A group of local council pension funds has launched a fresh attack on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) for what it sees as a push to lower boardroom standards for listed firms.
The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), which represents 87 local authority schemes, said it was “resolute” in its concerns about the stock exchange boss Dame Julia Hoggett’s recent push to reforming listing rules.
As well as being the LSE’s chief executive, Dame Julia leads the Capital Markets Industry Taskforce (CMIT), an industry group that has resisted attempts to strengthen the UK’s corporate governance code.
These include proposed rules to make companies report on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) metrics which were ultimately scrapped earlier this year.
Dame Julia has also publicly complained that chief executives on the stock exchange are not paid enough to attract the best candidates for top jobs, compared to outsized salaries and bonuses in the US.
This has led to concerns that governance rules on pay could be watered down, such as a requirement for companies to engage with investors when more than one-fifth of them revolt over directors’ remuneration.
Doug McMurdo, chairman of the group of local authority funds, wrote that the push “does not present the requisite analysis and/or evidence that would stand up to market rigour. It is on this basis we remain firm”.
The letter, dated August 30, is the third time the forum, whose members manage £350 billion of assets, has complained on the matter.
Meanwhile, the CMIT has argued that easing listing rules will attract more company founders to choose London as their desired location to float on the stock market, rather than alternatives such as New York.
The stock exchange has faced criticism for a lack of companies listing in London in recent years, particularly after British microchip company Arm snubbed the exchange for the US in 2023.
But Mr McMurdo wrote: “We would point out that the cost of capital is set by investors in the markets, not lawyers, nor the sell-side, yet those are the only interests that have been represented by the CMIT, in our view.”
He added: “It is a case study in how governance of capital markets should not be conducted.”
The LSE Group was approached for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel