-
11-07-2018, 08:31 PM
#1441
"Can I have some more porridge"? asked Oliver "because the big boys have taken mine"
Originally Posted by Beagle
LOL its worth heaps more then Old sick dog's memory not too bad after all.
Ryman Healthcare directors are asking shareholders for a rise in the pool of fees from $828,000 paid last year to $985,000 - a proposal that has shocked a shareholder concerned about income inequality.
Divided up, the eight directors would receive about $110,000 each while the chairman generally receives twice that amount.
Ryman directors have other jobs or directorships - for example, Jo Appleyard is a practising lawyer, and chairman Dr David Kerr has seven other directorships.
But their pay is modest compared with Fonterra directors who were given rises this year to $175,000 each, with $430,00 for the chairman John Wilson, from $165,000 and $405,000 previously.
-
11-07-2018, 09:33 PM
#1442
Originally Posted by warren
Ryman Healthcare directors are asking shareholders for a rise in the pool of fees from $828,000 paid last year to $985,000 - a proposal that has shocked a shareholder concerned about income inequality.
Divided up, the eight directors would receive about $110,000 each while the chairman generally receives twice that amount.
Ryman directors have other jobs or directorships - for example, Jo Appleyard is a practising lawyer, and chairman Dr David Kerr has seven other directorships.
But their pay is modest compared with Fonterra directors who were given rises this year to $175,000 each, with $430,00 for the chairman John Wilson, from $165,000 and $405,000 previously.
It really will never change unless shareholders change it. I agree that it is a lot and some directors don’t deserve their pay. Look at Fonterra for that prime example.
-
12-07-2018, 12:16 PM
#1443
Stolen from Oliver !!
Originally Posted by Ggcc
It really will never change unless shareholders change it. I agree that it is a lot and some directors don’t deserve their pay. Look at Fonterra for that prime example.
Ummm --Interesting point Ggcc. I have very firm views on Directors fees. Most "Directors ' have never built a company of their own otherwise they would run their own company's. I am a total believer in NO Director fees but parcels of shares or options thereof and let the Directors prove themselves. If they are good their share portions will reward them handsomely so no need for fees at all. That's Exactly what Steve Jobs (Now there is an owner/ director !) did when he returned to an almost bust Apple, not even a wage.
About 500 "Directors" of NZ Finance Company's proved to be quite Valueless over recent years---- in fact they had a minus dollar Value but at least 6 or 7 went to jail.
OCA----Ability, Energy, Persistence, Honesty, Vision--- and decades experience in the business??
-
12-07-2018, 12:44 PM
#1444
RYM's SP has risen by a factor of 44 times since listing in 1999. Some would argue that the directors have created tremendous value for shareholders and have well and truly earned their fees over the years and I would agree 100%. Frankly I don't know how anyone else could realistically take an opposing position with a straight face. Even the new directors fee pool looks quite reasonable to me considering its market capitalization of six billion dollars.
Early days for OCA directors in terms of proving their worth for shareholders but they have plenty of skin in the game and they look to be a board with some very good commercial experience. This augers very well for the future in my opinion.
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
-
12-07-2018, 03:42 PM
#1445
Originally Posted by Beagle
RYM's SP has risen by a factor of 44 times since listing in 1999. Some would argue that the directors have created tremendous value for shareholders and have well and truly earned their fees over the years and I would agree 100%. Frankly I don't know how anyone else could realistically take an opposing position with a straight face. Even the new directors fee pool looks quite reasonable to me considering its market capitalization of six billion dollars.
Early days for OCA directors in terms of proving their worth for shareholders but they have plenty of skin in the game and they look to be a board with some very good commercial experience. This augers very well for the future in my opinion.
I would like to see a cap on the amount of directorships someone is allowed to hold. I don’t feel company directors can offer a business something special, holding seven different directorships and a full-time job, while getting paid what they do when the companies sp goes backwards. Just my thought and would love to see if others agree.
-
12-07-2018, 04:31 PM
#1446
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
12-07-2018, 08:16 PM
#1447
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
You just need to convince your fellow shareholders and you have all the power to make that happen for any company you hold ;
FWIW - I do agree in principle and typically vote against any director with more than 4 other positions (i.e. 5 all together). So far however it appears I am in the minority ;
The Shareholders Association consistently comments on the reappointment of directors where they hold many directorships. Give your proxy votes to them and they may start getting boards to listen.
-
12-07-2018, 09:32 PM
#1448
Member
Agree with you both, Onion and BP.
-
12-07-2018, 09:33 PM
#1449
Originally Posted by Beagle
RYM's SP has risen by a factor of 44 times since listing in 1999. Some would argue that the directors have created tremendous value for shareholders and have well and truly earned their fees over the years and I would agree 100%. Frankly I don't know how anyone else could realistically take an opposing position with a straight face. Even the new directors fee pool looks quite reasonable to me considering its market capitalization of six billion dollars.
Early days for OCA directors in terms of proving their worth for shareholders but they have plenty of skin in the game and they look to be a board with some very good commercial experience. This augers very well for the future in my opinion.
Agreed ---- But point out the following Companies who, along with Pike River Coal LTD, all had "Directors" and I would rather those "Directors" took share options to showcase their incredible skills and wealth creation rather than cash that is always so hard to come by (well it always has been for me).
Between May 2006 and the end of 2012 there were sixty-seven finance company collapses in New Zealand; including companies entering into liquidation, receivership or moratoria. An inquiry by the New Zealand Parliament estimated losses at over $3 billion that affected between 150,000 and 200,000 depositors. The most high-profile collapses were South Canterbury Finance, Hanover Finance and Bridgecorp Holdings.
-
12-07-2018, 10:27 PM
#1450
Originally Posted by warren
Agreed ---- But point out the following Companies who, along with Pike River Coal LTD, all had "Directors" and I would rather those "Directors" took share options to showcase their incredible skills and wealth creation rather than cash that is always so hard to come by (well it always has been for me).
Between May 2006 and the end of 2012 there were sixty-seven finance company collapses in New Zealand; including companies entering into liquidation, receivership or moratoria. An inquiry by the New Zealand Parliament estimated losses at over $3 billion that affected between 150,000 and 200,000 depositors. The most high-profile collapses were South Canterbury Finance, Hanover Finance and Bridgecorp Holdings.
Too true and who was in power when it all kicked off and did very little to protect all the investors ....
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks