Mandate, Hogarth & Penrose integrate into new single company called MHP

Engine, the UK’s largest independent communications business, announces the integration of three of its public relations businesses, Mandate, Hogarth and Penrose, into a new single company, MHP Communications.

MHP has 160 employees and annual revenues of £17m.

Gay Collins, former Chief Executive of Penrose, becomes Executive Chairman of MHP. Sacha Deshmukh, former Chief Executive of Mandate becomes Chief Executive Officer of MHP. Andrew Jaques, former Chief Executive of Hogarth becomes Chief Executive of MHP Financial & Investor Communications.

Announcing the new company, Gay Collins said:

"This move creates a major force in the world of communications, where scale and scope is becoming an increasingly important factor in the buying decisions of clients. MHP has been structured to take forward the heritage of Mandate, Hogarth and Penrose within a model that we believe will deliver even more for our current clients as well as future clients and our people. We are excited about taking MHP from three successful businesses to an organisation that will make a measurable difference to the communications landscape."

Sacha Deshmukh said:

“MHP combines in-depth knowledge of the full range of audiences that matter to businesses and brands. From investors to consumers, from politicians to employees, from pressure groups to business partners, MHP understands those audiences and how to reach them.

A team of 160 and annual revenues of £17m makes us one of the strongest and largest companies in the PR market. But our goal is not size. It is to provide a unique quality and way of working with our clients. That is why we have designed MHP to work in a very different way from what we think is the tired, standard PR company model. We ensure the client is the absolute centre of our focus by organising our business and revenue around client sector, not PR discipline silo. It means that our only interest is in delivering exactly the right mix of expertise and brains for every single clients’ needs. MHP is designed to avoid the problem that plagues old-model PR companies where time, energy and focus is wasted fighting internal battles to protect internal cost centres.”

Andrew Jaques said:

“MHP will be significantly growing its City and financial team as we expand to meet our ambition to sit in the premier league in the financial and investor communications market. We will build from the many strengths of Hogarth, but also diversify our sector experience and attract new clients and more great people to the MHP business.”

MHP also announces that Sir Brian Bender, who until 2009 was the Permanent Secretary of the UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, is joining its Board of Directors, as a Non-Executive Director.

All former Mandate, Hogarth and Penrose consultants are transferring to MHP and the company plans for further expansion in staff numbers fuelled by continuing impressive growth. As part of its launch, MHP also announces the opening of its new Brussels office. The company will be announcing its Brussels leadership team late in the autumn and MHP Brussels will be fully operational from 1 January 2011.

In November 2010 MHP will be moving into a new custom-designed London office, currently under construction. The MHP London HQ will occupy a whole floor of MHP’s parent group Engine’s building in London’s Oxford Circus. The former Mandate offices in Edinburgh and Washington DC now become MHP offices. MHP also has a project team developing implantation plans to open MHP offices in other key global markets in 2011, with the initial focus being in Asia.

Hold the Front Page - "Consumers should Budget"!

Of late there appears to have been an absolute deluge of programmes on ITV and the BBC about the credit crunch and the consumer. The latest one to pique my attention was a series on BBC2 consisting of a multitude of experts urging consumers to "read small print" and "be careful to budget".

While it would be easy to mock BBC2 and its hordes of well-meaning presenters, for stating, as my dear father would put it, “the bleeding obvious”, it did strike a chord with me. People were literally hanging off his every word in a way comparable to how I would image the crowd looked at Jesus when he made his speech on the Mount.

And that’s when it hit me. Back in the day people were taught “few things worth having are easy to get” yet this now appears to have been replaced by “if it is worth having it should be easy to get and someone else should do the thinking for me”.

And this is where I have to say I get quite cross. I can honestly say I am truly fed of people filling my screen who want sympathy for failing to engage their brain.

“Oh I took out a £200,000 loan and I only earn £20,000.” Well, I hate to say it but that is your problem.

“Oh a broker told me to do it and then the bank said it was a good idea.” Great, so if the broker told you to sell your granny and the bank recommended opening up a brothel in the driveway on the grounds of it being a good “business opportunity”, would you do it?

A year ago I was looking to buy a house when a mortgage broker told me pretty much the same thing. He even recommended taking out a residential property on a buy-to-let purchase, suggesting there were institutions which would be prepared to offer me five times my salary with a "bit of wangling". Guess what I said? Thanks but no thanks. I knew I couldn’t afford it and it didn’t matter what that guy said.

Now there is a current argument that consumers “don’t know”, are “unaware” of financial matters and should be “taught” the basics. I can accept this as, indeed, the general public do appear to misunderstand basic financial concepts but since when did common sense have to be taught? As the FSA has been saying for years, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I am not asking for calculations similar to those enacted by PhD students from Cambridge. I am not asking for great thoughts similar to Einstein when he discovered E=MC2. I am not even requesting a "Eureka" moment from the public at large in the style of Archimedes. I am merely asking people snap back to reality and start understanding that just wanting something does not mean you should have it and education can only go so far.

Responsibility for oneself and for one’s actions can not be taught in schools and ultimately there has to be an end to this situation where people are always allowed to blame anything and anyone except themselves for their own predicament. And get compensation and rosy TV footage as we are encouraged to lambast banks, the prime minister, the cat and Mrs Higgins at No 43 in the process.

England did not cover itself in glory during this year's World Cup but the general population remained unmoved as they had been engaged in another sport, that of navel gazing for a fair while.

And if there is one thing I hope the credit crunch ends, it is this.

SI

You've done your A levels, now for your owe levels

The long term future of pensions and saving in general is looking bleak as new generations of newly qualified graduates try and enter the job market saddled with debt, with no hope of being in credit for many years.

As more and more students are encouraged to go to university after school as GCSE passes improve year on year (23 years and counting), the banks must be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a new generation of long term debtors customers. What chance have those students departing university got of paying off their student debt, made up over three or four years of fees, loans, credit cards, student union bar tabs, in the short term?

Research in an annual survey by university guide Push suggests average debt is projected to rise to £25,000 for those starting university this year. Add to that the Coalition signalling the fact that tuition fees will potentially almost double and a possible progressive loans system put in place, many young people will leave full time education massively in hock. What way is that to start their fledgling careers?

For those living in the South East, life for graduates could be even tougher. Apart from the cost of living compared to other parts of the country, most 20-30 year olds will be looking to get on the property ladder before they are able to instigate their long term savings and investment plans, such as pensions and ISAs etc. Every Englishman's house is his castle and we Brits see bricks and mortar as our favoured long term investment, yet many first time buyers face a hefty initial deposit. Where are they going to get this money? Borrow off their folks or join forces with friends to purchase are hardly examples of being in the full throes of adult independence. Would-be homeowners are facing an uphill struggle to get on the housing ladder and all the early indications are that it’s not going to get any easier – despite lenders seemingly trying harder to ease the pain. However, many of the recent mortgage rate reductions have been aimed towards borrowers with a 20% plus deposit, with mortgage products for first time buyers still not available from some high street lenders.

According to the National Housing Federation, the average 21-year old today will have to wait until they reach middle age before they can buy their first home. Those aiming to buy in London are warned that they will have to save up until they’re 52 years old to afford a mortgage.
Therefore as first time buyers are pushed into middle age before achieving a suitable deposit on a house, their ability to save for their retirement is massively shortened. This in turn will put extra pressure on the state pension system and why we will all be forced to work longer as the retirement age creeps up. Increased longevity and a lengthy retirement is not a lip-smacking prospect when you cannot afford to live through it. Experts advise us that pensions are the most tax efficient way of saving, but with no access to these funds and a credit easy environment of live-for-today-and-to-hell-with-tomorrow, people need to be educated to see the value of saving for their future. So, if you want a higher income in retirement than you get from your State Pension, you need another source of income as well. It’s never too early to start saving for your retirement, but in all probabilities many graduates will defer starting their pensions saving.
So, what can be done to help these impoverished ex-students as they start their working lives manacled to their banks? Well, for a start begin the process of financial education in secondary schools to begin the process of helping them with their money matters. This could continue into their tertiary education and actually point out the amounts of potential debt that can be incurred by pursuing further education, advice on how they can manage their debts, the benefits of savings and investments, provide guidance on the help they can get from the likes of financial advisers and financial websites.

In the meantime, we all look forward to the onset of auto enrolment into NEST, the government-led default pension scheme into which all employees will be auto enrolled starting from 2012, which will go some way to getting millions started into the savings habit, and in particular saving for their retirement. But does the average graduate even know about NEST and its benefits, let alone what an annuity is ...?

JA

NEST is best. Or is it?

As plans to introduce auto enrolment through the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) continue to be considered, there are signs of growing polarisation of opinion over the benefits of such a scheme, as highlighted between Pauline Skypala's article in the FT this week ("Why proceeding with Nest is crucial") and Penrose's recent annual survey on the future of the investment industry.

Next month, the Government will announce its conclusions following a consultation period on NEST and whilst bodies such as the NAPF and Association of British Insurers see potential benefits, notably its provision of a low-cost scheme for those on middle-low incomes, the Penrose survey (targeting senior investment and pensions industry figures) suggests that the vehicle simply does not make adequate provisions in terms of savings for its members. The Conservatives have argued that the scheme is superfluous, as suitable infrastructure to deliver pensions to the target group already exists. Interestingly, just 1.9% of survey respondents saw NEST as being affordable and practical.

Although it is generally accepted that auto-enrolment may be adjusted, but not discarded completely, there are growing concerns among its advocates that such amendments could ultimately lead to its demise. One possible solution is to effectively privatise NEST, whereby existing schemes would expand to enrol all employees, without the intervention of the Government.

The main stumbling block lies with the target audience that NEST seeks to help. Many low-middle income households don't see pension saving as a financial priority, or simply can't afford to contribute a sufficient amount towards a pension in order to make it worthwhile. The result of lower contributions ultimately leads to higher costs for providers, limiting the viability of privatising the scheme.

Assuming that Nest does go ahead, however, it will at the very least raise awareness of an increased need to save towards retirement. But as it stands, NEST is still an initiative that brings as many, if not more, pessimists than it does proponents.

JM

Shareholding all the cards

The SEC's vote this week to change the rules on shareholder influence in US boardrooms has predictably ruffled corporate feathers.

While SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sees the move, which allows shareholders with a 3% plus holding in a listed company to nominate board members, as "a matter of fairness and accountability", business lobbyists are far from convinced. "A giant step backwards for average investors", reckons David Hirschmann of the US Chamber of Commerce. “So fundamentally and fatally flawed that it will have great difficulty surviving judicial scrutiny,” argues Kathleen L Casey, one of the two Republican Commissioners who opposed the change.

Paul Atkins, in the Wall Street Journal, warns the new rule would "increase the clout of special-interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of shareholders", and business leaders have vowed to fight on against the changes. On the wider principle of regulatory oversight of board behavior, there is still intense debate as to whether bosses' pay is any of the government's business.

But given what's happened in the last couple of years, it's hardly surprising shareholders are looking to flex their muscles. In a survey of senior investment and pensions figures published earlier this week by Penrose, two thirds of respondents anticipated growing shareholder presure on fund managers to boost levels of engagement with corporates.

Whatever your view on government "interference" in corporate governance standards, few would deny the behaviour of business directors falls within the remit of business owners. And since even the biggest institutional investors couldn't possibly hope to keep tabs on governance at every company they invest in, there would seem to be only two alternatives. Cross your fingers and rely on the good faith of directors (seriously?). Or take an active approach to engagement within a reasonable and proportionate regulatory framework.

AF

The Age of Austerity?

Yesterday, for the first time since 1986, the opening day of an Oval test match did not sell out. This could be down to the pusillanimous performance of the touring Pakistan team in the preceding matches, or maybe the looming crisis facing English cricket. But seen alongside a range of other recent developments, it might be perceived as an indication that we are entering what the boss of Asda this week rather gloomily termed an "Age of austerity".

The debate about how best to approach this daunting prospect continues to rage. Lord Skidelsky and Michael Kennedy, writing in the Financial Times recently, invoked Keynes' argument that “the boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury”, and concluded that "austerity in the capital budget is the worst possible remedy for a slump".

But, as P-Solve CIO, Glyn Jones, pointed out in this week's Financial News, the snag with this argument is that austerity measures weren't applied during the boom years. Furthermore, are we really looking at meaningful austerity measures anyway? The outgoing Labour administration's final forecast was that the value of all UK gilts in issuance over the next five years would rise by another £567 billion, whereas the new coalition government forecasts this figure will now be "a mere £454 billion. And we are told this is austerity." In fact, he continues, it's unlikely that any government will have the nerve to impose anything resembling real austerity, because of the harmful impact on the electorate. More likely, inflation will come to be seen as the best way to write off colossal debt levels. As Mr Jones concludes, "outright default is unlikely for most countries, but inflation is not. It is simply the easiest way to share the pain of removing excessive debt."

AF

Financing the Frontiers

The recent news that China has become the second biggest economy by GDP may be unsurprising, but to dismiss this jump as nothing more than a nominal milestone would be remiss. Whilst changes to GDP league tables may have little or no impact on China's foreign policy towards the West, its growing economic clout will likely lead to increased efforts to court emerging economies.

China's investment in Africa is growing at an unprecedented rate (at present there are an estimated 800 Chinese companies working in at least 12 African nations) and criticisms around China's approach abound. China is widely accused of giving with one hand and taking with the other; building stadia, mines, roads and refineries and in return bleeding the continent dry of its natural resources. To dismiss China's intentions as little more than a grab for Africa's mineral wealth however, overlooks the complexity of the relationship and more importantly underestimates the contribution China makes to shaping young nations.

The World Bank and the IMF may offer financing but China also provides labourers to do the work. True China has a nasty habit of awarding contracts for infrastructure projects to Chinese firms (all four new world cup stadia were built by Chinese companies) who ship in Chinese workforces wholesale, but this is no different from the way American and British companies operated in the past. Furthermore, many of the projects China funds run at a loss, effectively making such initiatives a form of aid.

Critically, China provides insight into building new states that the West simply cannot. To many frontier market economies China represents an ally and guide that can help them mature through their industrial age, providing a road map to an economic independence that has long eluded them.

NS