Tesco - another fail

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

Yes I think I will continue to voice my opinion regarding the 'lack of remuneration restraint' within some Boardrooms. Is 'he' perfectly right'? only in your opinion.
Nope I do not buy any Lottery tickets and I have absolutely no intention of giving more money (or assistance) to any charity.
Immoral earnings amongst sports people, film stars, F1 drivers, pop stars, you ask am I going to 'rant on' about those people. I can only quote Andy Murray 'yes I am grossly overpaid' refreshingly honest imo.

But what is your solution, I keep asking and you don't have a workable one, please tell us what it is?

Is it percentage based, is it performance based if so on what and how - give us some examples using lets say Tesco with its £3bn profit and how would you see and at what level the CEO of that company remunerated using actual numbers which fit within your ideology and you would be happy to see that person get paid.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Yes I think I will continue to voice my opinion regarding the 'lack of remuneration restraint' within some Boardrooms. Is 'he' perfectly right'? only in your opinion.
Nope I do not buy any Lottery tickets and I have absolutely no intention of giving more money (or assistance) to any charity.
Immoral earnings amongst sports people, film stars, F1 drivers, pop stars, you ask am I going to 'rant on' about those people. I can only quote Andy Murray 'yes I am grossly overpaid' refreshingly honest imo.

But what is your solution, I keep asking and you don't have a workable one, please tell us what it is?

Is it percentage based, is it performance based if so on what and how - give us some examples using lets say Tesco with its £3bn profit and how would you see and at what level the CEO of that company remunerated using actual numbers which fit within your ideology and you would be happy to see that person get paid.

You keep asking and I keep offering the same solution, its the solution that is being enacted into Law. That is 'a binding shareholders vote on the pay boards proposals'. Its not difficult to grasp, it is not required for me to work out any % of value. It is the only possible solution, imo, that will be equitable to both Company shareholders and C.E.O. / Directors.
Tell me what is so unreasonable and unworkable regarding this scenario? If shareholders do not bother to vote they cannot blame anyone else but themselves if outcomes are against personal preferences/requirements. Democracy rules. Upon this basis I would have no problem or issues in accepting the voting outcomes.

Tesco shareholders are continuing to see a downward drift in market share and profit, I cannot understand any shareholder who would not express concern over these facts. Once again I state this is why the C.E.O. stepped down, he did not have a solution to the problem that would satisfy the shareholders.
To make any attempt in stating pure numbers in a solution to pay awards or arbitrary % is a nonsense that I have never wasted my time with. It is, as I have said, for pay-boards to present proposals with recommendations to shareholders, as is normal, but with the BINDING' voting Rights.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

.

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Wilmslowboy said:

crankedup said:

Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not!

Pretty much non of the board (and directors) received any bonuses for the past three years, one of the positives was PHil had the sense not to award himself a bonus whist the shareholder suffered.

Should have made this clearer, what I mean is that it would have been quite usual for a Corporation to offer incentives ON performance turning the business around. Although this is plainly not always the case.

Hang on, isn't that exactly what the board have done... incentives = bonuses etc. So no turnaround, no bonus, that's what they have done - what are you complaining about exactly?

I do suspect that you are just simply banging the same old drum about anyone that gets paid more as a basic salary than some arbitrary limit you deem acceptable is some sort of robber baron!

Edited by heppers75 on Monday 21st July 23:35

I wasn't going to bother with a reply initially, but upon reflection. Should this Boardroom require an incentive for improved Company performance. Seems to me that is quite wrong, poor performance over a sustained period should mean dismissal. The only people who should further benefit should be the Company owners. Shareholders, those people like me that risk their own money.
Yes there would be exceptions, for instance if the basic remuneration package is modest and the built in incentives then clearly work as a true incentive to performance.
I long for the day when the greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders are cut back to sane levels of reward. Shareholder pressure is slowly beginning to have an impact but it will take some years yet, unfortunately. My opinion is a broad narrative not necessarily including the Company we are discussing in this thread.

I think you will find that for the most part a vast majority of board level remuneration packages will include a shareholding element. Which is very likely to eclipse the average personal investors amount of interest in a company. So any poor performance of the share value and dividend returns will affect those people in a fiscal way to an even greater extent than you. Also dismissal for a director is in many ways the same for that as an employee and is subject to the employment laws of the land and whilst it might be nice to be able to arbitrarily make up reasons within a business to get rid of people, the laws that protect the workers also protect the directors, as ultimately they are also employees.

Your statements however do intrigue me as they do suggest that you are on some moral crusade also you seem to be so very certain that what you are saying is categorically the case. I am therefore assuming that you will have direct and fully detailed examples of these "greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders". Which I can only assume will include all the complete and detailed breakdowns of the pay structures of the CEOs and board members to support your case?

My question is then, could you share those with us all please so we can see the same exact data you are seeing to draw your very scathing conclusions from so that we might do the same.

[eccles]

crankedup said:

Indeed, we shoppers are a fickle bunch apparently, when Morrison's bought out Safeways they expanded massively with speed. Where I used to live Morrison's transformed the old Safeways into a flagship store, fabulous supermarket meeting all my expectations. Meanwhile Tesco built a store next door, have to say it is drab, boring, unadventurous and a few other negatives also. Some will say 'well don't shop there', absolutely and I don't whether I moved home or not. And that sums up the current Tesco problem IMO. Expect the C.E.O. and Directors are working to resolve the problem and bring back those customers that have chose to shop elsewhere. (didn't know Morrisons had their own farms!)

Tesco also showed their arrogance when they opened that store as years after the store was open, they still hadn't started some of the community stuff they said they would as a condition of them getting planning permission. It was only when the planning department started shouting and the local press was full of negative stories that they fulfilled their obligations.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

.

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Wilmslowboy said:

crankedup said:

Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not!

Pretty much non of the board (and directors) received any bonuses for the past three years, one of the positives was PHil had the sense not to award himself a bonus whist the shareholder suffered.

Should have made this clearer, what I mean is that it would have been quite usual for a Corporation to offer incentives ON performance turning the business around. Although this is plainly not always the case.

Hang on, isn't that exactly what the board have done... incentives = bonuses etc. So no turnaround, no bonus, that's what they have done - what are you complaining about exactly?

I do suspect that you are just simply banging the same old drum about anyone that gets paid more as a basic salary than some arbitrary limit you deem acceptable is some sort of robber baron!

Edited by heppers75 on Monday 21st July 23:35

I wasn't going to bother with a reply initially, but upon reflection. Should this Boardroom require an incentive for improved Company performance. Seems to me that is quite wrong, poor performance over a sustained period should mean dismissal. The only people who should further benefit should be the Company owners. Shareholders, those people like me that risk their own money.
Yes there would be exceptions, for instance if the basic remuneration package is modest and the built in incentives then clearly work as a true incentive to performance.
I long for the day when the greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders are cut back to sane levels of reward. Shareholder pressure is slowly beginning to have an impact but it will take some years yet, unfortunately. My opinion is a broad narrative not necessarily including the Company we are discussing in this thread.

I think you will find that for the most part a vast majority of board level remuneration packages will include a shareholding element. Which is very likely to eclipse the average personal investors amount of interest in a company. So any poor performance of the share value and dividend returns will affect those people in a fiscal way to an even greater extent than you. Also dismissal for a director is in many ways the same for that as an employee and is subject to the employment laws of the land and whilst it might be nice to be able to arbitrarily make up reasons within a business to get rid of people, the laws that protect the workers also protect the directors, as ultimately they are also employees.

Your statements however do intrigue me as they do suggest that you are on some moral crusade also you seem to be so very certain that what you are saying is categorically the case. I am therefore assuming that you will have direct and fully detailed examples of these "greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders". Which I can only assume will include all the complete and detailed breakdowns of the pay structures of the CEOs and board members to support your case?

My question is then, could you share those with us all please so we can see the same exact data you are seeing to draw your very scathing conclusions from so that we might do the same.

Yes of course their is an element of shareholder involvement in the pay board recommendations, plainly there has to be by the very nature of the Company ownership. As an investor into Companies during the past 35 years I have managed to provide myself with some understanding during this time. Problem is activity from shareholders is generally the large institutional holdings represented by a few 'grey suits', my Daughter being one of these suits. But even these are not 'binding voting Rights', merely advisory.

You seem to imply that morals within business context is not a good thing, it always was, in general terms, until relatively recently. It cannot have escaped your attention that many shareholders are becoming more disenchanted and vocal?
Of course I can take time and effort to post some information for you but really this is not something I want to spend time on. It is the usual PH terminology of course, but I commend you to read 'The Investors Chronicle' of which I am now once again subscribing to. A quick read of this may settle your mind that I am not alone regarding remuneration packages at Board Level. In truth it is the FTSE 100 / 250 Companies that attract my attention, not the smaller Companies.

I find it to be insulting to investors having to witness the troughing activities of some Board Members On the other hand you seem to feel that it is perfectly reasonable for greed to continue unfettered? This leads me to consider as to whether you invest in such Companies and I do honestly find it difficult to understand as to why such investors are happy to allow such greed year after year? If a Company turns in outstanding results on a regular basis then that is of course an entirely different situation and it would be right and proper for high reward to be offered, but not on poor value results.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

.

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Wilmslowboy said:

crankedup said:

Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not!

Pretty much non of the board (and directors) received any bonuses for the past three years, one of the positives was PHil had the sense not to award himself a bonus whist the shareholder suffered.

Should have made this clearer, what I mean is that it would have been quite usual for a Corporation to offer incentives ON performance turning the business around. Although this is plainly not always the case.

Hang on, isn't that exactly what the board have done... incentives = bonuses etc. So no turnaround, no bonus, that's what they have done - what are you complaining about exactly?

I do suspect that you are just simply banging the same old drum about anyone that gets paid more as a basic salary than some arbitrary limit you deem acceptable is some sort of robber baron!

Edited by heppers75 on Monday 21st July 23:35

I wasn't going to bother with a reply initially, but upon reflection. Should this Boardroom require an incentive for improved Company performance. Seems to me that is quite wrong, poor performance over a sustained period should mean dismissal. The only people who should further benefit should be the Company owners. Shareholders, those people like me that risk their own money.
Yes there would be exceptions, for instance if the basic remuneration package is modest and the built in incentives then clearly work as a true incentive to performance.
I long for the day when the greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders are cut back to sane levels of reward. Shareholder pressure is slowly beginning to have an impact but it will take some years yet, unfortunately. My opinion is a broad narrative not necessarily including the Company we are discussing in this thread.

I think you will find that for the most part a vast majority of board level remuneration packages will include a shareholding element. Which is very likely to eclipse the average personal investors amount of interest in a company. So any poor performance of the share value and dividend returns will affect those people in a fiscal way to an even greater extent than you. Also dismissal for a director is in many ways the same for that as an employee and is subject to the employment laws of the land and whilst it might be nice to be able to arbitrarily make up reasons within a business to get rid of people, the laws that protect the workers also protect the directors, as ultimately they are also employees.

Your statements however do intrigue me as they do suggest that you are on some moral crusade also you seem to be so very certain that what you are saying is categorically the case. I am therefore assuming that you will have direct and fully detailed examples of these "greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders". Which I can only assume will include all the complete and detailed breakdowns of the pay structures of the CEOs and board members to support your case?

My question is then, could you share those with us all please so we can see the same exact data you are seeing to draw your very scathing conclusions from so that we might do the same.

Yes of course their is an element of shareholder involvement in the pay board recommendations, plainly there has to be by the very nature of the Company ownership. As an investor into Companies during the past 35 years I have managed to provide myself with some understanding during this time. Problem is activity from shareholders is generally the large institutional holdings represented by a few 'grey suits', my Daughter being one of these suits. But even these are not 'binding voting Rights', merely advisory.

You seem to imply that morals within business context is not a good thing, it always was, in general terms, until relatively recently. It cannot have escaped your attention that many shareholders are becoming more disenchanted and vocal?
Of course I can take time and effort to post some information for you but really this is not something I want to spend time on. It is the usual PH terminology of course, but I commend you to read 'The Investors Chronicle' of which I am now once again subscribing to. A quick read of this may settle your mind that I am not alone regarding remuneration packages at Board Level. In truth it is the FTSE 100 / 250 Companies that attract my attention, not the smaller Companies.

I find it to be insulting to investors having to witness the troughing activities of some Board Members On the other hand you seem to feel that it is perfectly reasonable for greed to continue unfettered? This leads me to consider as to whether you invest in such Companies and I do honestly find it difficult to understand as to why such investors are happy to allow such greed year after year? If a Company turns in outstanding results on a regular basis then that is of course an entirely different situation and it would be right and proper for high reward to be offered, but not on poor value results.

So thanks for the soap box response, what I read from the above is.... No I cannot provide hard data, I have a band wagon I am too busy staying on and why should I cloud a good rhetoric with actual facts, I mean who does that!?

FYI I have a pretty diverse portfolio that includes Tesco, RBS, Barclays and others, overall I am pretty pleased with the performance of my investments over a ten year period, I have both been advised well and made some decisions myself which have for the most part worked out. I never really looked to make a fast buck in the markets and a given performance in a narrow period as far as investment is concerned is the purview of those that do not understand the nature of the beast and like to tilt at windmills.

[ch108]

I tend to shop at Tesco for the majority of my shopping. Now that a lot of other folk have deserted to Aldi & Lidl its quieter and so much easier to get served!

I used to shop at Morrison's but was fed up of them hardly having any tills open, and it taking as long to get served as it did to do the shopping. The bread aisle always seemed to be themed on a Russian store with large empty bits.

Sainsburys is a nice big shop but too expensive to use week in week out.

I do some shopping occasionally at Aldi. Yet I can never get a loaf there that lasts before going mouldy. Things like milk, biscuits, crisps, fruit, tea&coffee all cheaper than Tesco. Not a big selection of meat however and I find you have to be careful of short shelf life on some products.

Never had a massive issue with Tesco so will probably continue to do some shopping there whilst going to Aldi occasionally.

[mph1977]

JPJPJP said:

Surely retail is a bit like airlines, in that if you want to be a low cost player, you have to start out with that intention.

Trying to change from full service to low cost is rarely possible due to legacy costs - pensions, staff on silly money compared to people doing the same job in low cost competitors, expensive head office. That stuff all adds up to make it nearly impossible for Tesco to compete with Aldi on cost, just as it would be nearly impossible for BA to compete with Ryanair on cost.

except the LoCos in supermarket pay more as their more modest stores means they only have one grade of assistant who is expected to be able to do tills and Customer service as well as replen and cleaning ... there is also the legacy of the old days of aldi and lidl where you were expected to learn PLU/SKUs ( as not price lables and no EPOS) for the products and have a high ringing up rate - although they've got EPOS now ...

JPJPJP said:

Trying to take out cost in easy to address areas simply leaves the customer bewildered. I recall taking a BA flight at the time that BA was trying to compete on price with Easyjet. As plain as day the BA stewardesses' uniforms were obviously about 4x the cost of the orange and grey 'smocks' that the easyjet staff were wearing. It just wasn't going to work. And it didn't.

At the commodity end of the market (shorthaul flights / the weekly shop) it is more and more about price. Unless that changes, companies that set out to be low cost from the start and at their core have an advantage.

tesco, morrison and asda started as as LoCo , just not deep discounters. If you were talking aobut the slide of JS from a peer of waitrose to the mass market ...

[thepeoplespal]

I used to drop £70-80 in Tesco's every Friday night, as well as £70 on fuel sometime back late 2008. They opened up a scan your own aisle & normally withdrew all till operatives just around the time I was finishing my shop. While I'm as PH gifted as the next one, £70 of self scanning is just too much of a ball ache to contemplate every week.

So I wrote a letter of complaint, asked to be informed when the situation changed, as yet I've yet to receive an acknowledgement, never mind anything else, so I've voted with my wallet.

It is surprisingly joyful to hear of the woe that Tesco is going through, given the lack of customer service I have received in the past & the knowledge of how they treat their Milk Farmers, often paying below cost of production - not good for animal welfare or human health.

[g h j]

Fotic said:

Pappa Lurve said:

crankedup said:

Following another three years of poor and falling profits the C.E.O. has thrown in the towel. Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not! It used to be a relative doddle to run decent profits year on year back pre 2008, now the market is far more challenging we see the true 'worth' of so called 'top people' without whom nobody would have a job Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse.

If it is so easy to do those kind of jobs, may I enquire as to why they didn't hire you?

Is it not possible for someone to criticise someone/thing without a poster immediately saying 'if it's that easy, why don't you do it??'? We see a lot of it on PH and it's quite bizarre - you're effectively arguing the case of the person/thing but without any substance.

yee haw my man

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

.

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Wilmslowboy said:

crankedup said:

Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not!

Pretty much non of the board (and directors) received any bonuses for the past three years, one of the positives was PHil had the sense not to award himself a bonus whist the shareholder suffered.

Should have made this clearer, what I mean is that it would have been quite usual for a Corporation to offer incentives ON performance turning the business around. Although this is plainly not always the case.

Hang on, isn't that exactly what the board have done... incentives = bonuses etc. So no turnaround, no bonus, that's what they have done - what are you complaining about exactly?

I do suspect that you are just simply banging the same old drum about anyone that gets paid more as a basic salary than some arbitrary limit you deem acceptable is some sort of robber baron!

Edited by heppers75 on Monday 21st July 23:35

I wasn't going to bother with a reply initially, but upon reflection. Should this Boardroom require an incentive for improved Company performance. Seems to me that is quite wrong, poor performance over a sustained period should mean dismissal. The only people who should further benefit should be the Company owners. Shareholders, those people like me that risk their own money.
Yes there would be exceptions, for instance if the basic remuneration package is modest and the built in incentives then clearly work as a true incentive to performance.
I long for the day when the greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders are cut back to sane levels of reward. Shareholder pressure is slowly beginning to have an impact but it will take some years yet, unfortunately. My opinion is a broad narrative not necessarily including the Company we are discussing in this thread.

I think you will find that for the most part a vast majority of board level remuneration packages will include a shareholding element. Which is very likely to eclipse the average personal investors amount of interest in a company. So any poor performance of the share value and dividend returns will affect those people in a fiscal way to an even greater extent than you. Also dismissal for a director is in many ways the same for that as an employee and is subject to the employment laws of the land and whilst it might be nice to be able to arbitrarily make up reasons within a business to get rid of people, the laws that protect the workers also protect the directors, as ultimately they are also employees.

Your statements however do intrigue me as they do suggest that you are on some moral crusade also you seem to be so very certain that what you are saying is categorically the case. I am therefore assuming that you will have direct and fully detailed examples of these "greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders". Which I can only assume will include all the complete and detailed breakdowns of the pay structures of the CEOs and board members to support your case?

My question is then, could you share those with us all please so we can see the same exact data you are seeing to draw your very scathing conclusions from so that we might do the same.

Yes of course their is an element of shareholder involvement in the pay board recommendations, plainly there has to be by the very nature of the Company ownership. As an investor into Companies during the past 35 years I have managed to provide myself with some understanding during this time. Problem is activity from shareholders is generally the large institutional holdings represented by a few 'grey suits', my Daughter being one of these suits. But even these are not 'binding voting Rights', merely advisory.

You seem to imply that morals within business context is not a good thing, it always was, in general terms, until relatively recently. It cannot have escaped your attention that many shareholders are becoming more disenchanted and vocal?
Of course I can take time and effort to post some information for you but really this is not something I want to spend time on. It is the usual PH terminology of course, but I commend you to read 'The Investors Chronicle' of which I am now once again subscribing to. A quick read of this may settle your mind that I am not alone regarding remuneration packages at Board Level. In truth it is the FTSE 100 / 250 Companies that attract my attention, not the smaller Companies.

I find it to be insulting to investors having to witness the troughing activities of some Board Members On the other hand you seem to feel that it is perfectly reasonable for greed to continue unfettered? This leads me to consider as to whether you invest in such Companies and I do honestly find it difficult to understand as to why such investors are happy to allow such greed year after year? If a Company turns in outstanding results on a regular basis then that is of course an entirely different situation and it would be right and proper for high reward to be offered, but not on poor value results.

So thanks for the soap box response, what I read from the above is.... No I cannot provide hard data, I have a band wagon I am too busy staying on and why should I cloud a good rhetoric with actual facts, I mean who does that!?

FYI I have a pretty diverse portfolio that includes Tesco, RBS, Barclays and others, overall I am pretty pleased with the performance of my investments over a ten year period, I have both been advised well and made some decisions myself which have for the most part worked out. I never really looked to make a fast buck in the markets and a given performance in a narrow period as far as investment is concerned is the purview of those that do not understand the nature of the beast and like to tilt at windmills.

Your an interesting fellow (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are a fellow)I offer a reasonable response to which you never actually dissect into what you seem to discard as all negative ideology.Why can't you offer a rational response rather than rhetoric and personal abuse? Do you accept that the current situation regarding the reward arrangements which exclude shareholders from a BINDING vote is unsustainable? If I try to make headway in small bites it may help you.
You proclaim to hold seven Directorships and yet never have you responded to advising exactly the names of these Companies that you are involved with! Have you ever read 'Investors Chronicle' or do you discard that as other peoples nonsense as well?

[matchmaker]

ch108 said:

I do some shopping occasionally at Aldi. Yet I can never get a loaf there that lasts before going mouldy.

Same bread, produced in the same bakery. Just 25% cheaper!

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

Your an interesting fellow (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are a fellow)I offer a reasonable response to which you never actually dissect into what you seem to discard as all negative ideology.Why can't you offer a rational response rather than rhetoric and personal abuse? Do you accept that the current situation regarding the reward arrangements which exclude shareholders from a BINDING vote is unsustainable? If I try to make headway in small bites it may help you.
You proclaim to hold seven Directorships and yet never have you responded to advising exactly the names of these Companies that you are involved with! Have you ever read 'Investors Chronicle' or do you discard that as other peoples nonsense as well?

Please point me to the post where I claim to hold seven directorships?

I don't accept anything unless you can provide me with some hard evidence of there being something wrong. Hard evidence would constitute what I have asked for which is what you seemingly have access to which allows you to form your opinion.

A binding vote is a good thing, I have never said otherwise, indeed in many shareholder agreements votes are by nature binding. They are also based on an agreed percentage of shareholders, you were seeming to say this should be subject to 100% of all shareholders - or have you now reversed this position?

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Your an interesting fellow (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are a fellow)I offer a reasonable response to which you never actually dissect into what you seem to discard as all negative ideology.Why can't you offer a rational response rather than rhetoric and personal abuse? Do you accept that the current situation regarding the reward arrangements which exclude shareholders from a BINDING vote is unsustainable? If I try to make headway in small bites it may help you.
You proclaim to hold seven Directorships and yet never have you responded to advising exactly the names of these Companies that you are involved with! Have you ever read 'Investors Chronicle' or do you discard that as other peoples nonsense as well?

Please point me to the post where I claim to hold seven directorships?

I don't accept anything unless you can provide me with some hard evidence of there being something wrong. Hard evidence would constitute what I have asked for which is what you seemingly have access to which allows you to form your opinion.

A binding vote is a good thing, I have never said otherwise, indeed in many shareholder agreements votes are by nature binding. They are also based on an agreed percentage of shareholders, you were seeming to say this should be subject to 100% of all shareholders - or have you now reversed this position?

Reading over an old thread (14/6/12) fairly much the same issue as this thread, you argue against Binding voting Rights for shareholders. You make disparaging remarks about Shareholders and how they should not be allowed a 'say' in the running of their Company. You state that you are / were a CTO but such are your skills you also sat on the Board of the Company. You state that you hold/held two other Directorships and also run your own business now.

Pleased to read of your change of heart re Shareholders voting Rights.

Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 29th July 17:06

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Your an interesting fellow (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are a fellow)I offer a reasonable response to which you never actually dissect into what you seem to discard as all negative ideology.Why can't you offer a rational response rather than rhetoric and personal abuse? Do you accept that the current situation regarding the reward arrangements which exclude shareholders from a BINDING vote is unsustainable? If I try to make headway in small bites it may help you.
You proclaim to hold seven Directorships and yet never have you responded to advising exactly the names of these Companies that you are involved with! Have you ever read 'Investors Chronicle' or do you discard that as other peoples nonsense as well?

Please point me to the post where I claim to hold seven directorships?

I don't accept anything unless you can provide me with some hard evidence of there being something wrong. Hard evidence would constitute what I have asked for which is what you seemingly have access to which allows you to form your opinion.

A binding vote is a good thing, I have never said otherwise, indeed in many shareholder agreements votes are by nature binding. They are also based on an agreed percentage of shareholders, you were seeming to say this should be subject to 100% of all shareholders - or have you now reversed this position?

Reading over an old thread (14/6/12) fairly much the same issue as this thread, you argue against Binding voting Rights for shareholders. You make disparaging remarks about Shareholders and how they should not be allowed a 'say' in the running of their Company. You state that you are / were a CTO but such are your skills you also sat on the Board of the Company. You state that you hold/held two other Directorships and also run your own business now.

Pleased to read of your change of heart re Shareholders voting Rights.

Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 29th July 17:06

Like I said please post/provide the link where I say I hold seven directorships - or does that also not exist and is it like much of your rambling just hyperbole?

Also please quote where I have argued against binding votes?

