SUM - Summerset Group

[winner69]

Heres a question for the Floor:

What plans are being made to live stream future AGM's

I'm onlooking forward for an explanation for justifying director remuneration when SP is currently at $5.67 off it 12 month high of $8.00 ( I weary of Directors who pay goes up while shareholder wealth goes down)

Bit mean MM. Over the years underlying profit growth has been very strong. Lets take a look back to 2015 where underlying profit was just $37.8m, they had 5 directors and annual fees totalled $515K. Fast forward to 2018, Underlying profit was $98.6m, they now have 6 directors and directors fees totalled $627K. Directors fees per director have barely moved and not even kept pace with inflation since 2015 and yet underlying profit is 2.6 times the level in 2015 and assets under management have grown dramatically as well. A $100K increase to a maximum of $750K seems perfectly reasonable to me especially in light of how well the directors have done their job !

Share price decline over the last year is not their fault and not under their direct control.

But Directors workload probably hasn’t increased that much even though the business is bigger ...hmmm

[Beagle]

But Directors workload probably hasn’t increased that much even though the business is bigger ...hmmm

I know they have been looking extremely hard at all the complexities involved with expanding into Australia so I would have thought their workload has indeed increased and yet the pay rate per director hasn't kept pace with inflation despite underlying profit increasing 260% since 2015...hmmmm.

I can't recall a case for directors fees increasing by a reasonably modest amount that has more merit in it to be quite honest about it.

[winner69]

Heres a question for the Floor:

What plans are being made to live stream future AGM's

I'm onlooking forward for an explanation for justifying director remuneration when SP is currently at $5.67 off it 12 month high of $8.00 ( I weary of Directors who pay goes up while shareholder wealth goes down)

I know they have been looking extremely hard at all the complexities involved with expanding into Australia so I would have thought their workload has indeed increased and yet the pay rate per director hasn't kept pace with inflation despite underlying profit increasing 260% since 2015...hmmmm.

I can't recall a case for directors fees increasing by a reasonably modest amount that has more merit in it to be quite honest about it.

They got extra payments (in addition to standard fees) for looking into Australia (and the bond issue)

Ryman Directors got a pay rise last year. Even after this Summerset Directors will be paid a bit less than the Ryman ones but not by much.

I voted against ...knowing it only a protest vote anyway

[Beagle]

I went back and had a look at Directors fees as a percentage of underlying profit for the last 4 years and here's how the stat's look.
2015 $515K / $37.8m = 1.36%
2016 $488K / $56.5m = 0.86%
2017 $599K / $81.7m = 0.73%
2018 $627K / $98.6m = 0.64%

I think those numbers speak for themselves.

[winner69]

I went back and had a look at Directors fees as a percentage of underlying profit for the last 4 years and here's how the stat's look.
2015 $515K / $37.8m = 1.36%
2016 $488K / $56.5m = 0.86%
2017 $599K / $81.7m = 0.73%
2018 $627K / $98.6m = 0.64%

I think those numbers speak for themselves.

They’re paid to overseer those growing profits ....has their workload trebled?

[Maverick]

Looking forward to the meeting tomorrow and of course also meeting some of you afterwards

[davflaws]

Wages ought have nothing to do with a persons living expenses.

What they should be is fair recompense for the skills and experience a worker can bring to the employer to help solve a problem the employer has. The more complex the problem the greater the likelihood there will be fewer skilled workers available - thus you would expect to pay a higher wage. The less complex the problem the greater the likelihood of having more workers with the skills available to solve that problem - thus you would expect to pay a lower wage.

Once the employers problem has been solved by the payment of a commensurate wage thats the end of the matter. How a worker chooses to spend their income is entirely up to them.

If a person earns little then it is incumbent on that person to live within their means. If they have aspirations for something greater then they need to change their skills so they can help employers solve higher level problems and thus get paid more.

This simple process isnt helped by governments who dictate the worth of an employee. As currently evidenced by the current government who thinks some school kid working at the local fish and chip shop is worth $17.70 an hour for their after school job. Frying chips takes virtually zero skill, there are thousands of kids who are available to work in a Chippie. Their living costs are virtually nil. Yet through some miracle of modern business management the govt reckons that all comes to $17.70 an hour.

You have given us a very good and clear explanation of a neoliberal position in relation to wages. But I think you have stated a position which is on the extreme end of the continuum.

It does not acknowledge the difficulties that come with Capitalism in its extreme and unregulated form. Capitalism is a very good system for creating wealth - the best yet by miles. But it is less successful in ensuring distribution of that wealth. Unless it is restrained and regulated by the power of the state, capitalism inevitably produces marked and growing inequality - to everyone's detriment.

[minimoke]

You have given us a very good and clear explanation of a neoliberal position in relation to wages. But I think you have stated a position which is on the extreme end of the continuum.

I thought I was just describing basic supply and demand economics

It does not acknowledge the difficulties that come with Capitalism in its extreme and unregulated form. Capitalism is a very good system for creating wealth - the best yet by miles. But it is less successful in ensuring distribution of that wealth. Unless it is restrained and regulated by the power of the state, capitalism inevitably produces marked and growing inequality - to everyone's detriment.

Wealth should not be distributed . It should be earnt. That is the motivator and the oil that makes a successful world go round smoothly.

The inequality only comes from the difference between those who work to get what they want and those who sit back waiting for someone else to hand them what they want.

Taking peoples hard earned wealth becomes detrimental. It encourages them to use alternative wealth management tools or stops people from striving to be the very best they can be - no point in that if someone else reaps the rewards for the risk and hard labour.

[RTM]

You have given us a very good and clear explanation of a neoliberal position in relation to wages. But I think you have stated a position which is on the extreme end of the continuum.

It does not acknowledge the difficulties that come with Capitalism in its extreme and unregulated form. Capitalism is a very good system for creating wealth - the best yet by miles. But it is less successful in ensuring distribution of that wealth. Unless it is restrained and regulated by the power of the state, capitalism inevitably produces marked and growing inequality - to everyone's detriment.

There was a great article in last Fridays Herald...." Capitalists versus Capitalism" taken from the Financial Times written by Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson.... on this subject. It appears that some USA Business leaders are concerned about the divisions that Capitalism is creating. Can't find a link in the Herald...sorry.

Well worth a read if you can track it down. I can see it in the Financial Times... April 22. If anyone can access it from there.
https://www.ft.com/andrew-edgecliffe-johnson

Short quote of Ray Dalio….Bridgewater Associates.
"I'm a capitalist and even I think capitalism is broken.....capitalism is at a juncture. Americans could reform it together, " or we will do it in conflict.""

If anyone is really interested...PM me an I'll make it into a PDF that I can email.

Cheers
RTM

[BlackPeter]

fascinating theme ... but probably better discussed on a relevant thread ;