Poor performance blamed for CEO departure

29 May 2007

Be the first to comment

A Computing logo
Picture of a graph
LogicaCMG reported poor sales last week

The poor trading figures posted by LogicaCMG last week were the final nail in the coffin for chief executive Martin Read, but were not the only reason for his departure, say analysts.

The IT outsourcing company last week warned that first quarter sales will fall 4.1 per cent to £174.6m, blaming slow UK private sector business and one specific project overrun that is expected to cost the supplier between £10m and £15m.

Further reading

Read's announcement that he will retire once a successor is appointed is believed to have been driven by activist shareholders.

The move is not just a reaction to last week’s update, but reflects longstanding shareholder dissatisfaction with the company’s performance, says Ovum analyst Phil Codling.

‘Over the past five years, a period when technology stocks and equities more broadly have enjoyed a sustained recovery, LogicaCMG’s share price has actually fallen by 18 per cent,’ he said.

‘Patience had clearly run out and last week’s disappointment was the final straw.’

But LogicaCMG must appoint a successor rapidly if it is to dispel internal and external concerns over its future.

‘It is undoubtedly in for a period of increased uncertainty,’ said Codling. ‘The company said it plans to reassess the current size and structure of the board, a hint of more changes to come.’

Speculation over possible takeovers, including possible private equity interest, could also increase.

Martin Read has been LogicaCMG chief executive since 1993.

Reader comments

Have your say on this article

All fields required. Your email address will not be displayed on the site.

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

  • Digg
  • Tweet

Newsletters

Sign up for our FREE newsletters

Technology Patent Wars

Large companies such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google have been hoovering up technology patents recently. Is this stifling innovation?

87 %

5 %

8 %