I am now and have been on another 2 occasions a CTO at both an exec and non-exec level - that much at least you have factually accurate! Also in 2012 I did hold 2 non-exec posts as well as being a partner in a startup which is now a fair bit further along than a startup.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Your an interesting fellow (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are a fellow)I offer a reasonable response to which you never actually dissect into what you seem to discard as all negative ideology.Why can't you offer a rational response rather than rhetoric and personal abuse? Do you accept that the current situation regarding the reward arrangements which exclude shareholders from a BINDING vote is unsustainable? If I try to make headway in small bites it may help you.
You proclaim to hold seven Directorships and yet never have you responded to advising exactly the names of these Companies that you are involved with! Have you ever read 'Investors Chronicle' or do you discard that as other peoples nonsense as well?

Please point me to the post where I claim to hold seven directorships?

I don't accept anything unless you can provide me with some hard evidence of there being something wrong. Hard evidence would constitute what I have asked for which is what you seemingly have access to which allows you to form your opinion.

A binding vote is a good thing, I have never said otherwise, indeed in many shareholder agreements votes are by nature binding. They are also based on an agreed percentage of shareholders, you were seeming to say this should be subject to 100% of all shareholders - or have you now reversed this position?

Reading over an old thread (14/6/12) fairly much the same issue as this thread, you argue against Binding voting Rights for shareholders. You make disparaging remarks about Shareholders and how they should not be allowed a 'say' in the running of their Company. You state that you are / were a CTO but such are your skills you also sat on the Board of the Company. You state that you hold/held two other Directorships and also run your own business now.

Pleased to read of your change of heart re Shareholders voting Rights.

Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 29th July 17:06

Like I said please post/provide the link where I say I hold seven directorships - or does that also not exist and is it like much of your rambling just hyperbole?

Also please quote where I have argued against binding votes?

I am now and have been on another 2 occasions a CTO at both an exec and non-exec level - that much at least you have factually accurate! Also in 2012 I did hold 2 non-exec posts as well as being a partner in a startup which is now a fair bit further along than a startup.

I am correct in recalling that you 'advised' that you hold/held Directorships, I did think it was seven you mentioned but perhaps I was exaggerating for effect. You have the lead to the thread with dates and thread title why can't you use them?
Suppose I had better find the thread where your busy slagging off shareholders.

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Your an interesting fellow (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are a fellow)I offer a reasonable response to which you never actually dissect into what you seem to discard as all negative ideology.Why can't you offer a rational response rather than rhetoric and personal abuse? Do you accept that the current situation regarding the reward arrangements which exclude shareholders from a BINDING vote is unsustainable? If I try to make headway in small bites it may help you.
You proclaim to hold seven Directorships and yet never have you responded to advising exactly the names of these Companies that you are involved with! Have you ever read 'Investors Chronicle' or do you discard that as other peoples nonsense as well?

Please point me to the post where I claim to hold seven directorships?

I don't accept anything unless you can provide me with some hard evidence of there being something wrong. Hard evidence would constitute what I have asked for which is what you seemingly have access to which allows you to form your opinion.

A binding vote is a good thing, I have never said otherwise, indeed in many shareholder agreements votes are by nature binding. They are also based on an agreed percentage of shareholders, you were seeming to say this should be subject to 100% of all shareholders - or have you now reversed this position?

Reading over an old thread (14/6/12) fairly much the same issue as this thread, you argue against Binding voting Rights for shareholders. You make disparaging remarks about Shareholders and how they should not be allowed a 'say' in the running of their Company. You state that you are / were a CTO but such are your skills you also sat on the Board of the Company. You state that you hold/held two other Directorships and also run your own business now.

Pleased to read of your change of heart re Shareholders voting Rights.

Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 29th July 17:06

Like I said please post/provide the link where I say I hold seven directorships - or does that also not exist and is it like much of your rambling just hyperbole?

Also please quote where I have argued against binding votes?

I am now and have been on another 2 occasions a CTO at both an exec and non-exec level - that much at least you have factually accurate! Also in 2012 I did hold 2 non-exec posts as well as being a partner in a startup which is now a fair bit further along than a startup.

I am correct in recalling that you 'advised' that you hold/held Directorships, I did think it was seven you mentioned but perhaps I was exaggerating for effect. You have the lead to the thread with dates and thread title why can't you use them?
Suppose I had better find the thread where your busy slagging off shareholders.

I have never said seven, you said that - please prove your statement or admit it was essentially a lie to try and further your point - or in your more kind words - an exaggeration!

I have got both threads thanks, they are here: -

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

At no point did I, I believe slag off the ordinary shareholders at all I questioned their experience to make a decision and as far as institutional ones I questioned their motives for any decision. But please find where I did in your mind do so and post it if indeed I did. Or perhaps we have another "exaggeration"

What I find disconcerting is that you seem to make very matter of fact statements as if you have these facts readily to hand yet when called out on them they in reality appear to be either exaggerations or indeed utter falsehoods which are for and I do quote "effect".

You also FYI have not said if you are reversing your position on requiring 100% of shareholders to agree CEO and or board pay, are you? Or was that something else said for "effect"!? Maybe an exaggeration for effect... wow are we seeing a theme developing I wonder!?

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 29th July 19:40

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 29th July 19:54

[crankedup]

Read your own statement on page 13, I will start it off something like this ''I do not believe that binding votes for shareholders is intrinsically a good idea'' you then go on to say that ''Shareholders in these Companies do categorically not have the best interests of the Company at Heart''
Not what I would recognise as support for shareholders to hold binding voting rights.

What I find disconcerting is your willingness to change your tune when it suits you.

Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 29th July 20:28

[heppers75]

crankedup said:

Read your own statement on page 13, I will start it off something like this ''I do not believe that binding votes for shareholders is intrinsically a good idea'' you then go on to say that ''Shareholders in these Companies do categorically not have the best interests of the Company at Heart''
Not what I would recognise as support for shareholders to hold binding voting rights.

You are not answering any of the other questions or challenges I made then? No? Just letting them slide by yes? Imagine my surprise.

To clarify my exact statement was - 'On any number of issues (including executive remuneration) I do not believe that binding votes for shareholders is intrinsically a good idea as in my ACTUAL experience the shareholders in these companies do categorically not have the best interests of the company at heart.'

It is interesting you must have chosen to retype what I said to maybe try and distort it as opposed to copy and paste which would have take far less time!

Also I went on elsewhere to clarify that statement with the following: -

"There is a heck of an assumption in what you are seeking to engender - that being the shareholders are equipped to make the decision and/or are doing so for the right motives.

I posted in the other thread you have started on the WPP subject there is a heck of a risk taken by engendering this ability - that risk being that the now powerful block voting funds that have the majority holdings and therefore the control are now in a position where they can claw back some nice healthy profits without making any more actual money by reducing exec pay. All well and good you cry and about bloody time too etc etc.

.....But is it?

The risk you have then taken is that the fund holders sack off £10m in costs on the exec committee and it gets back into the company coffers and all looks rosy for a year or so... The stock price climbs so then that allows them (major stock holders) cash out on the higher stock price. The problem occurs with the next step in this scenario though - Said £100m company is now left with a £1m a year exec team who actually as it turns out is not capable of running the £100m company as well as the ones who wanted £11m a year and all of a sudden they business is in the toilet. Your block voting funds don't care though as they have now reaped their rewards and are off to the next £100m company to do the same again.

Hardly helps the man in the street shareholder and more importantly the workers in the said £100m company though who now have an incompetent exec board because the block voting shareholders wanted their pound of flesh before they scarpered.

I am not saying that the above is a given I am saying it is possible bordering on probable when you look at the fact that really the ones who will be the controlling factor in these binding votes are not vested interest partners in the very long term future of the company in question only in the term that reaps them the most reward.

Being mindful of an old adage..... Be careful what you wish for!'

My final post on the thread which you never replied to was also this...

'I do get the feeling you are missing my point a bit, you keep saying we and us, what I dont think you get is what I am saying is that those that will actually end up being the decision makers on these issues are not the "we" or the "us" you seem to be referring to, not the man in the street etc. It does not matter a jot if it is condesending or not or what anyone thinks small shareholders think or are capable of or not, they catagorically will not be the ones that get to have an effect, majority shareholders here are the ones that will and they are an arguably far more bloodthirsty and mercenary group than any corporate CEO knows how to be and that is who will get this power not some altruistic group conglomerate of decent right thinking people you seem to be supporting.

Essentially if you are of the mindset the CEO is the self serving evil wrong doer then what you are doing is swapping the say from the hands of one for another and I would contend is arguably much much worse.'

Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 29th July 20:40

[Qwert1e]

Tesco - still the UK's most successful supermarket, despite the gloom-mongers and doom-mongers.