FT : Rentokil will need more than a listings change to resist Peltz

Rentokil will need more than a listings change to resist Peltz
The pest control group clearly has problems that the activist investor believes he can solve

Rentokil Initial specialises in ridding premises of pests. The London-listed company now has one on its shareholder register. Activist Nelson Peltz’s Trian says it has a top 10 holding in Rentokil. That lit a fire underneath Rentokil’s otherwise soggy share price, which was up 13 per cent by late-morning trading.

That reaction reflects the impact that activists can have in equity markets, like the beleaguered and unloved UK market, that are highly sensitive to any positive catalysts. And Rentokil clearly has some problems that Peltz believes he can solve.

Top line growth looks sluggish at under 4 per cent per year in the two years through 2025. In North America, both the world’s largest market and well over half Rentokil’s business, that pace should be even slower. Acquiring Terminix in the US for $5.4bn back in 2022 gets part of the blame. While that deal meant Rentokil leapt to leadership in the US pest control market by revenue, integration has been slow.


As a result, Rentokil’s share price has underperformed badly, trailing both the broader UK market and its largest US-listed peer Rollins. Whereas Rollins trades at a forward price to earnings multiple around 45 times, similar to three years ago, Rentokil has only gotten cheaper at 17 times.

Whether that gap has to do with Rentokil’s so-so growth profile compared to Rollins or its London listing could offer a topic of discussion between Peltz and chief executive Andrew Ransom. As Lex has noted, it is not clear that simply moving a listing makes a difference. Yet, one can see why Peltz might have questions.

He has something to work with at least. For starters, Rentokil has around 30 per cent market share in the US, followed by Rollins’ one-fifth share by revenue. The former has consistently delivered organic free cash flow, and should manage an average of £600mn annually this year and next, according to Visible Alpha consensus estimates. That easily covers the dividend. But against that financial strength sits a net debt to ebitda leverage of roughly 2.5 times, using S&P Capital IQ data.

More than a change of address is needed for Rentokil. Higher interest rates means Rentokil needs to get its debt down. At a time of sluggish revenue growth, that is a tricky proposition that could benefit from an activist’s insistence on more aggressive changes.

The Information : Two Software Companies That May Not Stay Public for Long

GitLab, DocuSign: Two Software Companies That May Not Stay Public for Long

The Takeaway
  • GitLab and DocuSign are potential candidates for a buyout, analysts and investors say, amid growing expectations that M&A activity in software is about to pick up.

Tech companies may soon be on a shopping spree, as the world adjusts to high interest rates and companies start looking for ways to juice growth. And for investors inclined to make a bet on potential targets, they need not go much further than two enterprise tech firms: GitLab and DocuSign.

That’s our conclusion from wading through numerous publicly traded software firms identified by Wall Street analysts, and after talking with investors. Both stocks are reasonably priced, measured as a multiple of the next 12 months’ sales, and would supplement the businesses of several bigger tech firms or could be private equity targets. A few other firms, such as Paycom and Paylocity, might also fit the bill, but not quite as well.

What makes us so confident? After all, we’ve been in a bit of a deal drought for 18 months. But clearly attitudes toward mergers and acquisitions are changing. Last week SAP announced plans to buy WalkMe, while private equity firm Bain Capital said it would take PowerSchool Holdings private. Both deals involve the buyers paying a hefty premium of roughly 40% to where the stocks were trading beforehand. DocuSign has clearly been on buyers’ target lists recently: Both Bain Capital and Hellman & Friedman were in talks to buy the company in January, Reuters reported, although conversations stalled.

At the same time, midsize software companies have good reasons to sell. Businesses have become more careful in their spending on software, a trend that continued into the most recent quarter, as numerous software executives signaled, including GitLab’s CFO. That has dampened growth rates for a wide range of software companies. Bain & Co. partner Adam Haller, who leads its merger integration group, notes that a lot of small companies may have already sold—such as cloud security startup Lacework, which sold to Fortinet—but there’s another layer of midsize firms “that haven’t done great…not bad enough that they were forced to sell,” which offers an opportunity for buyers.

KeyBanc Capital Markets’ lead enterprise software analyst, Jackson Ader, is among those who think there will be even more software deal activity in the coming months. In reports published last week, Ader and his team named dozens of publicly traded software firms that they reckon could be viable targets for takeovers in the near future. After taking into account factors like potential regulatory hurdles and uncertainty about how artificial intelligence advances will change attitudes, Ader’s team honed in on just 10 prospective targets. From that list, a few stand out as particularly attractive—none more so than GitLab.

GitLab is a business similar to GitHub, acquired by Microsoft in 2018: Both run services to help developers write code, including open-source software code repositories. Under Microsoft, GitHub has flourished, sometimes at GitLab’s expense, as The Information reported in January. GitLab’s revenue growth rate has slowed to 37% in the year to January from 68% a year earlier, and its growth rate is expected to decelerate further to 27% this fiscal year, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

That competition could give GitLab’s co-founder and CEO, Sytse Sijbrandij, who has a 46% voting stake, a reason to sell. As for potential buyers, GitLab could be appealing to a smaller cloud provider, such as Oracle or Google Cloud. As The Information noted in January, Google Cloud is now one of GitLab’s most important resellers and owns about 6% of its stock. Oracle, meanwhile, experienced a slowdown in its cloud revenue growth rate in the May quarter, it reported on Tuesday, which could give it motivation to pursue a GitLab acquisition.

Another potential buyer is IT automation technology provider ServiceNow, whose CEO Bill McDermott used to run SAP, where he led some of that company’s largest acquisitions, including Concur and Qualtrics. GitLab could be ServiceNow’s first major acquisition and would help it maintain the 20%-plus annual revenue growth it has enjoyed since it went public.

GitLab wouldn’t be too hard to digest. It has a market capitalization of around $7 billion, but after taking into account roughly $1 billion on its balance sheet, a purchase would cost only $6 billion. And it is now generating cash.

DocuSign is another software firm some investors think is poised for a takeout. Its forward revenue multiple of under 4 times is a huge step down from the 9.8 times at which it was valued in 2019 (the pandemic-era tech boom lifted that metric to over 20 times).

The trouble is that its expected sales growth—6% for the next two years, according to analysts polled by Koyfin—is meager. DocuSign has long been perceived as a single-product firm that enables employees to sign business contracts online, but as competition from Adobe’s similar product ramps up, the company has been trying to reshape the narrative and kick-start growth. To that end, earlier this year it launched a more comprehensive platform for businesses to manage their agreements with other companies.

Perhaps Adobe could try to subsume and expand DocuSign. Adobe, which is also trying to find new ways to grow, is licking its wounds after its offer for design firm Figma didn’t pass muster with antitrust regulators. But other potential buyers, such as Salesforce or even private equity firms, might be eyeing the same target, according to software investor Logan Bartlett of Redpoint Ventures. As The Information noted in an M&A Special Report on Monday, Salesforce, Adobe and Oracle are overdue for acquisitions given their past history.

In some ways, DocuSign is well suited for a private equity–led buyout. It threw off nearly $1 billion in free cash flow over the past 12 months, representing a 32% margin as a percent of revenue—on the high end for the typical software firm. Web design firm Squarespace, which buyout shop Permira said last month it planned to purchase for $6.9 billion, has also seen slowing sales growth but similarly generates a healthy amount of cash.

Plenty of other software companies might be suitable for private equity buyouts. Marcin Majewski, managing partner at tech investment bank Aventis Advisors, thinks some of the most probable targets for private equity takeovers are companies that generate less than $300,000 in sales for each full-time employee on their payroll, a relatively low level that suggests they have ample room to cut costs. E-commerce software firm Shopify, for instance, generates nearly $900,000 in revenue per employee, according to Aventis. But human resources software providers Paycom and Paylocity are both below the $300,000 threshold.

Paycom and Paylocity are also free of debt. Their operations are concentrated in the U.S., which, according to the KeyBanc analysts, presents an opportunity for them to unlock a new source of growth by expanding internationally. That’s true of human resources software firm Paycor, too, although with private equity firm Apax Partners already owning a large chunk of its shares, brokering a fresh sale could be complex.

Predicting what deals will get done isn’t easy, but savvy public market investors could benefit from beating private equity to the punch.

WSJ : McKinsey Boss’s Next Big Consulting Project: His Own Firm

McKinsey Boss’s Next Big Consulting Project: His Own Firm
After a turbulent few years, Bob Sternfels talks about revamping the company’s structure and employee development; ‘Not everyone gets an A’

Soon after Bob Sternfels took the top job at the consulting giant McKinsey a few years ago, he embarked on an around-the-world tour to meet with the lowest rung of managers at the firm.

The conversations largely took place outside; Sternfels is prone to walking meetings and finds that a jaunt out of an office can elicit more candid feedback than staring at someone across a conference table. What many of the young managers discovered, though, is that a walk with Sternfels, a former Stanford water-polo player, is more often akin to a light jog.

“Some end up a little sweatier than others at the end of these things,” he says.

It is with a similar level of intensity that the 54-year-old is approaching his next task: helping to “rewire” McKinsey. The firm, which advises many of the world’s biggest companies and governments, has weathered a bruising period marked by a downturn in demand, layoffs and legal challenges tied to its past work with opioid makers.

Sternfels sat down with The Wall Street Journal for a long-ranging, exclusive interview at a critical junction for the century-old partnership.

McKinsey said in 2021 it would pay $641 million in settlements for its work with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma and other pharmaceutical companies. The Justice Department has opened a criminal probe. Congress has grilled Sternfels over the firm’s work on behalf of Saudi Arabia and in China.

An election for global managing partner earlier this year stretched to three rounds, laying bare dissatisfaction within the firm. Sternfels survived and kept his position, but the process highlighted an unusual structure that gives McKinsey’s 750 senior partners the power to choose their leader every three years.

As his new term begins next month, Sternfels and his colleagues are planning for much change. With clients, McKinsey is adjusting some of its fee structures, taking on more work in which it defers payment until companies reach agreed-upon results. Asutosh Padhi, McKinsey’s current head of North America, will work on such experiments, part of a broader leadership shake-up across the firm.

Rodney Zemmel, who faced off against Sternfels in the final round of the election and heads a growing practice called McKinsey Digital, will spend time on how McKinsey consultants should adapt their work in the era of artificial intelligence.

The firm is also rethinking how it runs itself. It launched a 30-person “partnership modernization” task force, which is debating issues tied to McKinsey’s governance, including the length of a term for the firm’s leader and how often it conducts elections.

“We’ll ask some questions of…when are elections helpful to a partnership, and when are they divisive?” Sternfels said, adding that he wants the group to wrap up by year-end.

One of the task force’s first moves, taking effect July 1, is to separate McKinsey’s senior management team from its board to better differentiate between those overseeing the firm and those running its operations. Board members will still include partners, including well-known leaders such as Liz Hilton Segel, McKinsey’s chief client officer.

3,000 partners
What has made running McKinsey challenging, those inside and outside the firm say, is that the company has grown significantly in recent years. McKinsey has roughly 45,000 employees around the globe and about 3,000 partners. While that is still a fraction of some of its broader consulting-industry peers—Accenture had about 740,000 employees at the end of February—it is still a steep increase from its past. As recently as 2021, McKinsey had about 30,000 employees.

Sternfels said he is spending time thinking about how to make the firm feel smaller, while maintaining its global structure. In addition to organizing groups geographically or in functional areas, such as private equity, McKinsey is debating how it might set up internal “communities” within the firm, pulling people from across divisions.

These communities, for example, might be devoted to infrastructure work, as companies from oil giants to semiconductor makers invest in big projects, requiring consultants with business expertise and experience navigating government policies and subsidies.

At a recent leadership retreat for partners in Copenhagen, Sternfels also emphasized that, no matter what shape McKinsey takes, he wants the organization to be a place where employees get “unrivaled development.” That goal means doubling down on feedback—and lots of it—for staffers.

Top leaders at McKinsey don’t anticipate additional layoffs following some cuts last year.
Up-or-out culture
McKinsey has long had an up-or-out culture, where consultants either ascend through the ranks or are shown the door and invited to join an active McKinsey alumni group. Earlier this year, the firm put about 3,000 employees on notice with unsatisfactory performance ratings. Some consultants feared they would be “CTL’d,” or counseled to leave, in McKinsey speak.

Sternfels said McKinsey is a meritocracy, and that its ratings are in line with its historical averages. “The great reveal is people have always been rated that way,” he said. “Guess what? Not everybody gets an A.”

He added: “It’s not just the feedback, sink or swim, but it’s done with a sponsor, so that you have somebody who’s going to be in your corner to help change the odds that you can actually do something about that feedback.”

McKinsey laid off some nonclient-facing staffers last year and elected a smaller new class of partners. It also deferred start dates for some new hires.

Sternfels and other senior partners said they don’t foresee additional layoffs. Some of the previous cuts came after a burst of hiring during the pandemic when demand for McKinsey’s services soared.

“We’re back in balance now,” Sternfels said. The company plans to hire 6,000 people this year, roughly the same as the year before, and Sternfels expects net employee growth at McKinsey in 2024.

AI advice
As McKinsey veterans talk about the future of the firm, and what it means to be a consultant, AI looms large.

When a summer intern recently asked Segel, McKinsey’s chief client officer, for tips on how to succeed at the firm, she didn’t hesitate. “My advice to her was to be an outstanding prompt engineer” on an internal McKinsey generative AI tool.

Consultants should know how to use such tools, streamlining their work, she said, so they can then focus on offering higher-value services, such as counseling clients to put new processes in place.

“I think the word ‘consulting’ is a misnomer. I have not figured out the new word,” Segel said. “What we do is we effect change: change in results, change in capabilities.”

McKinsey is best known for offering strategy ideas to companies—a proposition the firm increasingly views as table stakes in the AI era. “That part of the profession will get disrupted,” Sternfels said.

Instead, the firm wants McKinsey’s people delivering ideas while also helping clients through the often-difficult process of changing how they work, said Shelley Stewart, a senior partner on Sternfels’s new leadership team.

U.S. probe
Challenges remain. The Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into McKinsey’s work with opioid manufacturers, the Journal previously reported. A former senior partner also recently sued the firm and Sternfels, alleging that McKinsey made false statements when it fired him in 2021 for allegedly violating the firm’s document-retention policies.

Asked how he thought the Justice Department investigation would end, Sternfels said, “My sense is just with all the regulators that we’re talking to, we are on a path to come to a resolution.”

McKinsey’s work with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund has also come under scrutiny, including on its ambitions to be an international player in golf. McKinsey established an office in Saudi Arabia in 2010 that now has more than 400 employees. Sternfels testified its work in Saudi Arabia predated the launch of LIV Golf and a proposed merger with the PGA Tour.

U.S. lawmakers have criticized McKinsey for advising the U.S. government while also consulting for Chinese state-owned enterprises. Sternfels said the firm’s footprint is under “constant evaluation” and that it doesn’t work directly with the national or provincial governments in China. The vast majority of the firm’s work in China is with multinational corporations and other private-sector clients, he said.

McKinsey is debating how it might set up internal ‘communities,’ pulling people from across divisions within the firm.

Culture change
A 30-year McKinsey veteran, Sternfels studied economics at Stanford University and was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. He rose through McKinsey’s ranks as an operations guru and is known for giving multipronged responses to questions, occasionally peppering his sentences with words like “orthogonal.”

During a recent conversation, dressed in a trim navy suit with a white shirt, he appeared as at ease discussing the nuances of the carbon-credit market as he was in highlighting the emerging alliances forming between Japanese chief executives and Indian companies—a takeaway from an early June trip to Tokyo.

Colleagues say Sternfels is known for a decisive, do-it-now attitude, an approach that also has brought criticism. He has tried to change McKinsey’s culture, in part, by focusing on humor, sometimes at his own expense, to make people feel more comfortable.

While visiting a McKinsey office, he played a game called “How hot can Bob go?” Sternfels would attempt to eat four curry dishes of escalating spice levels as employees asked him questions.

“By the third one, it was a wet towel on my head,” he said. At the fourth station, Sternfels gave in.

“What it did was the whole room got a laugh, and we had a great conversation after that,” he said.

These days, Sternfels splits his time equally between internal meetings and conversations with leaders of McKinsey clients. When chatting with a client CEO, Sternfels will often ask: What can McKinsey do differently?

Many CEOs respond that the firm should keep telling them what others don’t. Sternfels said he views this as a reminder that McKinsey must keep evolving and be distinctive. Then, summing up the challenge, he returns to a favorite word.

“How do we bring orthogonal ideas to the CEO?”

>>> US Research Calls

Research Calls
  • Upgrades:
    • Banco Santander Chile (BSAC) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at Itau BBA; tgt $22
    • Ciena (CIEN) upgraded to Overweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley; tgt raised to $55
    • Darling Ingredients (DAR) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Citigroup; tgt $48
    • Haemonetics (HAE) upgraded to Buy from Hold at Needham; tgt $112
    • Klaviyo (KVYO) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays; tgt raised to $29
    • McCormick (MKC) upgraded to Neutral from Sell at Citigroup; tgt raised to $69
    • National Grid (NGG) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldma
    • PagerDuty (PD) upgraded to Buy from Hold at Craig Hallum; tgt $
  • Downgrades:
    • Academy Sports + Outdoors (ASO) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at UBS; tgt lowered to $58
    • Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) downgraded to Underperform from Neutral at Exane BNP Paribas
    • Birkenstock Holding Plc (BIRK) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Goldman; tgt raised to $58
    • NextEra Energy (NEE) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Mizuho; tgt $71
    • NextEra Energy Partners (NEP) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Mizuho; tgt $33
    • Paramount Global (PARA) downgraded to Underweight from Equal Weight at Wells Fargo; tgt lowered to $9
    • Pure Storage (PSTG) downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley; tgt $60
  • Others:
    • Avadel Pharmaceuticals (AVDL) initiated with a Buy at Rodman & Renshaw; tgt $27
    • Broadstone Net Lease (BNL) initiated with a Sector Weight at KeyBanc Capital Markets
    • Farmers and Merchants (FMAO) resumed with a Neutral at Piper Sandler; tgt $24
    • Fiserv (FI) initiated with an Overweight at Wells Fargo; tgt $180
    • Global Payments (GPN) initiated with an Equal Weight at Wells Fargo; tgt $100
    • Meta Platforms (META) reiterated with a Market Perform at BMO Capital Markets; tgt $450
    • NCR Voyix Corporation (VYX) initiated with a Buy at Stifel; tgt $16
    • Realty Income (O) initiated with a Sector Weight at KeyBanc Capital Markets
    • Tesla (TSLA) reiterated with a Neutral at Citigroup
    • Valvoline (VVV) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler; tgt $49

>>> US Gapping down

Gapping down
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:
  • MAMA -5.3%
Other news:
  • PAC -5% (acquires 51.5% of the shares representing the capital stock of the Company "GWTC")
  • NVGS -2.8% (prices offering of 7 mln shares of common stock at $15.00 per share)
  • ACN -1.8% (CFO retires, names new CFO; makes other mgmt changes)
  • MTDR -1.3% (entered into a definitive agreement to acquire a subsidiary of Ameredev II Parent)
  • NRIX -0.9% (files mixed shelf securities offering)
Analyst comments:
  • BIRK -2.6% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Goldman)
  • PSTG -2.6% (downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley)
  • ASO -2.3% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at UBS)
  • NEE -1.8% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Mizuho)
  • PARA -1.8% (downgraded to Underweight from Equal Weight at Wells Fargo)
  • BBVA -1.6% (downgraded to Underperform from Neutral at Exane BNP Paribas)

>>> US Gapping up

Gapping up
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:
  • ORCL +8% (also forms form multi-cloud partnership with Google Cloud; also OpenAI selects Oracle to extend Microsoft Azure AI platform), CASY +4.7% (also increases dividend), RBRK +3.1%, ESI +1.3%
Other news:
  • RTO +12.2% (Trian Fund amasses significant stake, according to Bloomberg)
  • MREO +6.5% (Ultragenyx and Mereo BioPharma (MREO) Announce New Phase 2 Data from Phase 2/3 Orbit Study Demonstrating Sustained Reductions in Fracture Rates Following Treatment with Setrusumab (UX143) in Patients with Osteogenesis Imperfecta)
  • DNTH +5.2% (FDA clearance of its Phase 2 Investigational New Drug application for the MoMeNtum trial of DNTH103 in patients with Multifocal Motor Neuropathy)
  • IOVA +5.1% (disclosed stockholders' vote on five proposals)
  • RARE +4.2% (Ultragenyx and Mereo BioPharma (MREO) Announce New Phase 2 Data from Phase 2/3 Orbit Study Demonstrating Sustained Reductions in Fracture Rates Following Treatment with Setrusumab (UX143) in Patients with Osteogenesis Imperfecta)
  • PRLD +4.2% (provides investor updates and milestone timeline in presentation)
  • RNA +3.6% (Announces Unprecedented AOC 1020 Data from Phase 1/2 FORTITUDE Trial Demonstrating Greater Than 50 Percent Reduction in DUX4 Regulated Genes and Trends of Functional Improvement in People Living with Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy)
  • ARAY +3.4% (approval of the Accuray Precision treatment planning system by China's National Medical Products Administration)
  • MAMO +3.1% (MAMO and BTOC announce strategic partnership)
  • SCLX +3% (announces 5-year term of $100 million financing with royalty-based payments and potential strategic transactions with Perigrove and its portfolio companies)
  • SUZ +2.2% (acquires a 15% stake in Lenzing AG from B&C Group)
  • DNLI +2.1% (FDA Has Selected DNL126 (ETV:SGSH) for MPS IIIA (Sanfilippo Syndrome Type A) for START Pilot Program Intended to Accelerate Development of Rare Disease Therapies)
  • SMFG +1.8% (responds to ISS Report)
  • AB +1.6% (reports May AUM)
  • VCTR +1.5% (reports May AUM)
  • SAVE +1.2% (negotiations with bondholders are progressing as expected; co also delays Analyst Day)
Analyst comments:
  • KVYO +3.9% (upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays)
  • NGG +3.5% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldman)
  • CIEN +2.9% (upgraded to Overweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley)
  • HAE +2% (upgraded to Buy from Hold at Needham)
  • DAR +1.7% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Citigroup)
  • MKC +1.1% (upgraded to Neutral from Sell at Citigroup)

FT : What does Peltz want from Rentokil?

What does Peltz want from Rentokil?
Simply the pest

“Does Nelson Peltz understand termites?” is a question we’d not thought to ask before today. Per MainFT:

Shares in Rentokil surged more than 15 per cent on Wednesday after it emerged that activist investor Nelson Peltz’s Trian Partners had taken a stake in the world’s largest pest control company.

The shares were the biggest gainers on the FTSE 100, driving Rentokil’s market capitalisation to £11.9bn.

The London-listed group has struggled in recent months with a slowdown in demand in the US, which accounts for more than half its sales following its $6.7bn acquisition of Terminix in 2021.

Trian said that it has a “significant position” in Rentokil, making it a top-10 shareholder. It “has reached out to Rentokil to discuss ideas and initiatives to improve shareholder value,” the firm said, adding that it “looks forward to working with Rentokil’s leadership team”.

The most obvious thing to do with Rentokil is to relist it in the US, where there’s a big valuation gap with closest peer Rollins and smaller rivals like Citra and Ecolab. But the valuation gap partly reflects Rentokil’s recent loss of market share to those companies. It’s not just a UK market thing.

US pest control grew 3.1 per cent organically for Rentokil in 2023, versus 8 per cent growth for Rollins. For 2024, Rentokil has guided for organic growth of 2-4 per cent, which would be below its long-term estimate that the US market has been growing at 4.3 per cent a year.

America’s pest control sector is fragmented and locally segmented, and Rentokil is a decentralised organisation that was built by acquisition. It still has around 80 brands in the US, nearly all of which are not wanted, so there’s a lot of rebranding required before its strategy of promoting Terminix as the answer to any infestation can pay off.

Before Peltz showed up, Rentokil investors had written off 2024 as a transition year. Management warned with 2023 results that full integration of Terminix had been pushed back by a year to 2026, so its employees don’t get much in the way of job security.

In addition to the rebrandings, there’s a round of US branch closures, with 125 to be shuttered by 2025 as part of a strategy to create regional Terminix offices that generate $8-10mm in revenue per annum. It’s ambitious and atypical: Rollins prefers a tiered structure where local offices aim to do just $3mm a year.

Rentokil management spent last year arguing that slowing growth was on weaker consumer demand that was much less apparent in rivals’ results. Investors have preferred to see its problems as self-inflicted by ambition so, awaiting proof that the Terminix restructuring will work, the stock had been trading at about 10 times 2025 ebitda. It’s a huge discount to Rollins’ rating of about 27 times 2025 ebitda but given the scale of the job it’s hardly an irrational one.

So. What does Peltz want done better? Breaking up Rentokil might help focus some minds and clear some desks. About 20 per cent of group revenue comes from a hygiene division and a French workwear business that gets little attention from investors.

Another possibility would be that he will encourage a takeover bid, Cadbury style. Pest control is too fragmented a market globally for a merger to raise significant antitrust concerns and private equity firms have been rolling up smaller operators, including the UK arm of Terminix. But any buyer would be inheriting the same problems faced by long-serving Rentokil CEO Andy Ransom, so it’s hard to argue for a dramatically higher valuation.

Rentokil’s historic US market share of about 27 per cent means it has a #1 position in US pest control and its North America business accounts for about 63 per cent of revenue. There are good reasons why Rentokil might be a better fit in New York than in London, but the relocation maths is not as simple as transplanting the high valuations given to its peers. Peltz has a good record for spotting hidden value, but what he knows about killing termites is unproven.

FT : EU to impose multibillion-euro tariffs on Chinese electric cars

EU to impose multibillion-euro tariffs on Chinese electric cars
Brussels moves ahead with additional duties of up to 25% despite opposition from Germany

Brussels is pushing ahead with Chinese electric vehicle tariffs that are set to bring in more than €2bn a year, brushing aside German government warnings that the move risks starting a costly trade war with Beijing.

The European Commission is to notify carmakers on Wednesday that it will provisionally apply additional duties of up to 25 per cent on imported Chinese EVs from next month, according to people familiar with the decision.

Brussels argues that Chinese EV makers benefit from subsidies that undercut their European rivals.

The tariffs, championed by France and Spain, will raise billions of euros for the EU budget annually as sales of Chinese EVs grow in Europe. China, the bloc’s largest trading partner, exported €10bn of electric cars to the EU in 2023, doubling its market share last year to 8 per cent, according to analysts at Rhodium Group.

Beijing has warned it would retaliate as it seeks to persuade a majority of EU capitals to oppose the new tariffs, which would be on top of the bloc’s existing 10 per cent duties. Beijing is already applying a 15 per cent tariff on European EVs.

Germany, Sweden and Hungary have said they do not approve of the move, fearing Chinese retaliation. EU officials say Berlin put pressure on Ursula von der Leyen, who is seeking a second term as commission president, to drop the anti-subsidy investigation.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently warned that “isolation and illegal customs barriers . . . ultimately just makes everything more expensive, and everyone poorer”.

But intense lobbying by Scholz’s government “has not worked”, said a person briefed on the process. The commission was expected to increase its duties to about 35 per cent, the person said, still well short of the 100 per cent duties applied by the US.


The additional tariffs in Europe will hit Chinese producers including BYD and SAIC, as well as companies such as Tesla which have factories in China. The duties may vary according to producer, depending on the level of subsidy the EU claims it has identified.

The Kiel Institute, an economic think-tank, found that an extra 20 per cent tariff on Chinese electric cars would reduce imports by a quarter. It calculated that with 500,000 vehicles imported in 2023, this corresponded to an estimated 125,000 units worth almost $4bn.

“The decline would largely be offset by an increase in production within the EU and a lower volume of EV exports, which would likely mean noticeably higher prices for end consumers,” the researchers concluded.  

The commission expects Chinese EVs to hold a 15 per cent market share in the EU next year. It says prices are typically 20 per cent lower than those of EU-made models.

Valdis Dombrovskis, EU trade commissioner, acknowledged EVs were crucial for the green transition when he announced the investigation in October. But he added: “Competition must be fair.”

His department had amassed evidence that Chinese carmakers and their suppliers received subsidised loans, tax breaks and cheap land, according to officials.

China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian on Wednesday dismissed the EU’s anti-subsidy investigation as “a typical example of protectionism”, adding that the decision to impose additional tariffs “violates market economy principles and international trade rules”.

“Protectionism has no future,” he said. “Open co-operation is the right path.”

Many EU carmakers have condemned the plan, fearing China might respond in kind or even block them from its market. European brands accounted for about 6 per cent of EV sales in the country in 2022.

Germany exported 216,299 cars to China in 2023, a drop of 15 per cent on the year before; brands including Mercedes and Volkswagen also operate plants in the country.

Geely, one of the Chinese companies under investigation, owns Volvo of Sweden. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has joined Scholz and Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán, who has courted Chinese EV investment, in publicly opposing the EU tariffs.

The three leaders would need to secure at least 11 other governments to overturn the commission’s decision on tariffs. Other central European countries such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia are expected to join the opposition.

Exporters of food and luxury goods such as Italy are also concerned about retaliation against products from the country.

But France, which pushed for the investigation to protect its own industry and force China to invest in production there, is unlikely to bend. Spain, another big car producer, has also indicated it would back tariffs.

Member states will be asked to vote on the tariffs before November 2. Definitive duties are usually imposed for five years.