Five things you didn’t know about Chris Hohn, Britain’s most generous philanthropist

NS business profile of the week.

Charity cards, carol services, collection tins and donate-a-goat-to-Africa gifts are all typical of this season’s charitable nature. Christmas and philanthropy are inseparable and it is therefore the occasion for charities to top up on much needed donations. However, with today’s economic climate, how are charities coping? NS Profile takes a look at one person who has given more than most over recent years. Here are five things you didn’t know about Chris Hohn:

  1.  One of the UK's most successful hedge fund managers, Hohn has donated over £800 million to children's charities since 2003. His Children's Investment Fund Foundation receives direct grants from his hedge fund of the same name. In terms of voluntary income, Children's Investment Foundation receives £2.2 million more than the Donkey Sanctuary.
  2. The notoriously discrete fund manager is worth about £80 million. This makes him one of the most generous British philanthropists when donations are weighed against personal wealth. Bill Clinton once said that Hohn's "marriage of business and philanthropy provides a great tool to effect serious change in the developing world".
  3. One of Hohn's recent "hedging" successes was with News Corp. After the phone hacking scandal broke in 2011, News Corp’s shares were in free fall. Against popular opinion, Hohn brought £500 million worth of shares which are now worth £829 million, a 60 per cent increase.
  4. However, Hohn has not always been as popular in the City as he is with charities. His TCI fund is known for buying large stakes in flagging companies and forcing radical change. During one of his more bitter disputes, Hohn ousted the chief executive of Deutsche Börse, Werner Seifert.
  5. The son of a Jamaican car mechanic, Hohn was rumoured to begin his giving pledge after witnessing child poverty in the Philippines. Since then his hedging success has helped millions of children in the world's poorest countries.
The fund manager is notoriously discrete. Photograph: Getty Images

Oliver Williams is an analyst at WealthInsight and writes for VRL Financial News

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.