We want to simplify our share structure. From two shares to one share. We have a clear strategy. We have a new reorganisation. We now have to go through with adapting our structure to become a faster and more agile company. We no longer want the handcuffs that impose enormous restrictions on our business below the surface. We have worked with them for years, but they have become increasingly unworkable.
**What can’t you do?**
We recently sold our operations in the Permian Basin in the US (for $7bn, ed.). I want to return money to shareholders, but it’s not as easy as I would like. It will take a year and a half. I’ll end up getting questions from shareholders about that: “what are you doing about it?”. And if we want to make acquisitions or sell parts, everything has to be seen through the lens of the A and B structure of our shares all the time.’
‘That’s getting harder and harder. As we have to go faster and take bigger steps in the energy transition, that is becoming more and more of a limiting factor. So we have to do something about that. This has nothing to do with our plans in the Netherlands. In fact, without our investment opportunities in the Netherlands, we cannot have an energy transition plan for Europe.’
**It was not possible to simplify the structure while maintaining the headquarters in the Netherlands?**
We looked at all kinds of options. We could make our shares all A-shares. but that would mean that our B-shares, 50% of the share capital, would then fall under the dividend tax of the Netherlands. Today, we no longer have the luxury of saying to shareholders “you know what: this is easier for us, too bad for you”. We have enough problems in the sector. We cannot afford to offend shareholders.’
**A little over a year ago you said in the FD that Shell was considering moving its headquarters. Apparently the government has not succeeded in retaining you?**
We’ve been talking about it for sixteen years. At the time we decided that we would become a British company, but with headquarters in the Netherlands. At the time, the expectation, also expressed by the government, was that the dividend tax in the Netherlands would eventually disappear. That was problematic, because the English shares had a different dividend structure than the Dutch ones.
So for us it was clear: this is temporary. In time, the dividend tax will disappear. We have been discussing this with the government for 16 years. I have always been clear: this has to be solved, otherwise it stops.
That was yesterday. It can’t be a surprise that we need this solution. The only way left if the dividend tax is not abolished, and which is guaranteed to work, is what we are proposing now.’
**To what extent does the negative sentiment against big companies and Shell in particular play a role in this decision?**
Not really. Of course I am also disappointed by the lack of national pride and the lack of recognition for what we do. If I invest a billion, it is called greenwashing. Of course that stings. But that can never be a consideration for taking such a decision. The reality is that there are three times as many people who are positive about us as negative.
**Shouldn’t the Netherlands be worried about the business climate? Unilever left earlier.**
This is not a business climate issue. Otherwise we would not invest €4 billion in the Netherlands. We have also done a lot of good things together with the government, like the biofuel project in Pernis and we have worked out how to do the hydrogen project on the Maasvlakte and we are in dialogue to see if we can work in some way on the Tata Steel solution. Practically speaking, we have no problem working in the Netherlands.’
**To what extent does the court case you lost earlier this year against Milieudefensie play a role? Is Shell now avoiding the consequences of that verdict?**
Absolutely not. We have an obligation to perform. It doesn’t matter where we put our tax shelter. That judgment is stuck to us and we accept that. Even if we wanted to, we wouldn’t even be able to.’
>At the time, the expectation, also expressed by the government, was that the dividend tax in the Netherlands would eventually disappear. That was problematic, because the English shares had a different dividend structure than the Dutch ones.
>So for us it was clear: this is temporary. In time, the dividend tax will disappear. We have been discussing this with the government for 16 years. I have always been clear: this has to be solved, otherwise it stops.
Well, I’m glad they are honest about what they want: Less tax, for themselves and their shareholders.
4 comments
**Why is this step necessary?**
We want to simplify our share structure. From two shares to one share. We have a clear strategy. We have a new reorganisation. We now have to go through with adapting our structure to become a faster and more agile company. We no longer want the handcuffs that impose enormous restrictions on our business below the surface. We have worked with them for years, but they have become increasingly unworkable.
**What can’t you do?**
We recently sold our operations in the Permian Basin in the US (for $7bn, ed.). I want to return money to shareholders, but it’s not as easy as I would like. It will take a year and a half. I’ll end up getting questions from shareholders about that: “what are you doing about it?”. And if we want to make acquisitions or sell parts, everything has to be seen through the lens of the A and B structure of our shares all the time.’
‘That’s getting harder and harder. As we have to go faster and take bigger steps in the energy transition, that is becoming more and more of a limiting factor. So we have to do something about that. This has nothing to do with our plans in the Netherlands. In fact, without our investment opportunities in the Netherlands, we cannot have an energy transition plan for Europe.’
**It was not possible to simplify the structure while maintaining the headquarters in the Netherlands?**
We looked at all kinds of options. We could make our shares all A-shares. but that would mean that our B-shares, 50% of the share capital, would then fall under the dividend tax of the Netherlands. Today, we no longer have the luxury of saying to shareholders “you know what: this is easier for us, too bad for you”. We have enough problems in the sector. We cannot afford to offend shareholders.’
**A little over a year ago you said in the FD that Shell was considering moving its headquarters. Apparently the government has not succeeded in retaining you?**
We’ve been talking about it for sixteen years. At the time we decided that we would become a British company, but with headquarters in the Netherlands. At the time, the expectation, also expressed by the government, was that the dividend tax in the Netherlands would eventually disappear. That was problematic, because the English shares had a different dividend structure than the Dutch ones.
So for us it was clear: this is temporary. In time, the dividend tax will disappear. We have been discussing this with the government for 16 years. I have always been clear: this has to be solved, otherwise it stops.
That was yesterday. It can’t be a surprise that we need this solution. The only way left if the dividend tax is not abolished, and which is guaranteed to work, is what we are proposing now.’
**To what extent does the negative sentiment against big companies and Shell in particular play a role in this decision?**
Not really. Of course I am also disappointed by the lack of national pride and the lack of recognition for what we do. If I invest a billion, it is called greenwashing. Of course that stings. But that can never be a consideration for taking such a decision. The reality is that there are three times as many people who are positive about us as negative.
**Shouldn’t the Netherlands be worried about the business climate? Unilever left earlier.**
This is not a business climate issue. Otherwise we would not invest €4 billion in the Netherlands. We have also done a lot of good things together with the government, like the biofuel project in Pernis and we have worked out how to do the hydrogen project on the Maasvlakte and we are in dialogue to see if we can work in some way on the Tata Steel solution. Practically speaking, we have no problem working in the Netherlands.’
**To what extent does the court case you lost earlier this year against Milieudefensie play a role? Is Shell now avoiding the consequences of that verdict?**
Absolutely not. We have an obligation to perform. It doesn’t matter where we put our tax shelter. That judgment is stuck to us and we accept that. Even if we wanted to, we wouldn’t even be able to.’
Read the full article: https://fd.nl/bedrijfsleven/1419448/we-kunnen-ons-niet-permitteren-aandeelhouders-voor-het-hoofd-te-stoten
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Yeah, I don’t believe an oil giant on the topic of environmentalism.
https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2021/shell-confirms-decision-to-appeal-court-ruling-in-netherlands-climate-case.html
>At the time, the expectation, also expressed by the government, was that the dividend tax in the Netherlands would eventually disappear. That was problematic, because the English shares had a different dividend structure than the Dutch ones.
>So for us it was clear: this is temporary. In time, the dividend tax will disappear. We have been discussing this with the government for 16 years. I have always been clear: this has to be solved, otherwise it stops.
Well, I’m glad they are honest about what they want: Less tax, for themselves and their shareholders.
As long as we aren’t mixing signals.
Poor chap sounds exasperated with the government.