Lancashire Share Discussion Threads

[effortless cool] 11/12/2015 13:52

I have been pondering this, and the integration argument does hold water.

An independent Cathedral needed a CEO and a CFO. However, as a subsidiary, those roles duplicate equivalent (but now senior) roles held at Lancashire. Cathedral also has a separate MD to manage the Lloyd's agency, so the Scales and Lynch roles are superfluous - if Lancashire had started with a blank sheet, those roles would not have existed (and now they don't).

I have closed my short and reversed to a long position. Lancashire's news management has been terrible but the changes make the management team less top heavy and the management structure more logical. I don't see any reason for it not to bounce back to where it was before this news broke.

[jrphoenixw2] 11/12/2015 13:31

i.e. an announcement re: the departures issued today via RNS

[effortless cool] 11/12/2015 12:50

At long last.

[plasybryn] 10/12/2015 18:07

Surely no smoke without fire.
Great uncertainity which I don't like at all.
Very surprised there hasn't been an RNS to clarify.

[jrphoenixw2] 10/12/2015 14:11

I was 'surprised' by LREs news management on this matter, but after your last post EC I'm now entering the 'disappointed' stage.
And meanwhile during this period of uncertainty, it's not surprising to see the stock take a beating.
If only they they were half as nimble on the News/PR cycle, as they are on the insurance/sector cycle.

[effortless cool] 10/12/2015 13:43

Of course they should. They are still shown on the website as two of the 10 designated as "Group Executive Management"

[salpara111] 10/12/2015 13:21

Surely they are obliged to issue an RNS about the senior staff departures?

[badtime] 08/12/2015 15:09

Sold yesterday at 640 back in today at 600

[bandit99] 08/12/2015 12:19

agree with jr, in my career it was integrate or leave, and when a cost cutting exercise was required those who were not integrated were first to be 'not wanted on voyage'

[speedsgh] 08/12/2015 10:13

Acquisition of Cathedral was completed in Nov 2013 -

[jrphoenixw2] 08/12/2015 09:57

I don't recall when Cathedral was taken over. What I do recall is my corporate days. If my employer took over another company, you'd have major day1 chopping of any duplicated roles. That would be followed by smaller-scale and more ongoing 'rationalisation' of the headcount in the newly combined company.
Initially it might be tolerated that the company taken-over maintain something of it's own style and work-culture, but eventually they'd be pretty much culturally absorbed. Those who didn't wish to accept that were very welcome to leave.
That said, this process to me was normal, it wasn't 'bad news' as such, and such rationalisation was invariably good for the stock-price.
So I'm thinking either the sackings have been taken out of context, with malicious intent or not. Or there is materially more to it than a couple of faces who no longer fit. Either way I am rather surprised at the apparent lack of 'news management' from LRE re: this story. Perhaps they figure it doesn't even have enough merit to warrant a summary debunking.

[thecroots] 08/12/2015 09:46

Two top exec sacked and "others likely to follow suit" sounds a bit more serious than just a culture clash. Cathedral was integrated over 2 years ago..

we shall soon see.

[jgoold] 08/12/2015 09:37

Of course you can! You might not call it that tho.

[thecroots] 08/12/2015 09:35

You cant just sack someone because they clash with culture....

[jgoold] 08/12/2015 09:18

From the FT:

"A corporate culture clash was to blame for the dismissals, said one person, who added that Lancashire remained committed to the Lloyd’s market."

[hooley] 08/12/2015 09:00

ED: Not officially! The firm's official stockbroker would be the intermediary.

[bandit99] 08/12/2015 08:48

The Times today has it as a 'personality clash'

[expletive deleted] 08/12/2015 08:23

Well then you should know, to start with, that the Stock Exchange does not provide companies with advice on the content of their RNSs.

[expletive deleted] 08/12/2015 08:19

Thecroots,Perhaps, but that just makes his post doubly stupid.

[thecroots] 08/12/2015 08:14

Expletive Deleted,

Im sure when Hooley mentions Insider's he means the publication and not an "insider"

[expletive deleted] 08/12/2015 08:11

Thanks, JT35. That brings two thoughts. (1) This is a messy situation, not yet in the public domain, with possible further adverse developments. (2) There is no impediment to LRE announcing the departures but saying they cannot comment further due to legal proceedings.

[jt35] 08/12/2015 08:03

In the FT roundup last night they did the company was unable to comment on the departures at the moment for legal reasons.