ATM - A2 Milk Corporation Limited

[peat]

I've voted in favour. (I'm not a Jane knocker. Way too early to judge her performance IMO)

Her timing is impeccable. Much kudos lol
Nah I think it was a bit rich, but aren't we all in this for making money, which includes not losing it - so, a big round of applause - didnt she do well. Now do something equally clever for shareholders.

I hadnt really thought about the pro's/cons of duplicating roles CEO/BM as per the recent posts.
The best people in the best places where they can have the most influence is surely the idea. So if she's that good ?

[blackcap]

The fact that it does work in some cases does not mean it is a good idea to do so.

Many drivers used to dodge using a seat belt and most of them survived driving their car without buckling up. This fact is however no evidence, that it is a good idea not to use a seatbelt. Ask the ones who died ;

It's an interesting debate. I think in the US you will find many CEO's are also the Chairman of the company (TSLA for example, well not anymore but that is another story) but I think the NZ model where the CEO is removed from the board makes more sense and is structurally better for governance.

[minimoke]

I think in practicality, most CEO's need to sit in on the board meetings to provide information, perspective and context to proceedings, and more of the granular detail - that the board doesn't have. Not being on the board allows the board to then remove the CEO from any particular discussion as it wishes.

I don't think it really matters, but may mean that a seat is taken by the CEO whereas could have another on the board which may offer different perspective and expertise.

I'm a bit of a simpleton and I see the director's role as governance and strategy in the interest of the owners / shareholders. The CEO is responsible for implementing the strategy at operational level.

If CEO fails in implementation how can the board have a conversation with CEO when CEO is part of the Club.

[Patient Panda]

Greenslade of Heartland is one example of CEO also being a Director. Many others

Doesn’t seem to cause any angst

Yes and Simonn Challies / Gordon Macloud of Ryman.

I agree with winner on this. Have seen lots of examples of CEO sitting on the board with great results. Everyone and every organisation is different. They can organise however works best for them for all I care. All that matters to me is quality of management and whether I can trust them and the results they achieve. How they choose to make the magic happen is up to them.


I think I will be voting yes to all meeting resolutions except the increase in fees for which I will vote no.

[couta1]

I wouldn't compare Herd Licker and Simon Challies, Simon is a legend for all the right reasons where as the other one, well no.

[Patient Panda]

I wasn’t trying to compare them but you’re right. Definitely a pretty massive gap between the two.

A2 really needs to put a higher focus on growing their own talent. I’m not a fan of these highly paid outsiders. Rarely have I seen good value for money outcomes compared to promotion and development of inside talent.

[BlackPeter]

A2 really needs to put a higher focus on growing their own talent. I’m not a fan of these highly paid outsiders. Rarely have I seen good value for money outcomes compared to promotion and development of inside talent.

Definitely would agree with that. And maybe Mr Babbage was not such an outstanding leader as everybody seems to think? While he did clearly a pristine job in growing a startup into an enormous company - he obviously failed in growing and fostering inside the company the talent which the company now desperately would have required to replace him.

No leader is really great if they don't have as well a good succession plan.

[winner69]

I'm a bit of a simpleton and I see the director's role as governance and strategy in the interest of the owners / shareholders. The CEO is responsible for implementing the strategy at operational level.

If CEO fails in implementation how can the board have a conversation with CEO when CEO is part of the Club.

Strategy development lies with the CEO .....Board will provide insight etc ...and finally sign it off

[minimoke]

Strategy development lies with the CEO .....Board will provide insight etc ...and finally sign it off

This is what teh NZ Institute of Directors says, and they ought to know:
"Separating ownership from control
It's easy to get confused with the difference between governance and management. The board is in charge of governance of a company which seeks to ensure the smooth running of a business by making accountability and oversight the core of their workings. Governance also ensures that the business has a future-facing strategic plan.
This is where management comes in. They take the strategic plan and work to implement it into the day-to-day operations of the company.
Both roles are vital and complementary.
The difference can get blurred with SME's when:

• there are only one or two directors
• the same directors are founders
• these directors also manage the day-to-day operations.

Which hat to wear?
Executive directors need to think about the hat they have on:

• for operational aspects an executive director wears the management hat
• for board meetings, an executive director will need to switch to the more strategic cap (ie governance).

This is where an independent director can help guide your board discussion, and make this delineation clearer."

[Ggcc]

I've voted in favour. (I'm not a Jane knocker. Way too early to judge her performance IMO)

I voted against. She was far too early in her position to sell her shares for my liking