Do buy-backs add any value, and for whom? Buying back shares might be a good idea, but the detail is in the timing. Looking at the price history of HSBC shares there would have several great opportunities to buy back shares at much lower price levels.
HSBC
29-Oct-2024
The normous pay package for Elon Musk is no surprise for anyone who is watching the (fruitless) debate about the correct level of executive pay.
So far there has not been an agreement what approriate pay for senior executives, especially CEO's should be.
And I always argued that ANY level of pay could be justified under the current regime. If, say, a company earns 100 million and next year it earns 150 million, why no award the reigning CEO half of that increase? of even half of the total? (as some Hedge Funds do).
14-June-2024
Given that Top/Chief/Senior Executives often/usually benefit from better Pension Plans (as well as Medical Benefits and Incentive Plans) is it acceptable that 3M takes this one step further and intends to scrap its pension plans for non-union employees?
Interesting to read this lament from someone who has to much to be grateful for this "narrow british way of life". Thanks to the "narrow" circle of people who seem to be in control of so much of the City he sailed comfortably from one post to the next.
When he extols the positive (in his "narrow" view) aspects of the business enviroment in the United States he conveniently forgets to mention that a separation of CEO and Chairman is highly unusual over there. And rightly so, as the facts clearly demonstrate that a separation has virtually no benefit and if anything is detrimental. If business performs markedly better in the USA it clearly speaks against this (expensive) separation.
Du
Plessis clearly thinks that the sky is the limit for executive pay - again
assuming that only high pay for the C-Suite will lead to strong economies when
that is not supported by the facts. The USA may look well positioned as the
nation with the highest per-capita income (apart from minnows like Luxembourg,
Monaco etc) but can one assume that extravagant levels of executive pay are the
principal - or necessary - cause of this?
One of the people rankings so popular with the press placed du
Plessis as the 10th most powerful person in UK business (TheTimes 2006 Top 100) But does he
enjoy any legitimacy? Who gives him this "power"? the same narrow
circles that control government, regulators and major firms!
In the latter case
it is the financial intermediaries - Pension Funds, Mutual Funds, Insurance
companies and Private Banks - that vote "their" shares in favour of
high pay. Like du Plessis they have no explicit mandate on how to cast
their votes from the ultimate shareholders - the great unwashed public. Proxy
Advisors may look like they take an objective view they are also beholden to
these Intermediaries who pay substantial (secret) fees to them.
(10 May 2023)
Narrow British way of life’ is holding back the City (PayWall)
When Tech firms like PayPal start to get involved in censoring media outlets it is time for the owners to stand up and be counted. #Vanguard #Blackrock #StateStreet and other major fund managers cannot stand idly by and wash their hands of the critical debate about Free Speech. Investing cannot be just a numbers game, a sort of casino if you want to call it that. And management cannot be operating in a vacuum. Selling the shares is not an option either - first of all the mania for indexing makes it impossible for many funds to sell the shares. It is also a sign of cowardice not to stand up for the principles of a free society. The debate should also be about the responsibility major financial institutions have due to their control of the major media companies (in conjunction with a small clique of superrich individuals/families)
(25 Sept 2022)
Just shows that the efforts to contain Executive Pay, esp at the very top, have been fruitless so far. If only 31% support Dimon's pay, how can it actually stay at the same level? Is there no moral sense of obligation - at least with the toothless board of directors? Nobless oblige one used to say.....so there is no nobless anymore.
What is really wrong with the Personnel Management of many -
if not most - firms is the fact that too much reliance is put on the top
man/woman and there is no succession plan or proper preparation. Before boards
should end pointless debates and rush to the lunch/dinner/golf course they
should really review top executive staffing to at least two levels below the
CEO. There should also be a plan for the immediate succession - a firm like JP
Morgan should be able to have groomed at least two or three worthy successors
to Dimon, and reward them well - and cut his ridiculous compensation and
assorted freebies.
(19-May-2022)
You can trust that lawyers will not miss a chance to make things
complicated - and then charge ever-rising fees to disentangle the rules
and regulations that they helped to create. Case in point this report by
Freshfields about the obligations of fund managers to take impact
(socially/environmentally) of the decisions into account. The problem
with imposing these obligations is that any lobby group - however small -
can start legal proceedings and impose substantial costs on the funds
(while often supported by taxpayer money, directly or indirectly or by
donations from charities, ngo's or think tanks that in their turn are
only representing the view of a small but often vociferous minority).
Taken to the extreme there could be a challenge to the investment in a
milk delivery company because (take any of the options) it uses petrol
or diesel for its vans, uses metals sourced from 'bad' countries, does
not have a workforce split evenly between male/female, old/young,
white/non-white etc. The possibilities are endless. As are the costs and
burdens on business and ultimately the end consumer/investor, Joe
Sixpack, you and me.
Freshfield Report
(15-Dec-2021)
