I've noticed a strange 'shishing' noise recently. It's probably my knees, but I wondered if it was critics of the pub operator model à la Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a collapse in the property market threatening to unseat the large operators from their lofty perch.
Those in the pub trade opposed to the power of the Big Pub Companies have long believed it was only a matter of time before such entities came unstuck, with - they say - their overvalued estates and hefty debt and ultimate destiny of sinking into the 'junk bond' mire.
Surely publicly listed companies would never allow their financial integrity and fiduciary duty to shareholders, staff and the wider world to be so sullied? Share prices are coming down and yes, in some cases financing might be being stretched to uncomfortable limits, so presumably those pub operators with things like limited interest cover will be hoping - praying? - for improved trading conditions, and fast.
One for the pub, me'thinks.
Similarly fascinating - ok, to me - are the goings-on between Punch and Mitchells & Butlers (M&B) - yes, I know, again. So too the 'situation' twixt M&B and shareholder Robert Tchenguiz, who one minute is said to be demanding the head of Tim Clarke and the next is reported to be looking to bail out of the company altogether.
Punch was apparently gobsmacked to get a letter in the post asking if it might like to hand over its Spirit pubs. But assuming M&B could have sold a small bit of itself to some carpetbagger or other it would 'only' have had to find between £700m and £800m - and some assets to swap - to secure the deal. Tough certainly, but not impossible.
Punch had apparently expected a "knockout offer" before it was prepared to even consider handing over the goods. And while it was once content to talk to third parties about getting together with M&B once more, it now believes this is no longer a viable option.
City gossip has it that Punch's decision to walk away, announced at the end of last week, was as much driven by personality issues relating to the bosses of both companies as it was dictated to by the financial markets.
Does any of this serve the long-term interests of shareholders? It's doubtful, but then I guess it depends on what kind of shareholder one is referring to…