Governments must consider the overall value of any auction
The controversial decision to award the West Coast Mainline Rail franchise to FirstGroup, whose bid the government preferred ahead of those from incumbent operator Virgin Rail and others – bears comparison with our recent comments on the forthcoming 4G spectrum auction, where we suggested there are inevitably other considerations that should be taken into account beyond simply the highest total bid.
As ever with this sort of process, it is impossible for outsiders to know precisely how the various bids compare and therefore whether the right decision has actually been made. In the case of the West Coast franchise, however, the government does appear to have gone for the bid that offers it the highest total of cash payments over the course of the concession.
That is not necessarily a bad thing in itself but a higher headline figure does risk tempting a government to focus on the shorter term headline attractions – perhaps to aid political point-scoring – at the expense of thinking about overall value over the longer term.
For example we know that, while the FirstGroup bid offered the government the most total cash over the contract term, the lion’s share of the this is due to be paid towards the end of the concession, with relatively little in the early years. As such, the government runs the risk that, should anything go wrong in the earlier part of the term, it will have had all the problems of transferring the contract and very little in the way of payment. For its part, all FirstGroup has to lose is its deposit of £265m and perhaps an element of reputation - although how badly the long-term standing of other transport providers who have walked away from such contracts has been hurt is unclear.
It goes without saying Virgin Rail and other bidders have a vested interest in claiming the deliverability of FirstGroup’s contract is not as secure as it would have been with them but, if such allegations have any basis, it would be worrying to think the government had made such an important decision principally on the basis of headline price rather than overall benefit and value.
Fund Manager, Equity Value
I joined Schroders as a graduate in 2005 and have spent most of my time in the business as part of the UK equities team. Between 2006 and 2010 I was a research analyst responsible for producing investment research on companies in the UK construction, business services and telecoms sectors. In mid 2010 I joined Kevin Murphy and Nick Kirrage on the UK value team.
The views and opinions displayed are those of Ian Kelly, Nick Kirrage, Andrew Lyddon, Kevin Murphy, Andrew Williams, Andrew Evans and Simon Adler, members of the Schroder Global Value Equity Team (the Value Perspective Team), and other independent commentators where stated. They do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders' communications, strategies or funds. The Team has expressed its own views and opinions on this website and these may change.
This article is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information on the website when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Nothing in this article should be construed as advice. The sectors/securities shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered a recommendation to buy/sell.
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.