Rogues gallery

Chart Forum » General » Rogues gallery

«« Previous Next »»

Thread Start New Thread
Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post

Author

Message

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1220
Registered: 11-2002

Rating:
Votes: 2


Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 09:31 pm:

Why does the corporate world continue to turn a blind eye toward, and reward, incompetence and mediocrity.

This thread will be devoted to exposing corporate executives, who are paid a lot to lose your money.

I'll start with the man of the moment ...

1. Mr Andrew Scott, (ex)-CEO of Centro Property Group

Centro's, whose shares were trading at $10 in May 2007 and touched $0.445 today, announced that its chief executive, Andrew Scott, would step down immediately.

Mr Scott stands to receive up to $3 million, plus accrued salary and other entitlements, if he stays on as a consultant until March 31 this year, the company said.

And, how ironic that on the day Mr Scott walks away with a nice payout another rogue - actually, we can legitimately call him a criminal without fear of defamation - walked free.

2. Mr Ray Williams, founder and ex-CEO of HIH

Ray Williams, who presided over Australia's biggest corporate failure, walked free from prison today, but for thousands of small investors and policy holders the financial nightmare rolls on.

Williams, who was declared bankrupt, reportedly transferred much of his fortune into his wife Rita's account before his conviction.

It is said to have included a $4 million home, a $12 million Mosman mansion, a $5 million Lake Macquarie retreat and a Gold Coast unit.

3. Brad Cooper, an HIH associate, is eligible for parole in October 2010.

"Never commit yourself to anything you can't walk away from in 30 seconds." Neil McCauley (played by Robert de Niro) in 'Heat'.

"Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane." Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding, played by Morgan Freeman, in 'The Shawshank Redemption'.

easymoney

Member

Post Number: 97
Registered: 03-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 08:59 am:

With respect to Ray Williams, if the property was transferred in order to defeat creditors then I would expect that the trustee in bankruptcy would have been able to reclaim the assets.

What happened? Just a case of better lawyers?

INCREDIBLE OFFER - only $12 USD per month

FREE Incredible Charts Pro software
Powerful stock screener
End-of-day data for NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX and ASX
Ten years adjusted data history; and
Hundreds of Indices

30 day FREE trial - Download Here

Two of them say they're Jesus.
One of them must be wrong.

Industrial Disease
Dire Straits

mum

Member

Post Number: 211
Registered: 08-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, January 25, 2008 - 08:04 pm:

A bit from Daily Reckoning

--Hey did you see that 31-year old Societe General trader Jerome Kerviel lost his French bank $8.03 billion on stock futures trades gone wrong? Wall Street likes to call these incidents of "rogue trading," as if it was a lone gunmen pursing his own nefarious agenda.

--Please.

--What about rogue CEO' Stan O'Neal who made a market call on subprime mortgages and cost his shareholders billions of dollars in equity and losses? Kerviel didn't even personally profit from his trades, according to wire service reports. He was either a bad trader, or one who thought he knew how to make the bank some extra money. "Better to ask forgiveness than permission," goes the old saying. If he had been right he would probably have been given a raise and several billion euros of the bank's money to play with.

--By contrast, guys like Stan O'Neal and Chuck Prince at Citigroup made strategic decisions to get their companies involved in risky financial products at the height of a credit bubble. They shifted operational focus, dedicated company resources, and put real capital at risk-capital which went up in flames. O'Neal walked away US$161 million after leading the bank to one of its largest losses in its 93-year history.

--Don't blame the rogue traders or the hedge funds for the mess we're in, dear reader. It's the rogue capitalists, the people who've turned financial companies into vehicles for funneling institutional profits directly into their own pocket. These were supposed to be the men and women that made Britain and America and Australia the best "allocators of capital" in the world.

--Instead, you got the biggest bubble in the world in which the people at the top got enormously rich while taking very little personal risk, yet putting the whole financial system at risk. That's what's rotten in financial markets, and the sooner it can be cut out like the giant tumor that it is, the better. The trouble is, the cancer has spread to so many places (households, businesses, government balance sheets) that the patient may already be a goner.

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1632
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 09:41 am:

I'll resurrect this thread and expand it to cover general discussion about corporate executive remuneration that was commenced in the thread:

http://forum.incrediblecharts.com/messages/427230/915471.html

I posted (deanrosario Post #1631) a chart about the obscene disparity between the wage corporate executives pay themselves and the pay received by the average worker.

Colin (Colin Twiggs Post #3246) quite rightly asked why the public does not react adversely to the obscene earnings of celebrities.

Whilst I don't think some celebrities are worth the money they are paid, my view is that there is some relationship between:

Celebrity wage and income generated by that celebrity (box office revenue, sponsorship agreements, people through the gate, etc.)

And, this relationship seems to be easily monitored in a transparent manner.

If the celebrity is not performing satisfactorily (i.e. the celebrity is not producing the required "return on wage") the relationship is swiftly terminated and, very importantly, the celebrity's market value is diminished.

I just don't see this happening in the corporate world.

I don't see any relationship between executive remuneration and "return on remuneration".

In fact, executive who underperform are likely to receive a "golden handshake" to reward them for their incompetence!

Finally, unless the under-perfoming or failed executive was involved in criminal behaviour, he/she will rarely see his/her market value diminish because of poor past performance.

Dean

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1631
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 09:21 pm:

This chart illustrates exactly much of what I find obscene about the corporate world.

Why are some people so greedy?

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/24pay.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222254400-ABH+2EjKmpo3buhjhGnenA

colin_twiggs

Member

Post Number: 3246
Registered: 09-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 08:58 am:

Dean,

Executive compensation has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. My question is why does the public not react similarly to the obscene earnings of sports stars like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan or Greg Norman .... or of movie stars or recording artists?

Is it because the latter are perceived to have a special talent while anyone could run a multi-billion dollar corporation? Or is there some other paradigm?

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of multi-million dollar paychecks or short-term incentives. They seem to corrupt company leaders and encourage a focus on short-term results to the exclusion of all else. But that is a problem for shareholders to address. A separate issue.

Perhaps this warrants a separate thread.

Regards, Colin

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1633
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 09:44 am:

Colin, I've added my thoughts on the subject of "corporate executive remuneration" to this thread:

http://forum.incrediblecharts.com/messages/35933/1390563.html

Thanks for your input and let's hope we can stimulate some discussion - even the legislators seem to be interested in doing something now!

You are right in saying this should be a matter for shareholders but the only shareholders who have the voting power to do something - mutual/super funds - seem to often have conflicted interests.

(Message edited by deanrosario on September 25, 2008)

colin_twiggs

Member

Post Number: 3247
Registered: 09-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:35 am:

Dean,

You make a good point about the lack of accountability.

Executive remuneration committees should not consist solely of directors. They are supposed to represent shareholders but in reality are appointed by management -- and feel obliged to support them.

You may have heard the old joke: "What is the difference between a supermarket trolley and a non-executive director? The one has a mind of its own. And the other can hold more food and drink."

The problem of lack of accountability of senior management relates to the method of appointment of non-executive directors. They should not be an "old boys club" but should be directly selected by shareholders and accountable to them.

I would be interested to see how executive remuneration is determined in companies where Warren Buffet has a large stake.

Regards, Colin

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1634
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:55 am:

Colin - I hadn't heard the shopping trolley joke before, but it's a beauty.

And, I agree with all your sentiments about accountability.

In the business world, it is the self-made entrepreneurs for whom have the most respect and they deserve all the rewards for the high risks they've taken.

CEO of HVN, Gerry Harvey has always been a strong critic of exorbitant executive remuneration.

Here are some of his thoughts from an interview in 1999 on overpaid company executives ...

" My belief is you could replace nine out of ten chief operating officers in Australia with people that are getting less than a quarter of what they get and you would get a better result in nine cases out of ten.

I could prove to them they could get rid of their chief executive, replace him with someone on a quarter of the pay and they would actually get a better result."

Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s63513.htm

I have no problem with entrepreneurs (Harvey, Gates, etc.), who have taken huge risks, being given commensurate rewards for the risks they've taken.

But, the biggest business risk taken by most CEOs of large corporations would be deciding whether to go to Harvard or Chicago Business School!

Dean

tbreak

Member

Post Number: 151
Registered: 06-2004

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 12:31 pm:

Executive compensation has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. My question is why does the public not react similarly to the obscene earnings of sports stars like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan or Greg Norman .... or of movie stars or recording artists?

Is it because the latter are perceived to have a special talent while anyone could run a multi-billion dollar corporation? Or is there some other paradigm?

I would say because because they don't earn there money by deceptive practices. Tell workers there is no money when they negotiate there wage but then give themselves a bonus cause they kept wages in check. Cut staff - give themselves a bonus. Don't get me started on WH&S (james hardie anyone) with some companies but it ends with give themselves a bonus yet no compensation for those affected. Destroy somebodies life savings but walk away with a bonus. Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan or Greg Norman .... or of movie stars or recording artists don't cause you pain but decisions by executives cause real pain and while your suffering they give themselves a bonus. Maybe a bit harsh but you get the drift }

(Message edited by tbreak on September 25, 2008)

colin_twiggs

Member

Post Number: 3248
Registered: 09-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 12:57 pm:

I believe that management should always lead by example -- and be the first to take a pay cut. If non-executive directors were doing their job properly, we would see more of that.

Regards, Colin

(Message edited by colin_twiggs on September 25, 2008)

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1638
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, September 26, 2008 - 11:09 am:

Wow - even Conservative politicians in the USA are now joining our crusade against corporate executive greed!

Never thought I'd see the day when I'd be "on the same side" of an argument with former REP speaker, Newt Gingrich!

The times they are a changin'??

http://business.theage.com.au/business/popular-anger-puts-fat-cat-ceos-on-run-20 080926-4ofr.html

qed

Member

Post Number: 105
Registered: 01-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, September 28, 2008 - 10:21 pm:

SHYLOCK is alive and THRIVING , in the form of modern banks and company execs who continue to take their pound of flesh from those who can least afford it . Untill society DEMANDS fair and equitable dealings then the GREED is good creed will continue, DONT ANY OF THEM HAVE SOCIAL CONSIENCE ?

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1643
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, September 29, 2008 - 06:22 pm:

Michael West in today's Melbourne Age provides a wonderful piece on corporate excess.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/all-bull-and-no-bear-20080929-4q6n.html?p age=fullpage#contentSwap1

In no particular order ...

1. Suncorp
* CEO, John Mulcahy 20% pay increase ($5.3 million in 2007 to $6.2 million in 2008)
* Net profit during this time down 50% from $1.1 billion to $556 million.
* EPS down from $1.59 to 60 cents per share.

2. Wesfarmers
* just announced a large bonus scheme for CEO Richard Goyder, with annual bonuses of up to 120% of base pay that will accrue based on ... unstipulated ROE!!

2. Oxiana
* Owen Hegarty's $10.6 million farewell payment was knocked on the head by shareholders but the board still found a way to pay him $8.6 million ex-gratia!

3. Consolidated Media
* Executive chairman John Alexander received a termination payment of $15 million despite presiding over the decline of Nine Network.
* CMH is down, Nine is skirting with a breach of its banking agreements and ... Alexander picked up $19 million.

4. AGL
* Former chief Paul Anthony took home $11.3 million in 2007 and a further $6.2 million for four months' work in 2008 including a $5 million termination payment.

I find this observation by Michael West to be priceless and spot on ...

... when it comes to pricing their own worth, executives will tell you that executive pay must keep pace with the most expensive benchmarks;

yet, when pricing their employess worth, executives always cite the cheapest benchmarks".

Let's hope shareholders "maintain their rage" and force change - VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1686
Registered: 11-2002

Rating:
Votes: 1


Friday, October 17, 2008 - 08:30 pm:

A wonderful article by freelance journalist, John Cameron, appears in today's Melbourne Age and should become mandatory reading for the Business Ethics (although that's probably and oxymoron) curriculum at all MBA schools.

As Cameron so sagely observes ...

"You pay peanuts," someone said, "you get monkeys."

So we paid truffles and got pigs.

We would have been better off with the monkeys.

Ref:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/for-some-enough-is-never-enough-20081016-52dy.h tml?page=-1

ohkoolnutz

Member

Post Number: 768
Registered: 10-2005

Rating:
Votes: 2


Saturday, October 18, 2008 - 03:33 pm:

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1627-the-god-that-failed- the-30-year-lie-of-the-market-cult.html

---
ohk

Lies, Damn Lies and Technical Analysis

deanrosario

Member

Post Number: 1701
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 08:30 pm:

Michael West is a journo at the Melbourne Age for whom I have the highest regard.

Insightful articles and he's not afraid of going after the "big end of town".

Some more examples of corporate greed:

* Toll chief executive, Paul Little has a $200 million stake in the company, gets a huge salary and his board has still seen fit to bathe him in an $8.6 million cash bonus while shareholder wealth went backwards.

* Hard on the heels of Boral's outrageous payout to Rod Pearse and the two Valad executives getting a big pay rise while delivering shareholders a near-death experience (the Valad rem report was rejected by 75% of shareholders earlier today), Toll's executive pay scheme is yet another jarring affront to the notion of executive responsibility.

And, to top it off ...

* TOL shareholders voted 46% against the remuneration report, however, Paul Little's own vote got the outrageous scheme over the line!