AGM attendees and dates

[Dividends Warrior]

chiu can use all the xxxx to **** them but at the end of the agm, the resolutions still pass with 100% votes.

directors still enjoy their perks : share options, free car/petrol or even travelling, holiday in the name of meeting oversea etc etc.

share holder are sucker.

We simply do not have strong activist investors in Singapore like Carl Icahn, Bill Ackman, David Einhorn and Dan Loeb.

 

[Kinetic88]

Stuff released by PR of public listed company, moi always take it with a pinch of salt. They can use whatever they think is the "politically correct" answer.

Bottom line is still what moi posted earlier:
"what's the additional cost" vs amount set aside for dividend distribution.

If the additional cost is just a small tiny sub percentage of amt set aside for dividend distribution, then it really is no issue.

On the contrary, if Directors pay themselves more despite company earning less, then they shld be questioned jialat jialat...

chiu can question them jialat jialat, but at the end of day, the resolution definite pass.

LLST as a small time share holder.

 

[tmkedmw]

chiu can question them jialat jialat, but at the end of day, the resolution definite pass.

LLST as a small time share holder.

Ya, no doubt about that.

It's more about losing "face" if someone gives them a good open retort, eg the Chairman who ask "u want more dividend or better food" or "go buy shares in companies with lesser directors"

But hey, those who can get to those position are supposedly battle hardened or parachuted.

 

[Average]

I think the mentality of the shareholders is the problem. See how many Gian png Gian voucher pple here makes me really pessimistic about the level of scrutiny that shareholders impose on the BoD and the snr mgmt of the company.

Gg SG-listed companies... I rather put more money in foreign listed etfs lol

Sent from OnePlus A0001 using GAGT

Pls forgive us, not our choice to be small fishes. If we are big fish, sure kan management gaugau liao lo.

 

[zzxiaoboizz]

Pls forgive us, not our choice to be small fishes. If we are big fish, sure kan management gaugau liao lo.

Lol question management is ok but sometimes its damn stupid if the shareholder who ask question say management is lucky to be making profits.......then after that smart alec suggest new venturing locations to diversify cause stock has exposure to china only.

 

[Kinetic88]

Lol question management is ok but sometimes its damn stupid if the shareholder who ask question say management is lucky to be making profits.......then after that smart alec suggest new venturing locations to diversify cause stock has exposure to china only.

if moi was the chairman, moi will tell the guy, "DON'T TELL U FATHER HOW TO ****" .

joking only hor.

of cos the chairman wouldn't say that.

 

[Steyr69]

Ya, no doubt about that.

It's more about losing "face" if someone gives them a good open retort, eg the Chairman who ask "u want more dividend or better food" or "go buy shares in companies with lesser directors"

But hey, those who can get to those position are supposedly battle hardened or parachuted.

I think sometimes got one or two shareholders ask stupid questions like food, vouches, parking,....etc.
The directors sure take chance to ridicule them back.
Ask more in the flesh questions.....those that make them frustrated. Like one lady question why kepcorp directors still want to pocket big directors fees in times like these....
This certainly get lee boon yang n his gang abit upset.
When the question came out, the entire room applaud.

Sent from Asus ME173X using GAGT

 

[Steyr69]

if moi was the chairman, moi will tell the guy, "DON'T TELL U FATHER HOW TO ****" .

joking only hor.

of cos the chairman wouldn't say that.

Well, if any chairman said that, he will be removed. Vulgar language big no no. Not even for shareholders.
You can shout, raise voice....but as long no vulgarities....pretty safe.

Sent from Asus ME173X using GAGT

 

[tmkedmw]

I think sometimes got one or two shareholders ask stupid questions like food, vouches, parking,....etc.
The directors sure take chance to ridicule them back.
Ask more in the flesh questions.....those that make them frustrated. Like one lady question why kepcorp directors still want to pocket big directors fees in times like these....
This certainly get lee boon yang n his gang abit upset.
When the question came out, the entire room applaud.

Yep, he got $750k in 2015.

Trust me, Directors and CEO are pre-prepared with model answers to anticipated questions from the floor. Many in Kep would have spent weeks preparing those prior to AGM.
So don't be easily impressed when they seem to answer their questions well. An unanticipated question will really test their mettle

 

[Kinetic88]

I think sometimes got one or two shareholders ask stupid questions like food, vouches, parking,....etc.
The directors sure take chance to ridicule them back.
Ask more in the flesh questions.....those that make them frustrated. Like one lady question why kepcorp directors still want to pocket big directors fees in times like these....
This certainly get lee boon yang n his gang abit upset.
When the question came out, the entire room applaud.

Sent from Asus ME173X using GAGT

so in the end, did the director fees reduced ?

the BOD are all prepared for this type of question just like OCBC agm asking y the boss was pay $2M.

AGM ish to jiak food or take voucher.

 

[tmkedmw]

Actually I thought the board of directors arent involved in running the company and is just a formality, only the CEO and senior management shld be responsible for the company performance...

Board is not involved in the day to day running of the company but they have many duties to perform, including fiduciary.

Examples of major business decision that are not delegated to executives are: M&A, divesting, major projects involving large capital/expense exceeding CEO's authorisation limits.

 

[w1rbelw1nd]

Board is not involved in the day to day running of the company but they have many duties to perform, including fiduciary.

Examples of major business decision that are not delegated to executives are: M&A, divesting, major projects involving large capital/expense exceeding CEO's authorisation limits.

That's not entirely correct. For m&a normally its the company exec doing the due diligence and negotiations of the deal, while directors only need to approve only.

CEO and the execs are the ones truly responsible.

Sent from OnePlus A0001 using GAGT

 

[tmkedmw]

That's not entirely correct. For m&a normally its the company exec doing the due diligence and negotiations of the deal, while directors only need to approve only.

CEO and the execs are the ones truly responsible.

Sent from OnePlus A0001 using GAGT

The CEO/CFO/Legal often have to present board paper on the proposed M&A. The board, based on their collective experience, will ask for additional analysis/scenario to ascertain how the M&A is going to be beneficial for the company. It is a due process that takes time and every major step of the way is minuted in BOD meeting minutes, and not something as simplistic as just approve nia nia.

One example of M&A is that the CEO may lose his job to the other company's CEO. So how could the board simply leave the analysis to the CEO and his executives, where they have a self interest to give a lousy analysis so as to not proceed with the M&A.

The executives as they are so called, execute the strategy that the Board provides them. The more important the strategy (such as M&A), the more involved is the Board.

 

[w1rbelw1nd]

The CEO/CFO/Legal often have to present board paper on the proposed M&A. The board, based on their collective experience, will ask for additional analysis/scenario to ascertain how the M&A is going to be beneficial for the company. It is a due process that takes time and every major step of the way is minuted in BOD meeting minutes, and not something as simplistic as just approve nia nia.

One example of M&A is that the CEO may lose his job to the other company's CEO. So how could the board simply leave the analysis to the CEO and his executives, where they have a self interest to give a lousy analysis so as to not proceed with the M&A.

The executives as they are so called, execute the strategy that the Board provides them. The more important the strategy (such as M&A), the more involved is the Board.

Not saying you are wrong with your above example, from my own working experience the BoD is more reactive than proactive. More often than not BoD pple make some captain obvious comment (to be minuted) to "show" that they are not jiak liao bee.

Anyway, who's able to assess whether the BoD jiak Liao bee? By the shareholders, just from the attendance in the quarterly meetings/audit committee meetings/renumeration committee? By the executives, who the BoD that is supposed to monitor?

 

[tmkedmw]

Not saying you are wrong with your above example, from my own working experience the BoD is more reactive than proactive. More often than not BoD pple make some captain obvious comment (to be minuted) to "show" that they are not jiak liao bee.

Anyway, who's able to assess whether the BoD jiak Liao bee? By the shareholders, just from the attendance in the quarterly meetings/audit committee meetings/renumeration committee? By the executives, who the BoD that is supposed to monitor?

There are boards and there are boards, who's good who's bad?
It all boils down to good corporate governance, and what the relevant Companies Act, Securities and Futures Act, that are applicable in those countries that are binding on the directors.

Chairman of the BOD assesses the performance of individual board member. They can introduce 360 degrees feedback so that executives can "appraise" the board member, but this one, moi haven't heard of company implementing that.
The other mechanism is to tie Director's fees with company performance as well as moderated by competitive benchmarking.

In Germany, there are even 2 tier boards, supervisory board and executive board.

 

[w1rbelw1nd]

There are boards and there are boards, who's good who's bad?
It all boils down to good corporate governance, and what the relevant Companies Act, Securities and Futures Act, that are applicable in those countries that are binding on the directors.

Chairman of the BOD assesses the performance of individual board member. They can introduce 360 degrees feedback so that executives can "appraise" the board member, but this one, moi haven't heard of company implementing that.
The other mechanism is to tie Director's fees with company performance as well as moderated by competitive benchmarking.

In Germany, there are even 2 tier boards, supervisory board and executive board.

Well if your stand is that there is sufficient regulation through regulation/law and awards like those SIAS awards to encourage good corporate governance and reporting (or wayang?), then it is really hard for me to refute it. Because all I have is anecdotal sharing that may not count as an example of poor commitment from the directors.

Anyway, there are comments made by Mak Yuen Teen (a NUS prof) talking about how BoDs are made up of old boys, kakis who nominate each other from their old boy networks. Chairman and the BoDs members could very well be good friends from their personal connections. How to ownself check ownself?

Anyway quite amused with your comment 360 appraisal done by company execs on the directors... It sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

It is very hard for anyone to quantify the value destroyed through poor governance from the BoDs. Poor oversight may not lead to a company folding up immediately, but projects may be executed with higher risks, lower returns.

The best person to squeeze the balls of the BoD is actually the shareholders. But looking at how our AGM is always filled with old men and women with probably zero corporate experience, asking stupid questions, how to pressurise the BoD to do their job properly?

 

[tmkedmw]

Well if your stand is that there is sufficient regulation through regulation/law and awards like those SIAS awards to encourage good corporate governance and reporting (or wayang?), then it is really hard for me to refute it. Because all I have is anecdotal sharing that may not count as an example of poor commitment from the directors.

Anyway, there are comments made by Mak Yuen Teen (a NUS prof) talking about how BoDs are made up of old boys, kakis who nominate each other from their old boy networks. Chairman and the BoDs members could very well be good friends from their personal connections. How to ownself check ownself?

Anyway quite amused with your comment 360 appraisal done by company execs on the directors... It sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

It is very hard for anyone to quantify the value destroyed through poor governance from the BoDs. Poor oversight may not lead to a company folding up immediately, but projects may be executed with higher risks, lower returns.

The best person to squeeze the balls of the BoD is actually the shareholders. But looking at how our AGM is always filled with old men and women with probably zero corporate experience, asking stupid questions, how to pressurise the BoD to do their job properly?

System is only as good as its weakest link and humans are normally its weakest link. The Nominating Comm/process need a major revamp if the "old boys network" is to be weakened.

360 feedback had been implemented for companies for snr mgmt but my remark is that I don't know of any that takes it all the way to the board level.

And yeah... our AGM is a sorry state of affair, and that was just based on 1 AGM moi attended despite moi owning shares for decades liao.

 

[Steyr69]

Its sad....many of those old folks properly dun even have a hoot the nature of the biz of the company.
Based on hearsay, they just buy the shares hoping a big huat.
But......things sometimes dun work the way its supposed to.

I guess no one explained to them clearly the risk involved.

Like the NOL.....i see many sad faces among those older shareholders
. Not sure how high or how much they bought.
Some come hunchback n with walking sticks.
I feel abit sad for them sometimes.
Sent from Asus ME173X using GAGT

 

[zzxiaoboizz]

Its sad....many of those old folks properly dun even have a hoot the nature of the biz of the company.
Based on hearsay, they just buy the shares hoping a big huat.
But......things sometimes dun work the way its supposed to.

I guess no one explained to them clearly the risk involved.

Like the NOL.....i see many sad faces among those older shareholders
. Not sure how high or how much they bought.
Some come hunchback n with walking sticks.
I feel abit sad for them sometimes.
Sent from Asus ME173X using GAGT

Met an auntie from an agm that says she lose quite a lot on rickers, NOL, tiger air, didn't press on to ask why she go buy all those but I guess a good amount bought it like 2 dollars and upwards, all they can do is go eat agm to shiok for that short moment..... Well I guess hearsay is a very dangerous thing...The auntie also not happy with kep corp for taking kep land....

 

[Steyr69]

Met an auntie from an agm that says she lose quite a lot on rickers, NOL, tiger air, didn't press on to ask why she go buy all those but I guess a good amount bought it like 2 dollars and upwards, all they can do is go eat agm to shiok for that short moment..... Well I guess hearsay is a very dangerous thing...The auntie also not happy with kep corp for taking kep land....

Yes....hearsay from someone you trust is dangerous. Personally, i bought some shares, cosco being one of them, upon my friend's recommendation. It was good initially, but things went spiral down. The only saving grace is i didnt buy a lot or use my cpf. Cosco was a sti stock if anyone still remember. So everyone thought it is safe bet.

Sent from Asus ME173X using GAGT