Breaking News
Home / Business / An arcane business structure loses its charm

An arcane business structure loses its charm

WHEN British soapmakers merged with Dutch margarine merchants to form Unilever in 1929, the logic was clear. Both firms shared a key ingredient, animal fat, and were starting to step on each other’s toes as they diversified. Unilever is one of the world’s largest consumer-goods firms. A dual-nationality company, it has headquarters in both Britain and the Netherlands and is regarded as a national treasure in both places.

Before the month is out, however, it is expected to plump for Rotterdam as its sole headquarters (Britain’s quandary over Brexit is doubtless a factor). It is not alone in rethinking its arcane arrangement. According to FTI Consulting, a business-advisory firm, of the 15 companies that have used a “dual structure” at one time or other over the past 25 years, only six remain. Some, such as Royal Dutch Shell, an oil giant, unified their structures in the mid-2000s. RELX, an Anglo-Dutch publishing firm, did so last month. BHP, an Anglo-Australian mining firm, faces investor pressure to do the same.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor’s Picks.

“Siamese twins” are typically the result of cross-border unions. Two firms agree to operate as a single enterprise, but remain incorporated and retain distinct share listings in their home countries. The shares of Unilever NV, the firm’s Dutch arm, for example, cannot be exchanged for those in Unilever PLC, its British sibling. (In contrast, many companies choose to cross-list on multiple stock exchanges, which allows investors to buy exactly the same shares in different marketplaces.)

Dual structures used to have several attractions, says Mathijs van Dijk, of the Rotterdam School of Management. Normal mergers could incur capital-gains tax, which retaining distinct companies avoids. Regulators were thought to look benignly on unions that preserved firms’ national identities. The merged entity retained access to local capital markets, since institutional investors that were required to invest within their own countries would not be forced to sell.

Increasingly, though, investors have turned against them. A big driver is globalisation; fewer institutional investors are constrained by national borders. Perhaps reflecting greater integration within Europe, Unilever is the last European dual-structure firm standing; the others have British and Australian nationality (BHP and its fellow miner Rio Tinto), British and South African (Investec, a bank, and Mondi, a packaging firm), and British and American (Carnival, a cruise company).

Investors are also aware of the drawbacks of dual structures. They are confused by the differences between twins’ share prices, which can persist for years, Mr van Dijk’s research finds, though they are linked to the same cashflows. The structure is associated with opaque governance. After a scandal over misstated oil reserves in 2004 that was partly blamed on the complexity of its dual-board structure, Shell’s investors lobbied for unification. Elliott Advisors, the hedge fund agitating for BHP to unify, argues that the dual structure limits dealmaking by complicating the use of shares for purchases. Unilever cites this as a factor, too; it wants to be able to strike deals to boost its shareholder returns. Although its choice may irk British politicians, investor logic prevails.

This article appeared in theBusinesssection of the print edition under the headline“Twin troubles”

Check Also

So long, farewell

IT IS an enormous privilege, and responsibility, to write for The Economist and capture a small sliver of readers’ attention. All told, there have been well over a thousand posts on this blog (the site history runs for 98 pages) as well as 546 print columns (the last will appear at the end of the week). The first post, back in February 2009, was written in the depths of the crisis and “was looking for signs of hope, although without any confidence it can call the bottom exactly.” In fact, the market bottom occurred only a few weeks later. There have been a few wobbles along the way but that bull run is still going. The irony would be that, just as the start of this blog heralded the upswing, the last post might signal the demise of the great bull market.

This blogger has been a bit gloomy during his tenure, too gloomy as it turns out. So as well as three signs of danger, I wanted to close with three signs of optimism. First, the...Continue reading

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *