MyHotelMatch

Sustainability score

Company (Sector)
2.5 (5.9)

Sustainability is made of analytical items contributing to the E, the S and the G, that can be highlighted as sustainability precursors and can be combined in an intellectually acceptable way. This is the only scale made available

More on Sustainability / ESG ...

	Score	Weight

Governance
Independent directors rate	3/10	25%	More ...
Board geographic diversity	5/10	20%
Chairman vs. Executive split		5%

Environment
CO² Emission	1/10	25%	More ...
Water withdrawal	1/10	10%

Social
Wage dispersion trend	0/10	5%	More ...
Job satisfaction	0/10	5%
Internal communication	10/10	5%

Sustainability score

2.5/10

100%

Sustainability matters

Sustainability of the activity

By extension, the development model can be considered sustainable. In run rate, the application consumes few incremental resources. MHM has the opportunity to promote sustainable tourism by favouring green tourism by nature (type of accommodation) or proximity (limitation of carbon emissions).

MHM reporting

As MHM’s activity is embryonic, the company does not publish an environmental report.

Governance score

Company (Sector)	Independent board
5.0 (6.3)	No

Parameters	Company	Sector	Score	Weight
Number of board members	8	11	8/10	5.0%
Board feminization (%)	25	36	5/10	5.0%
Board domestic density (%)	75	58	5/10	10.0%
Average age of board's members	53	58	9/10	5.0%
Type of company : Small cap, controlled			4/10	10.0%
Independent directors rate	25	40	3/10	20.0%
One share, one vote				10.0%
Chairman vs. Executive split				0.0%
Chairman not ex executive				5.0%
Full disclosure on mgt pay				5.0%
Disclosure of performance anchor for bonus trigger				5.0%
Compensation committee reporting to board of directors				5.0%
Straightforward, clean by-laws				15.0%
Governance score			5.0/10	100.0%

Governance matters

Evolution of the profile

The history of MHM (ex-Foncière Paris Nord) has been marked by the complete reorientation of its historical corporate purpose, which was the ownership of rental properties. The company became SPAC (Société Parisienne d’Apports en Capital) in 2021 and then MHM (MyHotelMatch) in 2022, and is now exclusively dedicated to the development of its hotel matching application. The company no longer holds any real estate assets. To our knowledge, there are no significant litigation proceedings.

The entities of the OTT Group announced on 12 June 2020 that they held 29.9% of the capital of Foncière Paris Nord (FPN). According to the AMF notice of 10 May 2021, it holds 19% of the capital, then 28% on 13 April 2022. FIPP (DUMENIL family) holds 16% of the capital. There is no action in concert or shareholder agreement between any of the above entities except between entities of the OTT group. Following the sale by SPAC of 60,000,000 units of Bonds Redeemable in Shares to PAMIER SARL (controlled by FIPP) in 2020, the DUMENIL family retains the option to increase its shareholding to approximately 35% of the capital fully diluted (AV estimates, excluding the exercise of any BSA) by 2023. As the distribution of the balance of the outstanding NRS and warrants is not public (in particular following the exercise of 30m units by GLOBALTECH in 2021), we cannot determine precisely what the fully diluted capital will look like at the end of 2023 (including the OTT share).

Evolution of shareholding and governance

MHM has a Board of Directors. In June 2021, the Board of Directors was 100% composed of members of the DUMENIL group, FPN’s reference shareholder with 15% of the capital (as of 10 May 2021). The DUMENIL group holds its stake in SPAC via FIPP and a minority stake via the latter’s subsidiary, PAMIER SARL. The DUMENIL group includes Acanthe Développement, which focuses on high-end real estate assets in Paris. Mr DUMENIL is the CEO of Acanthe, Ms Laurence DUMENIL (his daughter) is also a director as well as her sister, Ms Valérie GIMOND-DUMENIL. Since April 2022, the DUMENIL family (3 seats out of 8) no longer holds a majority on the Board of Directors.

The concentration of the existing warrants in the hands of the company itself (before substantial redistribution to the shareholders in 2021) and the interest of the OTT Group for this structure have encouraged the reception of a new project formalised in the Combined General Assembly of 8 April 2022: MHM. Governance now seems to have stabilised.

Reinforced governance including specialists

The substantial change in governance made at the General Meeting of 8 April 2022 has strengthened the Board of Directors by bringing in individuals with profiles suited to the company’s project. Since 2022, the Board of Directors has welcomed Mr Bradley TAYLOR (ex-ORCO Property group, OTT Group), high level manager of luxury hotels (including formerly MaMaison – OTT Group – and Hyatt), Mr Yves ABITBOL, founder and manager of MyConcierge (acquired in 2022 by MHM), Mrs Charlotte GAUTHIER (considered independent, entrepreneur). Following four appointments in April 2022, the OTT Group has, in our opinion, a direct influence on four of the eight directorships (excluding the director considered independent). Two of the three mandates of the DUMENIL family expire in 2023.

Name (8)	Indep. (2/8)	Function	Completion of current mandate	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Fees / indemnity, in k€ (year)	Value of holding, in k€ (year)

Jean-François OTT	M	President/Ch...	2026	1965	2021	0.00 (2022)	1,766 (2022)
Yves ABITBOL	M	Member	2026	1964	2022	ND (2022)	275 (2022)
Auriane DE CASTELNAU	F	Member	2029	1992	2023
Alain DUMENIL	M	Member	2026	1949	2012	0.00 (2022)	684 (2022)
Charlotte GAUTHIER	F	Member	2028	1994	2022	0.00 (2022)	400 (2022)
Stefan RADSTROM	M	Member	2028	1970	2022	0.00 (2022)	ND (2022)
Joël RUBINO	M	Member	2029	1959	2023	0.00 (2022)	ND (2022)
Brad TAYLOR	M	Member	2024	1973	2022	0.00 (2022)	ND (2022)

Changes to Board of directors : 13/06/2023

Name (8)	Indep. (2/8)	Challenged (conflicted interests, distant or current)	Die hard (7 years or more)	Improbable (too young, disconnected profile)	Overloaded (too many boards, too old)	Specific agenda (gov. or staff rep)	Tied (family, business relations, executive)	Unknown (lack of history, short CV)

Jean-François OTT
Yves ABITBOL
Auriane DE CASTELNAU
Alain DUMENIL
Charlotte GAUTHIER
Stefan RADSTROM
Joël RUBINO
Brad TAYLOR

Name (8)				Function	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Compensation, in k€ (year)
Name (8)				Function	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Cash	Equity linked

Yves ABITBOL	M	CEO	1964	2023	ND (2022)	ND (2022)
David STYBR	M	Partner		2022	ND (2022)	ND (2022)
Nicolas TOMMASINI	M	Partner	1971	2022	ND (2022)	ND (2022)
Jean-François OTT	M	Chairman	1965	2021	0.00 (2022)	0.00 (2022)
Laurence CHOPARD	F	CFO		2022	ND (2022)	ND (2022)
COUILLEC YOANN	M	CTO	1988	2022	ND (2022)	ND (2022)
Rebecca CHAUSSAT	F	Senior Executive		2022	ND (2022)	ND (2022)
Fabrice MARTIN-ASTRE	M	Executive Officer		2022	ND (2022)	ND (2022)

Changes to Management : 13/06/2023

Existing committees

Audit / Governance Committee
Compensation committee
Financial Statements Committee
Litigation Committee
Nomination Committee
Safety committee
SRI / Environment

Environmental score

Company (Sector)
1.2 (3.7)

Data sets evaluated as trends on rolling calendar, made sector relative

More ...

Parameters	Score	Sector	Weight
CO² Emission	1/10	5/10	30%
Water withdrawal	1/10	3/10	30%
Energy	1/10	4/10	25%
Waste	2/10	3/10	15%
Environmental score	1.2		100%

Environment matters

Direct impact

As a service business with a high technical and technological content (IT, algorithms, data management), the impact on the environment concerning scope 1 & scope 2 is reduced to the operation of the application: energy (mainly electricity) and data storage (datacentre). We do not consider that the environmental costs associated with the hotel business are part of MHM’s scopes 1&2. As a simple intermediary between the consumer and the hotelier, the responsibility for scope 3 lies with the first two.

