A battle that has only one bottom line

PHILIP Green had a go at them last week. Tomorrow, major fund managers will meet in secret to discuss him. Well, not him personally, you understand. More the implications of his sighting shot at Marks & Spencer and what that would mean for 'long-term shareholders'.

Clearly, much of the High Street has already disappeared from the quoted sector and into private hands, including those of Green with Bhs and Arcadia.

And almost without exception, fund managers have later moaned that they sold out too cheaply and missed a miraculous turnaround in the fortunes of these businesses.

That, however, does not seem to be the issue concerning the investment managers this time. What seems to be underpinning their agenda is whether a takeover of M&S can be squared with what is whackily called 'strategic governance'.

This is a new one to me and may well give rise to some thought-provoking discussion. And some on the guest list argue that this is a rare chance to consider the wider ramifications when a bidder comes knocking and offers to buy your shares.

But there are uncomfortable aspects to such a debate.

First, it is hard to get away from the idea that the fund managers are simply concerned at the notion that a maverick such as Green might get his hands on a great British icon.

It is possibly a moral judgment about him personally, rather than concern about how M&S suppliers might be treated or how many jobs might be lost if he acquires the group. Second, it also raises the notion that some companies are simply 'too special' to be taken over at all, in which case the likes of BP or Vodafone could become bid-proof.

No one would argue that a responsible shareholder should ignore wider business and social issues when investing. But fund managers have a responsibility, not only to the companies in which they invest, but also to the people whose pension funds and savings they are investing.

If - and this remains highly questionable - Green tables a bid, there should be only one question to answer: will taking the money now provide a better return for their investors than sticking with present boss, Stuart Rose?

CONNOISSEURS of air disaster movies relish that essential scene where the pilot throws a vital switch - and nothing happens. Frantically he clicks backwards and forwards, but the controls do not respond. Last week's quarter-point rise in interest rates from the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee was widely interpreted as having been aimed at the housing market and consumer spending.

But is the Bank in danger of looking like the hapless pilot?

Twenty years ago, mortgage rates changed almost instantly in the wake of a change in base rate, giving the authorities a powerful tool of economic management. Today, half of all mortgages are fixed for three to five years, significantly blunting the impact of rate changes on personal behaviour.

Ironically, Gordon Brown wants us all to fix our mortgages for longer periods than we do now, a change that would make the MPC, of which the Chancellor is the proud inventor, less effective. So much for joinedup government.

SIR Christopher Gent's departure from Vodafone has done little to still controversy over his remuneration. Famously given a bonus initially worth £10m for spearheading the takeover of Mannesmann, Gent has sailed into the sunset with a £5m boost to his pension pot, thanks to retiring five years before the company's official retirement age of 60.

He has also been given a Bentley, in British racing green, to carry off his wad.

The fact that Gent will be parking his £100,000 motor outside the front door of drugs group GlaxoSmithKline, where he will soon be paid £500,000 a year as part-time chairman, is disturbing. The pharmaceuticals company has had the bloodiest run-ins with its shareholders over executive pay of any FTSE 100 company. Among the formidable list of talents its new chairman was supposed to bring was to keep down the heat on this particularly combustible issue.

Glaxo has recently proved itself remarkably inept at steering clear of bad publicity - witness its latest trouble over accusations that its Seroxat depression treatment increases the likelihood of suicidal thoughts among youngsters.

In the next six to nine months, there should be a clearer idea of whether two or three of the drugs it has in late-stage trials have the potential to become blockbusters. Unpromising results could leave the group in a serious bind.

Gent undoubtedly has the ability to help steer Glaxo through difficult times. How very unfortunate that he looks somewhat tainted by his farewell package from Vodafone.