Counting the cost

I've heard many debates about the merits of private equity's involvement in the licensed trade, versus that of publicly owned operations.

The private boys argue they get things done quickly, and that contrary to popular myth they are in it for the long term. The listed chaps, meanwhile, tell you the regulatory demands on their operations mean there is greater transparency in what they do.

Neither strategy is foolproof, so at the end of the day you pays your money - quite literally - and you takes your choice.

Debate over the merits of either argument aside, it is nevertheless rare for these two fundamentally different investment philosophies/strategies to share the same spotlight. Until last week, that is. Media speculation surrounding the future of his investment portfolio forced billionaire private investor Robert Tchenguiz into making a highly rare public utterance about his holdings in, among others, Sainsbury's and Mitchells & Butlers.

"Unfounded speculation" over his commitment to these businesses was doing a "disservice" to other shareholders. His R20 vehicle would remain a holder of both companies, Tchenguiz went on. This was unprecedented stuff.

If not quite of Henry V proportions, his statement was either (a) a rallying cry and a vocal stamp of his commitment in the face of tittle-tattle by a bunch of financial journalists; or (b) the words of a man desperate to stem further losses on top of those he may or may not have already incurred after the postponement of the property joint venture with M&B.

Few of us will know how much he lost - albeit on paper - last week. He'd argue it is not exactly a huge amount compared with the rest of his accumulated wealth, nor is it for us to know, and that is his privilege.

Whether his statement stops the rot remains to be seen.