Re: Non-executive directors : Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:32 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

If that CEO and his directors are creaming the company and awarding outrageous bonuses and/or share deals then it won't be a tail spin it'll be a nose dive and they'll be gone - its the one good thing about capitalism, publicly owned companies have to be absolutely transparent and any whiff of wrong-doing can be spotted very quickly.

I'm sure the shareholders of Enron, RBS, Lehman Brothers and many others will be pleased with that...

Re: Non-executive directors : Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:16 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

I'm sure the shareholders of Enron, RBS, Lehman Brothers and many others will be pleased with that...

...and their tail-spins were noteworthy too.

Re: Non-executive directors : Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:25 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

A company who doesn't declare dividends to shareholders is starting into a tailspin from which they may not recover, once shareholders start to shift their options to alternative businesses (which they can do almost immediately these days) then it won't take more than half an hour for the markets to react, at that point you'll need a bloody good CEO to convince everyone that they are still a viable quoted business.

If that CEO and his directors are creaming the company and awarding outrageous bonuses and/or share deals then it won't be a tail spin it'll be a nose dive and they'll be gone - its the one good thing about capitalism, publicly owned companies have to be absolutely transparent and any whiff of wrong-doing can be spotted very quickly.

I like my aviation analogy there - see what I did then ?

Thing is, it's all done properly. Announcements ARE made to the ASX, they make a small profit, get all their target bonuses and general share options as they've all decided amongst themselves to get and the shareholders get NOTHING and a share price that's worth less. It's not right. I know life isn't fair, but things should be done about jobs for the boys. Will never happen, but in the days after the GFC, might be worth considering removing some NEDs who scrape money off the top whilst the general public get nothing but an ulcer. I really do have to question why you have some NEDs in the first place. At Qantas Peter Cosgrove was a highly regarded military man. A soldier who was a fantastic servant to the country and helped in East Timor. Seriously. What can he add to a board of an airline, apart from being someone famous?

Here is what Peter John Cosgrove got as shares in 2011 alone:
Indirect interest when mentioned: • personal superannuation fund (Super Fund)
• Qantas Deferred Shares held by the Qantas
Deferred Share Plan Trust (DSP Trust) through
participation in the Non-Executive Director
Share Plan (NED Plan), of which Pacific
Custodians Pty Limited is the trustee

17 March 2011 – 2,279 Ordinary Shares
Totals: Indirect Interests held to that point:
• 2,314 Ordinary Shares - Super Fund
• 18,451 Ordinary Shares - NED Plan


15 June 2011 - 2,588 Ordinary Shares
• 2,314 Ordinary Shares - Super Fund
• 20,730 Ordinary Shares - NED Plan

3 Nov 2011 - 3,043 Ordinary Shares
• 2,314 Ordinary Shares - Super Fund
• 23,318 Ordinary Shares - NED Plan

15 Dec 2011 - 3,152 Ordinary Shares
• 2,314 Ordinary Shares - Super Fund
• 26,361 Ordinary Shares - NED Plan

Automatic allocation of 3,152 Ordinary Shares
under the NED Plan. Peter Cosgrove acquired
these Shares by salary sacrificing part of his
Director fees. These Shares were purchased onmarket
and are held by Pacific Custodians Pty
Limited as trustee of the DSP Trust.

So you see, he could get more shares as part of an arrangement with the other members to get part paid in shares, whilst shareholders got nothing. Cosgrove got probably the least allocated shares. But what does he do? He's famous (in Australia).

Yes I did get your analogy. Very good. How can they pull up? Though I am in "yaw" of your answer. Maybe you can pitch it to them? Maybe you can be a star on their board?

Re: Non-executive directors : Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:21 am  

Should also mention he got $181,000 Cash FAR, $41,000 non cash benefits as well as $12,000 worth of travel.

Not bad for attending 8 board meetings is it.

Re: Non-executive directors : Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:59 pm  

So basically an ordinary shareholder in Qantas has received no dividend income on their shares but has seen a majority vote through substantial benefits to the board of directors despite their admitted difficulties ?

If I were an ordinary shareholder in such a situation I'd be looking for an exit, however its likely that most of the shares are held by pension funds and the like and its as much in their interests to keep the company and its share value alive than to condemn the few directors who are legally scamming.

You might also like to read up on the breaking news on the Japanese firm Olympus who's directors have been slightly less than honest to its shareholders for decades...

Re: Non-executive directors : Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:28 pm  

Given that many shareholders (pension funds, fund managers etc) are very transient, are merely betting on the price of the shares and don't actually give a hoot about the long-term prospects of the company or how much the board are paid, there isn't much opportunity for restraint and boards can more or less pay themselves what they like.
Once one of them increases board remuneration, the rest have the "justification" to do the same.

Indeed, the fund managers themselves are probably way overpaid and aren't going to rock the boat.

Re: Non-executive directors : Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:12 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Given that many shareholders (pension funds, fund managers etc) are very transient, are merely betting on the price of the shares and don't actually give a hoot about the long-term prospects of the company or how much the board are paid, there isn't much opportunity for restraint and boards can more or less pay themselves what they like...

Which, of course, is why the PM's comments on executive pay were merely an attempt to placate the slightly-stroppier-than-usual plebs.

Re: Non-executive directors : Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:41 am  

Mintball wrote:

Which, of course, is why the PM's comments on executive pay were merely an attempt to placate the slightly-stroppier-than-usual plebs.

Yes, once he spotted the Daily Wail having a rant about it, he realised that middle England would be interested.
A few tough words about "looking at the problem" and it's all sorted, so that's OK.

A bit like his dealing with banking regulation, he's all mouth and trousers.

Did you know that was all Labour's fault for not regulating tight enough?
Yeah, I know the Tories were forever whinging about regulation being too tight whilst pointing at Ireland as a model economy but let's not let an opportunity to blame Labour go unused, eh?

Re: Non-executive directors : Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm  

El Barbudo wrote: ... Did you know that was all Labour's fault for not regulating tight enough? Yeah, I know the Tories were forever whinging about regulation being too tight whilst pointing at Ireland as a model economy but let's not let an opportunity to blame Labour go unused, eh? In the meantime, it seems that we're all helping to pay for two epitomes of banking probity to work against regulation.

El Barbudo wrote: ... Did you know that was all Labour's fault for not regulating tight enough? Yeah, I know the Tories were forever whinging about regulation being too tight whilst pointing at Ireland as a model economy but let's not let an opportunity to blame Labour go unused, eh? In the meantime, it seems that we're all helping to pay for two epitomes of banking probity to work against regulation.