“The end of an era,” was how Sir John Ritblat described this week’s deal that sees FirstService acquire Colliers’ UK operations, the firm he spent 50 years helping to build.
But Sir John, who has chaired the firm since FirstService acquired a 30% stake in 2009, is nothing if not a pragmatist. “Any business has got to be international now,” he told me this week. “I am sorry in a sense to see the end of an era. But I am very happy it is going to continue on a well-financed basis under the umbrella of a very big company.”
Like DTZ before it, the Colliers deal was concluded, thankfully, before a saga became a full-blown crisis. And, again, like DTZ, the pre-pack option was deployed.
It’s administratively simpler, of course, though it lacks a certain grace.
However, it was perhaps the only way of delivering a swift conclusion. Over the past year Colliers would undoubtedly have struggled to generate sufficient levels of working capital to grow. It needed a corporate deal to turn that situation around.
Blunt instrument
FirstService, meanwhile, which took its stake in Colliers globally to 70% in 2010, was known to have wanted to acquire 100% of the UK business. With some shareholders understood to have been reluctant to sell, that might not have been possible had the company made an offer for the shares. The blunt instrument of a pre-pack administration pushed all of these considerations to the margins; it will only become more common in these situations.
Without for a second wishing to play down the impact of pension scheme changes that will see many lose out in retirement (p25) – or the impact on shareholders who have lost everything – it is perhaps the best possible outcome overall.
For the majority of employees and clients, there is now certainty and the business – under a new umbrella – can move on.
That leaves one question unanswered. Who’s next?
As David Cameron was reminded this week, politics and business rarely sit happily side by side – no matter how rarefied the dinner party. Nevertheless, after a prolonged, damaging and often poisonous row, life after the NPPF this week seems oddly calm, harmonious even. Party funding, of course, is another story.
Shrewd game
Remarkably, politicians, the property industry and even the National Trust seem soothed, even though consensus had seemed impossible just a few short weeks ago. And credit where credit’s due. Ministers, especially Greg Clark, have played a shrewd political game: consulting, cajoling and conceding just enough ground to make a much-needed policy change workable.
The BPF’s Liz Peace and Dame Fiona Reynolds, the director-general of the National Trust, have both been canny too, being seen to fight for their members while recognising the need to move on. Further rows, they acknowledged, would be in no one’s interests.
Listening to different interest groups is always politically sensitive. Politicians are readily accused of being in the pocket of one group or another, more so when perceived “tycoons” are involved (and is there a more evocative phrase than “property tycoons”?).
But in the case of the NPPF, it’s right that the government has listened to the property industry. And it’s right that it has taken dissenters’ views on board too.
In truth, the positions were never that far apart. The need for planning reform was widely recognised – no one was a fan of the previous regime. And all parties recognised the need for appropriate safeguards to be built into the new system. It was a question of where the line should be drawn.
Some of the hysterical media interpretation aside – with the Daily Telegraph leading the charge on that front – all parties have emerged from this debate with credit.
