Barclays remuneration under spotlight again
It’s difficult not to feel a little cynical about the engagement process the Barclays Africa board is going to have with shareholders on the issue of its remuneration policy.
At the annual general meeting held on Tuesday, chairwoman of the board Wendy Lucas-Bull told shareholders she and remuneration committee chairman Paul O’ Flaherty were committed to engaging with shareholders “and will get back to them on a series of matters that have been raised”.
Shareholders holding 47.4% voted against the remuneration implementation report and nearly one-quarter voted against the remuneration policy, so that must be the core matter.
Lucas-Bull’s commitment suggests shareholder concerns about the bank’s remuneration policy is something new. It’s anything but. While majorityowned by Barclays UK, the local executives were able to shelter behind the much greater tolerance of remuneration excess in that part of the world. Now that shelter has been removed and so we’re all reminded of what a long-term issue this has been for South African shareholders.
Back in May 2014, then chairman of the remuneration committee Brand Pretorius promised a “postmortem” on the remuneration policy following a “no” vote by 18.4% of the shareholders. He said the bank was soliciting feedback from shareholders who voted against the policy. Presumably soliciting feedback didn’t actually mean the board had to do anything about the concerns of the local shareholders. It might be a little different this time around, or not. Local regulations place no obligation on boards to act on shareholder concerns.
It's hard to know where to begin with Ayo Technology Solutions, the little-known company that listed in December on the back of a staggering R4.3bn cash injection from the Public Investment Corporation.
A cursory read of its results, released on Tuesday, seems to indicate a firm in robust health: headline earnings per share up 107% for the six months ended February, revenue up 49% to R349m and, the cherry on top, net asset value rising from just R18m to R4.356bn — almost 24,000%. Of course, that’s all thanks to its state benefactor.
Those, at least, are hard numbers. What’s almost impossible to fathom is what Ayo actually does to earn its money. For example, its security solutions business saw sales increase 150%, due to an “improvement in ownership and empowerment credentials”.
How you model future sales growth on that basis is anyone’s guess. Mind you, what does “better alignment and leverage with its principle supplier” mean, and how did this see its communications division post a 58% jump in revenue?
And then there’s this: “following extensive market engagements and the continued positive reception to Ayo’s strategy by customers and acquisitions targets, certain … processes and timelines have been extended to take better advantage of this strong goodwill…. Although not ideal, this could result in our current period results not meeting the expectation set out in the pre-listing statement.”
So, great goodwill is actually leading to delays in doing deals, but that’s okay. Okay, then. If you’re buying a share for pure confusion, then Ayo’s your bet.