Tesco - another fail

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[crankedup]

Qwert1e said:

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

If they intend to stay in that ranking then the need for positive action is slipping by, they know this.

[crankedup]

Heppers :So you have not always supported the Binding Voting Rights for shareholders, as you proudly proclaimed, just a swerve to suit your agenda at which you seem very adept.
Time is catching up with the old way of doing Boardroom pay deals and the sooner the last sand grain leaves that timer the better. Nothing lasts forever the Company Owners are demanding change in practices. Sure there is bound to be some ugly fall out along the way, any large changes to the status quo is going to have some unintended consequences. In the longer term that will have to be a price paid.

Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 30th July 10:43

[crankedup]

Thankyou4calling said:

Is it cheaper to do your shopping at Lidl or Aldi? On a trolley of mixed goods buying some brands and some own labels or value lines, how much less ( if at all) is it than ASDA or Tesco?

I often go in Aldi but I don't see it as cheaper.

Apparently it is around 20% - 25% cheaper at the moment for the same or like for like products by shopping at Aldi or Lidl. (As reported Channel 4 on 28/6/14 'Supermarket Wars' Dispatches)

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

crankedup said:

Heppers :So you have not always supported the Binding Voting Rights for shareholders, as you proudly proclaimed, just a swerve to suit your agenda at which you seem very adept.
Time is catching up with the old way of doing Boardroom pay deals and the sooner the last sand grain leaves that timer the better. Nothing lasts forever the Company Owners are demanding change in practices. Sure there is bound to be some ugly fall out along the way, any large changes to the status quo is going to have some unintended consequences. In the longer term that will have to be a price paid.

Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 30th July 10:43

I have said and I maintain I don't think it is the best idea because of what it really means at the sharp end of how it will in reality work, however if that is what the majority want though then far be it from me not to support said majority. That is what living in a democracy is all about. We now have binding votes on pay based on 50% or more of shareholders, great the fact that the man in the street is never going to for the vast majority of public companies have any real say whatsoever in that clearly has escaped your limited knowledge of how listed companies shares are both held and structured. As you don't clearly understand it even now after two years then I shall not try to educate you further.

Also just to add you are still not going to answer the other questions then or admit you just made up facts about me personally just for the hell of it to try and further your point or advise of if you have reversed your statement on saying 100% of shareholders should agree on CEO and board pay?

Edited by heppers75 on Wednesday 30th July 10:57

Your arrogance is only lessened by your misguided assumptions. Honestly I can no longer take anything you say with more than a pinch of salt. Go back a few years when I was supporting 'Binding Voting Rights' for shareholders, you are nowhere in support, quite the opposite. Now you end up with a stupid facepalm in telling me that you do support the system. Methinks you really are a class A cretin.
I have never read anything fresh from your posts not anything enlightening, just a constant stream suggesting how clever you are and insulting anybody who disagrees with you. Sorry chum, your a fool.

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

Yes I am being flippant d**k... Because so are you by criticising someone who has run a company that has made a £3bn profit and received a tiny fraction of that as reward. You only care about the fact he got a certain number, you have a problem with that because you can't do it and you think it is by some moral compass you hold wrong. You are f**king boring to be honest and you need to just wind your neck in and understand that people do things you neither understand or think are valuable because you don't understand them.

Never insulted me Heppers! You seem to have lost the plot old chap ^^^^^^^^^ Right-now I am busy talking with the grown-ups so wait in your corner and I will get back to you when I have the time.

Edited by Big Al. on Sunday 3rd August 09:46

[crankedup]

heppers75 said:

You are quite correct I shall once more I apologise, I do try not to let my frustration show.

Your time could be better spent in the Boardrooms perhaps, I just prey its none of the Boardrooms of Companies that I hold some Company shares.

Edited by Big Al. on Sunday 3rd August 09:48

[crankedup]

ch108 said:

matchmaker said:

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!

And obviously older. I don't what my local Aldi do with it, possibly store it a long time before it hits the shelves? Within a day or two its stale or starting to get mouldy. I buy the same bread in Tesco or sometimes the Co-op and I get the full use of it. Aldi doesn't work out 25% cheaper if I have to chuck half a loaf out each time.

Buy the loaf on Monday and enjoy a sandwich. Tuesday thin slice and top it with butter and jam. Wednesday has to be a toast day, on Thursday make a Summer pudding. This leaves Friday to make some lovely Bread Pudding, Saturday feed the birds and Sunday have a bread free day. Waste not want not!!