Indirect impact

The models for optimising the use of infrastructure help to limit the development of under-utilised (cold bed type) or under-performing assets. They are therefore by nature considered to have a positive impact on the environment. Nevertheless, this effect cannot be quantified.

Through the creation of “sub-communities”, MHM has the opportunity to highlight and promote low environmental impact accommodation models.

MHM environmental reporting

Because MHM’s business is in its infancy, the company does not publish an environmental report. It does not publish forecasts of emissions of any kind. The production of waste and the consumption of water in scopes 1 and 2 can nevertheless be anticipated as marginal even in the mature phase of the project.

Environmental metrics

n/a Energy (GJ) per €m in capital employed	CO² tons per €m in capital employed	n/a Cubic meter water withdrawal per €m in capital employed	n/a Tons waste generated per €m in capital employed

MyHotelMatch Hotel, Catering & Leisure

Sector figures

Company	Environment score	Energy (total, in GJ)	CO2 Emissions (in tons)	CO2 Compensation (in tons)	Water Withdrawal (in m3)	Waste (total, (in tons)

AccorHotels	3/10	27,468,000	2,928,000		35,000,000	260,000
Compass	6/10	2,072,862	146,807
Elior	8/10	433,786	54,000		260,723
Entain	10/10	455,248	30,409		117,807	4,624
Flutter Entertainment	6/10	37,346	8,708		n/a	n/a
Intercontinental Hotels Group	1/10	48,393,234	2,482,807		114,436,601	633,357
J D Wetherspoon	5/10	1,617,932	114,883
Kindred Group	6/10	22,946	1,324
La Française des Jeux	9/10	73,945	2,071		14,627
Melia Hotels International	7/10	3,560,210	303,152		16,654,260	31,734
Mitchells & Butlers	5/10	2,749,380	152,949
MyHotelMatch^CR	1/10	n/a			n/a	n/a
NH Hotel Group	8/10	1,940,802	88,816	3,408	3,505,320	341
OPAP	10/10	40,748	3,901		64,669	1,455
Sodexo	8/10	1,841,940	104,184		3,411,298
TUI Group	2/10	80,395,222	5,664,960
Whitbread	8/10	2,454,980	138,942		5,744,000	45,228

MORE DATA

Social score

Company (Sector)
2.9 (6.3)

Social matters

Team

MHM has built a small team in “commando format” to complete the development of the platform and prepare for launch. Following the acquisition of MyAgency, the number of direct employees of the group is expected to be in the range of 30-33. With the launch of the application, we expect the number of employees (backoffice, moderation, IT maintenance, payment) to increase to around 50-60 by the time it reaches breakeven. This figure does not take into account the possibility of using staff via external subcontractors (SSII) or an international deployment.

Social reporting MHM

As MHM’s activity is in its infancy, the company does not publish a social report. The remuneration policies are not known to date, nor their structure (internal / external to MHM). To our knowledge, at the end of 2021, there were no specific regulated agreements to be continued in 2023.

Quantitative metrics (67%)

Set of staff related numerical metrics available in AlphaValue proprietary modelling aimed at ranking on social/HR matters

More ...

Parameters	Score	Weight
Staffing Trend	4/10	20%
Average wage trend	1/10	35%
Share of added value taken up by staff cost	1/10	25%
Share of added value taken up by taxes	1/10	20%
Wage dispersion trend	0/10	0%
Pension bonus (0 or 1)	0
Quantitative score	1.6/10	100%

Qualitative metrics (33%)

Set of listed qualitative criterias and for the analyst to tick

More ...

Parameters	Score	Weight
Accidents at work	10/10	25%
Human resources development	6/10	35%
Pay	0/10	20%
Job satisfaction	0/10	10%
Internal communication	10/10	10%

