On a profit per $ remuneration basis he must be leading the pack by miles
Maybe it’s the Board that’s stupid allowing such a high package.
Yes I see what you're saying. Just under $3m is a LOT for a company making well under $100m and quite possibly is leading the pack on that basis.
Similar sized level of profit was SUM and our man Julian Cook only just "scraped by" on just over $1m and made more money with vastly higher growth !
I think its an industry problem. The real issue is you have these Australian bank CEO's earning far more (despite presiding over extremely dodgy activities), so when the executive remuneration committee meets they have GREED as their only relative measure in the sector.
Last edited by Beagle; 31-01-2020 at 02:20 PM.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
Yes I see what you're saying. Just under $3m is a LOT for a company making well under $100m and quite possibly is leading the pack on that basis.
Similar sized level of profit was SUM and our man Julian Cook only just "scraped by" on just over $1m and made more money with vastly higher growth !
I think its an industry problem. The real issue is you have these Australian bank CEO's earning far more (despite presiding over extremely dodgy activities), so when the executive remuneration committee meets they have GREED as their only relative measure in the sector.
No no Beagle - Julian’s company made over $200m for his just over $1m pay
Jeff’s company made under $80m for his just under $3m pay
Bankers world wide are a greedy lot ..maybe even unconscionable.
Maybe I should have said the Board made a stupid decision instead of implying the individuals were stupid.
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
No no Beagle - Julian’s company made over $200m for his just over $1m pay
Jeff’s company made under $80m for his just under $3m pay
Bankers world wide are a greedy lot ..maybe even unconscionable.
Maybe I should have said the Board made a stupid decision instead of implying the individuals were stupid.
Start at the beginning of this thread, and you will see the board and management have made nothing but great decisions.
Attract excellent people and you get excellent results.
Pay them well and you get even better results.
No no Beagle - Julian’s company made over $200m for his just over $1m pay
Jeff’s company made under $80m for his just under $3m pay
Bankers world wide are a greedy lot ..maybe even unconscionable.
Maybe I should have said the Board made a stupid decision instead of implying the individuals were stupid.
Yes good point mate. No wonder Jeff smiles so much in the annual report photo's ! Meanwhile Julian a far more serious type, knows some company executives have to EARN their pay.
Last edited by Beagle; 31-01-2020 at 03:16 PM.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
That's what I thought with Arborgen, that they all had skin in the game and would look after shareholders, but was sadly mistaken :-(
There is a school of thought that directors owning shares (especially lots) are not truly independent and don’t always act in the best interest of ALL shareholders....they can think along the lines of ‘whats best for me’
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
This chart from AR justifying the huge amounts paid out under the incentive schemes.
Suppose does deserve some little reward ...but not totally awesome performance ....a bit up and down eh ...hope that’s not indicating a bit of down relative to NZX50 coming up
They need to the National guys in to teach them how to make things look really awesome instead of so so
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
There is a school of thought that directors owning shares (especially lots) are not truly independent and don’t always act in the best interest of ALL shareholders....they can think along the lines of ‘whats best for me’
Same could be said for directors who hold no shares.
I much prefer "the owner's eye".
Originally Posted by winner69
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks