Bishop Hill A slimy article
Nov 20, 2012 Climate: Parliament Leo Hickman has done a rather slimy article looking at Peter Lilley and making much of his interests in an oil company called Tethys.
As a new member of the Commons energy and climate change select committee, Lilley is expected to declare any relevant interests to the committee's clerk upon his first appearance, which took place last week. Next Tuesday, the committee will recommence its inquiry into shale gas. The minutes of any interests or information declared by Lilley to the clerk is not expected to be published for at least a month, but the Guardian understands that, as a committee member, he is not obliged to declare anything beyond that required in the MPs' register of financial interests.
The problem is that although it is headquartered here, Tethys doesn't even operate in the UK. I'm therefore not sure that this represents a conflict of interest. What do readers here think?
Reader Comments (82)
hahaha ooop
Dung
"using more oil in power generation"
I suspect that in Hickman's apology for a mind, oil and gas are the same evil thing. You need to drill holes in Mother Earth to get at both of them.
"I doubt if the options can be traded. What facility is there for trading Tethys options?"
It's called the stock market, some options are tradeable. I qualified this in my post, I didn't double-check if these particular ones are ETOs (exchange traded options). Theoretically you could make an off market transfer to a 3rd party even if they aren't.
As others have said, out of the money options still have value. It isn't just dependant on the simplistic view of whether they are above/below the strike price.
What Ben Pile and Sean O'Connor said. Plus what James Delingpole said, just because it's James.
Outstanding!
My memory is a bit shaky, but I think the capital gain occurs at the time the person eventually sells the stock. The gain is the difference between what they actually paid ($X per share) and the price they get when they are sold at some time in the future ($Z per share).
Of course, they might sell the stock the very same day they exercise their option to buy, in which case, they make an instant capital gain.
Martin, if you make money from your stock options then you have to pay tax on it. If it is an approved stock option scheme you pay capital gains tax, if it isn't approved the revenue treat it as income and tax it at the highest rate of tax they can for the individual. Hence an approved stock option scheme is beneficial taxwise. Of course I too am going back some time when these regs were in force.
Peter Lilley's stock options are valueless until they go above the price set for his purchase, unless of course he can find someone who wants to buy the stock from him at more than the market price. I doubt that's going to happen. So until the stock price rises over his buying price they're worthless.
Lilley should declare. Also look into Yeo and Lord Deben, both slimey individuals, and both into renewables in a big way.
Geronimo,
As others have pointed out, the options retain a value. An option value. As such Lilley would retain an economic interest in the company.
Granted, it isn't a tradeable value, but a value to him nonetheless and a potential return linked to the financial outcomes of the company.
There are ten categories under which interests are registered at the House of Commons. categories 9 and 10 seem to me to be the relevant ones here.
9. Registrable shareholdings
In this section Members are required to register the name of any public or private company or other body in which, to their knowledge, they have a beneficial interest in a shareholding (a) of more than 15% of the issued share capital or (b) worth more than £59,000 at the preceding 5th April.
10. Miscellaneous and unremunerated interests
This is a discretionary section for the registration by Members of interests which do not clearly fall within any of the above categories but which they consider to fall within the Register's purpose. In accordance with the nature of the Register as a record of pecuniary and material interests and the wishes of the Standards & Privileges Committee, unremunerated charitable and voluntary commitments are not, of themselves, registered, though if a material benefit arises from them that should be registered in the appropriate category.
Out of the money options have no intrinsic value. I do not know if these options can be traded. I doubt it for the reason given by Martin A. Also, who is likely to buy the options at present even if they could be traded.? Hickman says the company reported last week a substantial increase in oil production and revenue from the Doris field in 2012. He did not say that, while production was rising slowly in Kazakhstan it was not rising as fast as had earlier been forecast. 10,000 barrels of oil and equivalent was promised by end of the year. The October average was 3,800 He did not say either that shareholders are concerned about the company's finances at the end of the third quarter 2012. The company is hoping for a farm-in (partner) to share drilling costs.It will not get one on favourable terms given its financial state. No wonder the share price fell.
Category 10 is discretionary. I do not see a reason for Mr Lilley to declare an interest. It seems to me that many of his options will not be exercised. This is a malicious piece of reporting in my view.
The comments underneath the article are extraordinary (at least to me). People who are very ignorant, bigoted and loud and extremely unpleasant. I can't help comparing them to our host's reasonable, elegant and measured prose. (I am just re-reading HSI after twice reading Hiding the Decline.) Why are so many people so nasty? Is this the triumph of "Education, Education, Education"? Incidentally there is an article in the Daily Mail today by Ian Birrell (yes, I know, also a singularly nasty publication) about the infiltration of environmental groups by the police, which seemed to assume that they are made up of harmless, well meaning and rather amateurish folk. Does the Mail really believe that?
It's an interesting discussion here; one of "our team" has some stock options in a company not connected to the UK in anyway and by general concensus not worth a great deal, in fact having a negative value if bought and sold today; yet the majority of comments say this option should be declared. Compare and contrast this with comments elsewhere regarding Yeo/Deben etc. who are saving the planet by investing in green companies and in some cases sitting on the same committees. The human mind is a very strange thing.
Sandy
Would AM describe an article in the Telegraph questioning the assets of Mr Yeo as "slimey"? Perhaps not. Sliminess seems to attach itself to the honourable gent:
(from Wikipedia)
Talking slime, Our Hero has just repeated on Twitter the tactic of asking why 28Gate is a big FOI story, only then to provide no argument at all why it is not.
Who knows if Heather Brooke or any other self-style FOI campaigner will have an ounce of amour-propre, coming out either in favor or against the BBC's FOI tactics (I don't mind, as long as it is a reasoned point).
So far, hypocrisy rules the day.
Slightly off topic but relevant nonetheless so far as the progressive mind-set is concerned, Hickman being one of its prime exponents. When Blair's New Labour swept the 1997 election, ushering in its own version of a New Jerusalem (translated: Blair and Mandelson enriching themselves, Brown sulking and plotting), it was in part on the basis of Blair et al sweeping aside what the media readily embraced as 'Tory sleaze'.
As we all know, New Labour sleaze subsequently vastly exceeded the Tories' pitiful efforts. Yet we never hear a word of that today.
And today, exactly the same scenario: Lilley's 'conflict of interest' has the likes of Hickman postively puce with indignation. At precisely the same moment, the arch-creep, Peter Mandelson, is appointed head of 'ethical banking' at Lazard International.
I hope no one will expect a level playing field when the interests of the bien-pensant class are threatened. I hope, too, that no one will expect even-handedness on the part of the MSM in reporting this.
There is a long, long way to go.
Agouts - yes in 1997 I voted Labour in the belief it would get the sleaze out of govt. What a sucker i was.
Has anyone read the comments on the Hickman article?
So erudite and pithy, I mean really is leech, bastard, parasite and slimeball really the best they've got?
No wonder they're desperate!
Lest anyone wrong me here ^.^
I said Lilley should declare all his interests because I do not want him to in any way risk his position on the select committee which I regard as a brilliant move :)
Aren’t we missing the point? His Grace said “The problem is that although it is headquartered here Tethys doesn't even operate in the UK. I'm therefore not sure that this represents a conflict of interest”. Put another way, why should share options (presently underwater) in a corporate operating outside the UK create any conflict of interest, to a member of the UK legislature?
There are two ways of looking at this: first that Lilley is conflicted as this could be taken to create a bias to support contracts which might benefit Tethys in some way (wherever it operates, including perhaps commencing new operations in the UK), to seek to move the share value above the option strike price.
But secondly, at least we have a legislator who hopefully has some familiarity with the (real-world) energy industry and its economics, who hopefully knows something of what he is talking about – unlike the usual type that comes up the university debating club, NGO activist/pamphleteer and Spad route to get a constituency, but knows diddly squat about how the real world operates.
And I did like Lucas’ comment that Lilley’s appointment “is a clear sign that anti-green, anti-science forces are gaining ground." What exactly does she mean by “anti-science” - that Lilly has take a stance against gravity?
I am amazed that so many here attach such a high value to the degree one acquires before one actually begins working.
Research some forty years ago into the professional background of teachers found that after five years in the classroom no difference could be found between those who had trained as teachers and those who had not, and that a degree and it's subjects and quality faded into mere background noise in the same time frame. Follow-up studies have concluded that, after years in any job, actual experience allied with personal qualities shape the success or failure of any worker in any field.
The fact that many politicians in the UK insist that a teacher must have a 'good' degree to be a 'good' teacher demonstrates nothing more than the politicians' ignorance of the realities of teaching and possibly of performance in any work.
I suspect that the real reason that the Guardian employs so many of the Hickman type has nothing to do with education and everything to do with the strange editorial policies of that newspapers.
'Aren’t we missing the point'
The point is bad-faith journalism. It was missed long ago.
I still remember when I had to explain to Brainy Man via Twitter that Free as in CiF relates to "freedom" and not "without exchange of money".
The Guardian and its parent groups participate in Project Syndicate, established by George Soros.
Project Syndicate is an international not-for-profit newspaper syndicate and association of newspapers. It distributes commentaries and analysis ("opinion pieces") by experts, activists, Nobel laureates, statesmen, economists, political thinkers, business leaders and academics to its member publications, and encourages networking among its members.
It currently consists of approximately 488 newspapers in 153 countries, with a total circulation of nearly 70 million copies, making it the world's largest commentary focused syndicate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Syndicate
I took the trouble, a few minutes ago, to read Hickman's piece plus a tranche of the following comments. Hickman is not merely slimy, he is also deceitful, dishonest and wilfully perverts the definition of 'journalist'.
Ms Newman's comment betrays the self-evident information that she lives in a parallel universe of her own invention and, as to the comments from the faithful followers, the sheer ignorance and nastiness on display boggles the mind.
Ben Pile, you hit the nail on the head!
lilley should declare.
guardian should declare oil company sponsorship/advertising at the guardian every time they write about CAGW.
BBC should declare Pension Fund investments in Big Oil, Big Tobacco, etc., every time they mention CAGW.
Will Hickman and the Graun be reporting on this conflict of interest?
Nice one James. Come on Leo - lets 'hear' it..........
DNFTT
Who I quote...
why would anyone who counts for anything bother with you?
One thing regarding stock options that I've not seen mentioned here so far ... the granting of stock options may induce the recipient to act favourably in relation to the company in order to raise the value of the stocks above that of the options, thereby producing a windfall profit to the recipient of those stock options should he/she decide to exercise the option. In this case it would be prudent for Mr Lilley to declare such an interest.
It would be, likewise, prudent to develop a list of Green option holders amongst the CAGW elite and monitor their 'interventions'. Don't take your eyes off Yeo and Deben.
Streetcred
Please read my comment about Yeo and his trail of slime. That slimeball does not even declare all his interests and nothing happens.
@ Jonathan Jones Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM
good catch Jonathan - like this extract
'Make apathy
history
Leo Hickman (ENGAM 1991) is a journalist, author and editor at The Guardian. Embarking
on a challenging experiment in ethical living, he has spent 12 months transforming the way he
and his family live their lives. Here Leo gives us a glimpse into his thought-provoking journey.'
funny enough i agree with with the premise/goal eg -
"I gasp at the saddening and maddening facts about our wasteful
and contradictory lives – that globally, US$33bn is spent on makeup and perfume annually, whereas just US$29bn a year would be required to eliminate hunger and provide clean water to all"
now why is not his theme in The Guardian (or have i missed it)
ps. anybody any idea of his salary for all this do good stuff, if the price is right i'll try a 1 yr red wine experiment :-)
dougieh - this might be indicative of salary levels at the Guardian:
http://www.monbiot.com/registry-of-interests/
Out of interest, I was chatting to Leo Hickman on twitter and he mentioned that his degree is in Art History https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/288757808978096128