Small Modular Reactors come on stream Rolls has first mover advantage in the nuclear energy sector.
Erginbilgic has high hopes of becoming a bigger player in engines for jets, worth a potential $1.6trillion. But Rolls faces subsidised competition from GE and Pratt & Whitney owner RTX.
As defence budgets across Europe expand, Rolls' nuclear propulsion for submarines and engines for fighter aircraft and weaponry will share in the spoils. Investor enthusiasm is no flash in the pan.
Cuckoo-land
Microsoft has joined Nvidia in the $4trillion club. Britain is clearly helping.
A final report by the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) found that Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services have an iron grip on the £10.5billion cloud computing sector – each with stakes of 30 to 40 per cent.
The CMA wants more competitive prices, easier switching for users and innovation.
Little chance of that from a Government that has embraced the tech giants despite avoidance of their fair share of UK taxes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
14 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
Times
14 minutes ago
- Times
Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
T he Home Office's latest move to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy feels more like political theatre than a serious solution. Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much. The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around. More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo ALAMY And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems? The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable. If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change. Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks. Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers. Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office. Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected. If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable. Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths
The Sun
16 minutes ago
- The Sun
Tragic tech tycoon Mike Lynch's business partner left huge sum in will before dying in car accident
THE business partner of tragic tech tycoon Mike Lynch left more than £350,000 in his will. Stephen Chamberlain was killed in a freak car accident just days before Mr Lynch died when his £38million superyacht the Bayesian sank in a storm off Sicily last August. 3 3 Both men had been acquitted of fraud in June 2024 over the £8.6billion sale of Mr Lynch's software firm Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard in 2011. Mr Chamberlain died aged 52 from head injuries three days after being hit by a car while out running near his home in Longstanton, Cambs. An inquest found that the driver could not have avoided the father of two. Figures from the Probate Registry show Mr Chamberlain left £358,933 — reduced to £346,508 after debts were paid — to widow Karen and children Ella and Teddy. Lynch, 59, died alongside his daughter and five other people when his yacht Bayesian sank off the coast of Sicily. He had been celebrating his acquittal from US fraud charges when his yacht was knocked sideways by a sudden 80mph gust and started taking in water. As the boat sank rapidly, Lynch's wife Angela Bacares was pulled to safety by a crew member. But their 18-year-old daughter Hannah and five others on board never made it out. The vessel sunk in just 16 minutes after being hit by a violent downburst. Chamberlain was a former vice-president of software company Autonomy. Moment tragic Bayesian yacht wreck is raised from depths after billionaire Mike Lynch and others died on board 3
