Mohamed Fayed’s casual relationship with the truth held back his business achievements

Published

2 years ago

September 1, 2023

admin

Little has been heard from Mohamed Fayed during the last decade.

He sold Harrods to Qatar Holdings as long ago as May 2010 and his other main trophy asset in the UK, Fulham FC, was offloaded to the US businessman Shahid Khan in July 2013.

That latter deal brought down the curtain on a controversial – to say the least – career during which he had been a prominent figure in British business for nearly 30 years.

Fayed (he added the honorific ‘al’ to his name, despite having no right to, after he arrived in the UK in the 1960s) remains best known to the general public for the relationship his late son, Dodi, enjoyed with Diana, Princess of Wales and for the corrupt payments he made to MPs to ask questions on his behalf in parliament.

Before that, though, the Egyptian tycoon had become a notorious figure in the City and in British business circles for his unorthodox approach and his somewhat casual relationship with the truth.

Many people, including some who should have known better, bought the story that this son of a primary school teacher was, in fact, the expensively educated scion of one of Egypt’s richest shipping families – although he did, in the end, accumulate a fortune the size of which was never entirely clear.

Founding his fortune

That fortune was founded on his early dealings with Adnan Khashoggi, a wealthy Saudi arms dealer, whose sister he married and later divorced.

After working for Khashoggi, his ability as a deal-maker drew him to the attention of the Sultan of Brunei, for whom he worked for a while and under whom he accumulated sufficient wealth to acquire a shipping agency.

He later sought to establish an oil production business in Haiti, posing as a Kuwaiti sheikh, before the samples he had hoped might be crude oil turned out to be molasses.

He eventually had to flee the island after falling out with its monstrous dictator ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier.

After acting as a middleman in more deals in the Middle East, Fayed pitched up in London, again posing as an Arab sheikh and setting himself up in an apartment on Park Lane.

Many were taken in by him. He and his brother, Ali, had sufficient funds or backing by 1978 to buy the Ritz hotel in Paris for $30m.

The nastiest and dirtiest takeover battles in history

What really put him on the map though, so far as the City was concerned, was the saga which began in November 1984 and which turned into one of the nastiest and dirtiest takeover battles in history.

The mining conglomerate Lonrho, which owned a sprawling portfolio of assets across the world but primarily in Africa, had for years been trying to buy Harrods – then owned by the House of Fraser department store chain.

Its chief executive, Roland “Tiny” Rowland, had built a 29.9% stake in House of Fraser as a prelude to a takeover bid for the company – which was referred to the old Monopolies & Mergers Commission by Margaret Thatcher’s government.

Mr Rowland, who had been famously dubbed “the unacceptable face of capitalism” by the former prime minister Edward Heath, knew the referral could be tricky.

So he hit on the wheeze of “parking” the stake with the Fayed brothers.

Unfortunately for him, he was double-crossed by Mohamed who, backed by the Sultan of Brunei, used the stake to launch a £615m takeover bid of his own.

He acquired the business and, in the process, deprived Mr Rowland of a treasured asset he had been stalking for the best part of a decade.

An enraged Mr Rowland waged a campaign against him thereafter to obtain revenge on the ‘”phoney pharaoh”.

The Department of Trade & Industry investigated the takeover and, when Mr Rowland obtained a leaked copy of its report, he published it in March 1989 in a special midweek edition of The Observer, the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper, which was at the time owned by Lonrho.

The DTI report pulled no punches.

A ruined reputation

In their most damning line, the DTI inspectors said the Fayeds had “dishonestly misrepresented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the secretary of state, the Office of Fair Trading, the press, the House of Fraser board, House of Fraser shareholders and their own advisers”.

It forever ruined Fayed’s reputation and, arguably, ensured that he was never given the British passport he craved for so many years.

Two years later, in an unprecedented move, the Bank of England forced the Fayed brothers to relinquish control of Harrods Bank after deciding they were not fit and proper people to run a deposit-taking institution.

However, despite Mr Rowland’s best efforts, Mr Fayed retained control of Harrods.

He gave up his fight in 1993 when, just before Christmas, he and Fayed publicly embraced in the Harrods food hall.

Months later, Mr Fayed floated House of Fraser on the stock market, but kept Harrods.

Troubled time at Harrods

The first two decades of his ownership of the department store were troubled.

Profits fell and Fayed was variously accused of electronically eavesdropping on employees and of firing minority employees with no cause.

Mr Rowland also alleged that papers he had kept in a security box at Harrods had been stolen and, while the police never charged anyone, damages were ultimately paid to Mr Rowland’s widow.

