BHP's Tale Of Two Listings

Detractors claim that BHP Billiton would be better off if it were to do away with its Australian listing.

 

- David McKay

One of the interesting aspects to emerge from BHP Billiton’s recent run-in with investor activism was the claim that it was better to return spare cash to shareholders rather than “wasting” it on new acquisitions.

Elliott Management, a hedge fund with some $31bn in assets under its control, has been critical of the mining group’s dual-listed structure (DLC), which consists of BHP Billiton plc in the UK and BHP Billiton Ltd in Australia. Elliott said the structure was unwieldy and that savings could be made by maintaining a single share in the plc, in which it has a 4.1% stake.

Dispensing with the Australian share would also release franking credits. These are tax benefits the company is able to hand on to investors so that they don’t suffer the effects of double tax on their investments. A single capital return programme would be better than using excess cash “to make value destructive acquisitions”, it added.