What you don’t know about Royal Dutch Shell’s Profit Warning
I can exclusively reveal today that the question of whether Shell was legally obliged to issue a profits warning did not first arise in relation to the final quarter. It was raised at the highest levels of Shell and of the Financial Conduct Authority some months earlier, in between the announcement of Peter Voser’s early retirement and the announcement of the Q3 results.
By John Donovan
Shell shareholders have been faced with a series of shocks, one stunning announcement by Royal Dutch Shell Plc after another.
All rather mysterious and without any credible explanation.
Started with the announcement of Voser’s decision to take early retirement from Shell at the age of 55, as a lifestyle change. It was said at the time to have “stunned investors.”
Next came the surprise announce of Ben van Beurden as his replacement. No one guessed that he was even in the race for the top job at Shell.
Within days of Ben van Beurden taking over as Chief Executive Officer on 1st Jan 2014, Shell announced the sudden mysterious departure of his Executive Director colleague, Peter Rees QC, the global head of Shell’s Legal Department.
Days later, Shell took the markets by complete surprise by announcing a profits warning accompanied by an avalanche of bad news.
It seems highly probable that these two seismic events – the sudden exit of Rees and the issuance of a profits warning – were connected.
Was Peter Rees for or against the profit warning, issued on advice from lawyers?
I can exclusively reveal today that the question of whether Shell was legally obliged to issue a profits warning did not first arise in relation to the final quarter. It was raised at the highest levels of Shell and of the Financial Conduct Authority some months earlier, in between the announcement of Peter Voser’s early retirement and the announcement of the Q3 results.
It is fair to conclude, as would be expected, that the Executive Directors and the Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Shell plc knew long before investors that the company was in serious difficulties of crisis proportion and kept that information secret. It is also fair to speculate, therefore, that at least one executive director took a life changing decision based on that insider knowledge.
PHOTO CREDIT AND RELATED ARTICLE: Energy giant Shell issues shock profits warning
MORE RELATED ARTICLES
By John Donovan
Shell shareholders have been faced with a series of shocks, one stunning announcement by Royal Dutch Shell Plc after another.
All rather mysterious and without any credible explanation.
Started with the announcement of Voser’s decision to take early retirement from Shell at the age of 55, as a lifestyle change. It was said at the time to have “stunned investors.”
Next came the surprise announce of Ben van Beurden as his replacement. No one guessed that he was even in the race for the top job at Shell.
Within days of Ben van Beurden taking over as Chief Executive Officer on 1st Jan 2014, Shell announced the sudden mysterious departure of his Executive Director colleague, Peter Rees QC, the global head of Shell’s Legal Department.
Days later, Shell took the markets by complete surprise by announcing a profits warning accompanied by an avalanche of bad news.
It seems highly probable that these two seismic events – the sudden exit of Rees and the issuance of a profits warning – were connected.
Was Peter Rees for or against the profit warning, issued on advice from lawyers?
I can exclusively reveal today that the question of whether Shell was legally obliged to issue a profits warning did not first arise in relation to the final quarter. It was raised at the highest levels of Shell and of the Financial Conduct Authority some months earlier, in between the announcement of Peter Voser’s early retirement and the announcement of the Q3 results.
It is fair to conclude, as would be expected, that the Executive Directors and the Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Shell plc knew long before investors that the company was in serious difficulties of crisis proportion and kept that information secret. It is also fair to speculate, therefore, that at least one executive director took a life changing decision based on that insider knowledge.
PHOTO CREDIT AND RELATED ARTICLE: Energy giant Shell issues shock profits warning
MORE RELATED ARTICLES
Shell looks to science for arctic help
HOUSTON, Feb. 11 (UPI) —Michael Macrander, a chief scientist for Shell in Alaska, said engagement with the scientific community could help his company navigate arctic waters. Shell Chief Executive Officer Ben van Bueden said last month he was “not prepared to commit further resources for drilling in Alaska in 2014″ following a court decision challenging a 2008 lease for acreage in the Chukchi Sea. Shell’s arctic campaign was plagued by problems with its drilling rigs, Noble Discoverer and Kulluk, and the cost associated with managing operations in the harsh arctic climate. Macrander told delegates at an arctic technology conference in Houston the arctic problems could be answered with science-based solutions.
Research Councils should steer clear of strategic partnerships with individual firms
Firms like Shell can and should collaborate with taxpayer funded researchers. But no single organisation should be granted privileged access to the processes by which priorities for public research funding are set.
Posted by Kieron Flanagan:
My fellow blogger Alice Bell posted about a new tie-up between NERC (the UK Natural Environment Research Council) and Shelllast week. The tie-up takes the form of a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which – in Shell’s words – is intended “to maximise the benefits from our mutual interests in areas of long-term research, postgraduate training and knowledge exchange through jointly funded and supported research projects”. “Strategic partnerships” are all the rage between research performing organisations and companies (NERC is a significant performer of research through major institutes such as the British Antarctic Survey but its primary role is as a funding agency) and this is not NERC’s first such partnership (that was with engineering partnership Arup), but it’s the most high profile announced so far. The post generated some debate below the line, raising several issues which are worth exploring further.
Benchmark in Jeopardy
Straining to solve a problem that might be illusory, European regulators soon might create real problems by increasing the volatility of an important crude oil price marker. Worried that shenanigans might reach beyond financial markets, the EC expanded its proposal to encompass commodities, including oil. In May, the EC and European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority unveiled investigations into suspicions that representatives of Shell, BP, and Statoil had distorted trading information they provided Platts. Results of those probes have yet to be reported.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