By the turn of the century, the business was in a bad way, with Mr Fayed’s management style ensuring a vast turnover of top management.

Between 2000 and 2002, Harrods lost no fewer than 12 directors, while between 2000 and 2005 it got through five managing directors.

Meanwhile the store itself, in the eyes of critics, degenerated into a “vulgar Egyptian theme park”.

Fayed finally got it right when, in March 2006, he poached Michael Ward, a retailer-turned-private equity executive, from Apax to fill the vacant post of Harrods managing director.

It was a fine and shrewd appointment.

During his first year in charge, Mr Ward increased annual profits at the business by 152% and, crucially, found a way of working with the owner.

Shortly after the Qatari takeover, in 2010, Mr Ward – who stayed with Harrods under its Qatari owners and propelled it to record annual sales and profits several times since – explained to the Sunday Times: “Once trust was established he was a very good person to work with. The problem, historically, was that nobody managed to cross that barrier.”

Interestingly, while Fayed sold both Harrods and Fulham, he never relinquished control of the Paris Ritz, the trophy asset he held on to longer than any other despite the fact that, for long periods of his ownership, it was heavily loss-making.

It will be interesting to see whether his heirs choose to cash in on this most valuable of properties after his death.

Business

Trump trade war escalation sparks global market sell-off

Published

11 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

Trump trade war escalation sparks global market sell-off

Donald Trump’s trade war escalation has sparked a global sell-off, with US stock markets seeing the biggest declines in a hit to values estimated above $2trn.

Tech and retail shares were among those worst hit when Wall Street opened for business, following on from a flight from risk across both Asia and Europe earlier in the day.

Analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell put the value of the peak losses among major indices at $2.2trn (£1.7trn).

The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite was down 5.8%, the S&P 500 by 4.3% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by just under 4% at the height of the declines. It left all three on course for their worst one-day losses since at least September 2022 though the sell-off later eased back slightly.

Trump latest: UK considers tariff retaliation

Analysts said the focus in the US was largely on the impact that the expanded tariff regime will have on the domestic economy but also effects on global sales given widespread anger abroad among the more than 180 nations and territories hit by reciprocal tariffs on Mr Trump‘s self-styled “liberation day”.

They are set to take effect next week, with tariffs on all car, steel and aluminium imports already in effect.

Price rises are a certainty in the world’s largest economy as the president’s additional tariffs kick in, with those charges expected to be passed on down supply chains to the end user.

The White House believes its tariffs regime will force employers to build factories and hire workers in the US to escape the charges.

Economists warn the additional costs will add upward pressure to US inflation and potentially choke demand and hiring, ricking a slide towards recession.

Apple was among the biggest losers in cash terms in Thursday’s trading as its shares fell by almost 9%, leaving it on track for its worst daily performance since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Concerns among shareholders were said to include the prospects for US price hikes when its products are shipped to the US from Asia.

Other losers included Tesla, down by almost 6% and Nvidia down by more than 6%.

Many retail stocks including those for Target and Footlocker lost more than 10% of their respective market values.

The European Union is expected to retaliate in a bid to put pressure on the US to back down.

The prospect of a tit-for-tat trade war saw the CAC 40 in France and German DAX fall by more than 3.4% and 3% respectively.

The FTSE 100, which is internationally focused, was 1.6% lower by the close – a three-month low.

Financial stocks were worst hit with Asia-focused Standard Chartered bank enduring the worst fall in percentage terms of 13%, followed closely by its larger rival HSBC.

Among the stocks seeing big declines were those for big energy as oil Brent crude costs fell back by 6% to $70 due to expectations a trade war will hurt demand.

The more domestically relevant FTSE 250 was 2.2% lower.

A weakening dollar saw the pound briefly hit a six-month high against the US currency at $1.32.

There was a rush for safe haven gold earlier in the day as a new record high was struck though it was later trading down.

Sean Sun, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management, said of the state of play: “Markets may actually be underreacting, especially if these rates turn out to be final, given the potential knock-on effects to global consumption and trade.”

He warned there was a big risk of escalation ahead through countermeasures against the US.

Sandra Ebner, senior economist at Union Investment, said: “We assume that the tariffs will not remain in place in the
announced range, but will instead be a starting point for further negotiations.

“Trump has set a maximum demand from which the level of tariffs should decrease”.

She added: “Since the measures would not affect all regions and sectors equally, there will be winners and losers as in 2018 – although the losers are more likely to be in the EU than in North America.

“To protect companies in Europe from the effects of tariffs, the EU should not respond with high counter-tariffs. In any case, their impact in the US is not likely to be significant. It would be more efficient to provide targeted support to EU companies in the form of investment and stimulus.”

Business

British businesses issue warning over ‘deeply troubling’ Trump tariffs

Published

11 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

British businesses issue warning over 'deeply troubling' Trump tariffs

British companies and business groups have expressed alarm over President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on UK goods entering the US – but cautioned against retaliatory measures.

It comes as Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds launched a consultation with firms on taxes the UK could implement in response to the new levies.

Money blog: Pension top-up deadline days away

A 400-page list of 8,000 US goods that could be targeted by UK tariffs has been published, including items like whiskey and jeans.

On so-called “Liberation Day”, Mr Trump announced UK goods entering the US will be subject to a 10% tax while cars will be slapped with a 25% levy.

The government’s handling of tariff negotiations with the US to date has been praised by representative and industry bodies as being “cool” and “calm” – and they urged ministers to continue that approach by not retaliating.

Business lobby group the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) said: “Retaliation will only add to supply chain disruption, slow down investment, and stoke volatility in prices”.

Industry body the British Retail Consortium (BRC) also cautioned: “Retaliatory tariffs should only be a last resort”.

‘Deeply troubling’

While a major category of exports, in the form of services – like finance and information technology (IT) – has been exempted from the tariffs, the impact on UK business is expected to be significant.

Mr Trump’s announcement was described as “deeply troubling for businesses” by the CBI’s chief executive Rain Newton-Smith.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) also said the tariffs were “a major blow” to small and medium companies (SMEs), as 59% of small UK exporters sell to the US. It called for emergency government aid to help those affected.

“Tariffs will cause untold damage to small businesses trying to trade their way into profit while the domestic economy remains flat,” the FSB’s policy chair Tina McKenzie said. “The fallout will stifle growth” and “hurt opportunities”, she added.

Companies will need to adapt and overcome, the British Export Association said, but added: “Unfortunately adaptation will come at a cost that not all businesses will be able to bear.”

Watch dealer and component seller Darren Townend told Sky News the 10% hit would be “painful” as “people will buy less”.

“I am a fan of Trump, but this is nuts,” he said. “I expect some bad months ahead.”

Industry body Make UK said the 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium would in particular be devastating for UK manufacturing.

Cars hard hit

Carmakers are among the biggest losers from the world trade order reshuffle.

Auto industry body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the taxes were “deeply disappointing and potentially damaging measure”.

“These tariff costs cannot be absorbed by manufacturers”, SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said. “UK producers may have to review output in the face of constrained demand”.

The new taxes on cars took effect on Thursday morning, while the measures impacting car parts are due to come in on 3 May.

Business

Trump trade war: The blunt calculation that should have spared UK from reciprocal tariffs

Published

11 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

Trump trade war: The blunt calculation that should have spared UK from reciprocal tariffs

Economists immediately started scratching their heads when Donald Trump raised his tariffs placard in the Rose Garden on Wednesday.

On that list he detailed the rate the US believes it is being charged by each country, along with its response: A reciprocal tariff at half that rate.

So, take China for example. Donald Trump said his team had run the numbers and the world’s second-largest economy was implementing an effective tariff of 67% on US imports. The US is responding with 34%.

Trump latest: UK considers tariff retaliation

How did he come up with that 67%? This is where things get a bit murky. The US claims it studied its trading relationship with individual countries, examining non-tariff barriers as well as tariff barriers. That includes, for example, regulations that make it difficult for US exporters.

However, the actual methodology appears to be far cruder. Instead of responding to individual countries’ trade barriers, Trump is attacking those enjoying large trade surpluses with the US.

A formula released by the US trade representative laid this bare. It took the US’s trade deficit in goods with each country and divided that by imports from that country. That figure was then divided by two.

So, in the case of China, which has a trade surplus of $295bn on total US exports of $438bn, that gives a ratio of 68%. The US divided that by two, giving a reciprocal tariff of 34%.

This is a blunt measure which targets big importers to the US, irrespective of the trade barriers they have erected. This is all part of Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the country’s deficit – although it’s US consumers who will end up paying the price.

But what about the small number of countries where the US has a trade surplus? Shouldn’t they actually be benefiting from all of this?

That includes the UK, with whom the US has a surplus (by its own calculations) of $12bn. By its own reciprocal tariff formula, the UK should be benefitting from a “negative tariff” of 9%.

Instead, it has been hit by a 10% baseline tariff. Number 10 may be breathing a sigh of relief – the US could, after all, have gone after us for our 20% VAT rate on imports, which it takes issue with – but, by Trump’s own measure, we haven’t got off as lightly as we should have.