Qualitative score	5.6/10	100%

Sector figures

Company	Social Score	Quantitative score	Qualitative score	Staffing

J D Wetherspoon	8.0	7.1	10.0	41,786
Sodexo	7.6	6.8	9.3	444,129
Compass	7.4	6.3	9.7	629,891
Mitchells & Butlers	7.2	7.0	7.6	50,259
Whitbread	7.1	6.6	8.3	46,190
Melia Hotels International	7.0	5.8	9.3	19,605
TUI Group	6.7	6.3	7.6	69,338
Intercontinental Hotels Group	6.7	6.6	6.8	15,837
Flutter Entertainment	6.5	5.6	8.3	19,877
NH Hotel Group	6.1	4.4	9.7	11,463
AccorHotels	5.9	4.1	9.7	318,620
Entain	5.3	4.7	6.6	28,006
Kindred Group	5.3	3.8	8.3	2,395
Elior	4.8	5.6	3.3	136,103
La Française des Jeux	4.5	3.9	5.9	3,338
OPAP	4.3	4.1	4.7	1,661

MORE DATA

Sustainability / ESG by AlphaValue:

Doubt driven, focused on dynamics

AlphaValue was set up in 2009 as an ESG native firm: since inception, no research could be published without filling up the ESG relevant items. ESG has always been there as a natural building block of the research effort.

Without much pretence, AlphaValue has accumulated 11 years of proprietary, practical data in a consistent way that has been made to “talk” with financial data. The efforts have been aimed at solving the main conundrum of ESG analytics: avoiding useless and noisy data. AlphaValue ESG data is intimately connected to the fundamental research work and its continuous updating process. In other words, AlphaValue ESG data can be made to resonate at will in terms of financial implications for those investors with the willingness to do so.

Over the last 3 years, this data, or rather the dynamic of this data, has been put at work so that it impacts directly and consistently on valuations across AlphaValue’s 450 + stocks universe. This is considerable progress vs. the dominant “consumption” of ESG raw data: ESG-type conclusions are sitting next to valuation fundamentals but hardly any investor is in a position to bridge effectively the two in a consistent and repeatable way. It takes more than a spreadsheet to get stable and auditable results that work 100% of the time.

AlphaValue reckons that it currently is the only equity research provider in Europe to have reached this stage: a perfectly smooth on-boarding of ESG data, on a continuing basis, impacting valuation fundamentals day and night.

This is available on every stock, every sector, every stock selection, every day.

Heretical ESG opinions?

ESG is a contradiction in terms. Without a good Governance, the Social and Environment items will never show progress. Social is for stakeholders and thus unlikely to please shareholders. The long-term view that good pay/working conditions are ultimately good for shareholders is, like any promise, better left to those who want to believe in it. It does not work for normal investment horizons

Environmental gains will not happen without good Governance but this is not enough as environmental progress will not happen without coercion from governments/supra-governments. There is no reason why a corporate will spend more for a possible collective gain tomorrow when it can have better returns now for its shareholders.

The environment is a cost of massive complexity and a universal one as data improves and allows for intricate tracking of what corporates are up to. There is no practical way a corporate can be valued through a web of changing definitions of environmental data. AlphaValue holds the view that all corporates are made to pay through lower GDP growth expectations resulting from friction costs. The only dimension that really matters from an investment perspective is whether a given corporate makes an extra effort vs. peers. A good ‘E’ rating shall not be driven by absolute levels but by the dynamic of emission controls relative to peers. Dumping cement stocks because they spit out carbon is a narrow view of what ESG implies.

Sustainability scores only

AlphaValue always refused to supply a pecking order of its coverage along some improbable ESG scale. It just does not make sense to mix opposing signals in a single ranking.

Sustainability is a different proposition where analytical items contributing to the E, the S and the G can be highlighted as sustainability precursors and combined in an intellectually acceptable way. This is the only scale made available by AlphaValue.

Sustainability impacts target prices

From 1-12-2020, AlphaValue substituted sustainability metrics for its Governance and Social ones when it comes to impacting valuations;

Indeed since 2019, all DCF (or DCF equivalents for Financials) have been impacted by Governance and Social metrics to connect directly ESG-type findings into share price targets and bring consistency across the board. The impact is driven by adjusting the small ‘g’ conventionally used to assess the growth to infinity. This is being tweaked to recognise, say, that good governance ultimately pays off.

The same procedure is now stemming from Sustainability metrics instead.

For the record, this has been made possible as AlphaValue has finalised its proprietary E scoring, now extended to 4 items (GHG, Waste, Water, Energy) on which a degree of data stability seems to emerge.

Comment