Aviva boss Andrew Moss to step down

[singlecoil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17987271


BBC are spinning this as a high pay issue, but that doesn't seem to be backed up by the details

[roachcoach]

Sky taking the same reason for exit.

Interesting times ahead.

[crankedup]

Yup, he has walked following the Pay v Performance dissatisfaction from angry shareholders. Expect this trend to continue in other Corporations.

[BOR]

49,8% of shareholders reject pay proposals at William Hill.

That was close.

This is really building up momentun now. There's trouble at t' trough.

[Du1point8]

Its going to cost them a lot of money to find a replacement now.

Wonder if the shareholders realise that?

[muffinmenace]

crankedup said:

Yup, he has walked following the Pay v Performance dissatisfaction from angry shareholders. Expect this trend to continue in other Corporations.

...in corporations where the shareholders feel the executives aren't up to the job... which is business 101, not some 'Boardroom Spring'

[crankedup]

muffinmenace said:

crankedup said:

Yup, he has walked following the Pay v Performance dissatisfaction from angry shareholders. Expect this trend to continue in other Corporations.

...in corporations where the shareholders feel the executives aren't up to the job... which is business 101, not some 'Boardroom Spring'

Business 101 ? Boardroom Spring? Not with you. Follow my posts on the other threads regarding shareholders voting Rights dealing with incompetent or just plain pay packet greedy Management.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BOR said:

49,8% of shareholders reject pay proposals at William Hill.

That was close.

Damn, I had a fiver on at 7/4 that it would be over 50%.

[audidoody]

£5 million a year for five years. Plus £1.5m in his bye bye pay packet. Yeah. My heart bleeds for the poor phuquer.

[Bonefish Blues]

FTSE 100 CEOs pay increased 11% on ave in the last year I hear on R4 tonight...

Lucrative (1M+) retention package for a (very able and demonstrably successful) CEO who has worked for a company man & boy since 1973. Right thing to do, but wrong wrapper, perhaps?

Shareholders are doing what the government couldn't/wouldn't.

[Du1point8]

audidoody said:

£5 million a year for five years. Plus £1.5m in his bye bye pay packet. Yeah. My heart bleeds for the poor phuquer.

If they get in someone know and in the industry, that package will seem cheap.

[roachcoach]

muffinmenace said:

crankedup said:

Yup, he has walked following the Pay v Performance dissatisfaction from angry shareholders. Expect this trend to continue in other Corporations.

...in corporations where the shareholders feel the executives aren't up to the job... which is business 101, not some 'Boardroom Spring'

You both seem to have missed that the shareholders DID think he was up to the job and 95% wanted him to stay on and he'd already rejected his own pay rise.

I imagine he felt the position was unsustainable if they trust him to run the business but not what trust him to know what people need to be paid to make that business work well in some horrible climates?

[powerstroke]

Du1point8 said:

Its going to cost them a lot of money to find a replacement now.

Wonder if the shareholders realise that?

Why !!! are these people some sort of superhuman gods ??? seriously
Who the fk are most of them and what value do they add to the companys they head ???

Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 08:29

[TwigtheWonderkid]

powerstroke said:

Why !!! are these people some sort of superhuman gods ??? seriously
Who the fk are most of them and what value do they add to the companys they head ???

Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 08:29

Wow...if there is so little to it, prey tell me, what multi nation mega billion pound organisation do you head up?

I mean, I am assuming you are the CEO of a major conglomerate. Given that you think it's such a piece of p1ss, why wouldn't you be?

[crankedup]

roachcoach said:

muffinmenace said:

crankedup said:

Yup, he has walked following the Pay v Performance dissatisfaction from angry shareholders. Expect this trend to continue in other Corporations.

...in corporations where the shareholders feel the executives aren't up to the job... which is business 101, not some 'Boardroom Spring'

You both seem to have missed that the shareholders DID think he was up to the job and 95% wanted him to stay on and he'd already rejected his own pay rise.

I imagine he felt the position was unsustainable if they trust him to run the business but not what trust him to know what people need to be paid to make that business work well in some horrible climates?

Recognition of the 'horrible times' is not stopping many CEO from awarding 'themselves' large increases in remuneration. An average increase of 11% last year against 1% increase in the remaining workforce. Aviva had 54% of shareholders voting against the recommend pay of the CEO. In particular 1.5 million pound bonus, shareholders felt was not earn't or reflected in terms of Company performance.

[RYH64E]

You don't have to be a lefty to be sceptical about executive remuneration, this about sums up my view:

http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-b...

Sir Michael, 69, said: “I think the pay has got out of hand for chief executives in general. I am not anti-businesses, I am a capitalist but I am anti-greed, and I think that is what we are seeing now.

“If you look at Aviva’s share prices from 10 to 12 years ago they were hovering around the £10 mark, now they’re down to £3. In the last decade they have dropped by 70% and they have done this consistently. This means the company is massively under-performing and the leadership needs sorting out.

[DSM2]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

powerstroke said:

Why !!! are these people some sort of superhuman gods ??? seriously
Who the fk are most of them and what value do they add to the companys they head ???

Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 08:29

Wow...if there is so little to it, prey tell me, what multi nation mega billion pound organisation do you head up?

I mean, I am assuming you are the CEO of a major conglomerate. Given that you think it's such a piece of p1ss, why wouldn't you be?

Actually, I'm quite confident that I could continue the steady decline in Aviva's value, for a lot less than Moss was paid. There won't be any shortage of others who can do the same.

I think a point is being missed here. If Moss leaving is actually related to the shareholder vote it is simply that the vote presented a good opportunity to lose a liability. He was long overdue for the push.

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

You don't have to be a lefty to be sceptical about executive remuneration, this about sums up my view:

http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-b...

Sir Michael, 69, said: “I think the pay has got out of hand for chief executives in general. I am not anti-businesses, I am a capitalist but I am anti-greed, and I think that is what we are seeing now.

“If you look at Aviva’s share prices from 10 to 12 years ago they were hovering around the £10 mark, now they’re down to £3. In the last decade they have dropped by 70% and they have done this consistently. This means the company is massively under-performing and the leadership needs sorting out.

100% agree, saw a clip on the news Sir Michael stating his POV, his not wrong.

[Du1point8]

powerstroke said:

Du1point8 said:

Its going to cost them a lot of money to find a replacement now.

Wonder if the shareholders realise that?

Why !!! are these people some sort of superhuman gods ??? seriously
Who the fk are most of them and what value do they add to the companys they head ???

Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 9th May 08:29

This is why:

They won't get anyone that is currently not working or out of a job as there is a reason they are out of a job so...

They will need to spend time trying to convince candidates they are the right company to work for.
They will need to compensate any shares/bonus/special schemes that the candidate has from current job.
They will need to pay them more than previous job.
Possibly give some better perks than current job.

All that will cost the company a pretty penny, if you think they don't need to do any of the above then you are mistaken or they are bringing in monkeys.

[RYH64E]

Du1point8 said:

This is why:

They won't get anyone that is currently not working or out of a job as there is a reason they are out of a job so...

They will need to spend time trying to convince candidates they are the right company to work for.
They will need to compensate any shares/bonus/special schemes that the candidate has from current job.
They will need to pay them more than previous job.
Possibly give some better perks than current job.

All that will cost the company a pretty penny, if you think they don't need to do any of the above then you are mistaken or they are bringing in monkeys.

Or they will get somebody sufficiently confident in his own ability to produce good results that he is prepared to take a (relatively) low basic with a generous PERFORMANCE RELATED bonus. Very few people are questioning the need to reward good performance, it's rewarding poor performance that is controversial.