Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Sunday, 17 March 2019
Ancient Earth - 720 million years back in time
Shutterstock |
Click the link below to access:
Ancient Earth
Monday, 31 December 2018
Share buybacks by corporations - in whose interest ?
Shutterstock |
The oft stated justification from companies is that a buy-back creates value by reducing the number of shares on issue and are a way of returning capital to shareholders. Little other information ever eventuates such as the overall rationale for the decision - what is the target price being sought ? What is the intrinsic value per share ? What is the timeline for the buy-back ? Some of the announced buy-backs have also resulted in little to no actual share purchases occurring hence the tactic appears to be for other reasons - such as placing a floor underneath the price of shares particularly if short sellers have been active in the market.
A raft of companies have been doing these buy-backs including CSL, Qantas, AGL, Navitas, CSR, Oroton, Platinum Asset Management, Cardno, QBE to name a few.
Management consultancy, McKinsey & Co, has challenged the value of share buy-backs in terms of using it as a method of improving earnings-per-share (EPS) or total return to shareholders (TRS), both of which are key revenue measures of a company's performance. McKinsey's have noted in one example that a company had pursued an aggressive share buy-back over several years and reduced around 20% of the share capital on issue and thus increased its earnings per share by 8% yet the overall net income for the business had continued falling. The overall revenue situation remained poor and the market discounted the company's shares by 40% relative to the market index. McKinsey's also commented that companies rarely time their repurchases well.
Shareholders would be well-placed to question the value of a company using investment capital or worse, debt financing, for share buy-backs rather than being used for revenue generation or 'growing the business'.
Saturday, 29 December 2018
New Year 2019 beckons
Shutterstock |
The latest Economic Conditions Snapshot, December 2018 from McKinsey & Co shows increasing pessimism about the overall economic outlook from executives around the world whether reflecting on their own domestic situation or globally. While there is some glimmer of optimism in India and Latin America, overall executives are glum about the next 12 months whether in developed-economies or emerging economies.
The key risks are defined as being related to policy and politics and are considered 'the most pressing threats'. The most commonly cited examples being trade policy, a China economic slow-down and the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union. Transitions in political leadership and geopolitical instability are the second most cited concern. Of particular note, rising interest rates have largely fallen ranking only fifth of the five most pressing issues.
Happy New Year !
2018 - a year of shareholder voting strikes on corporate remuneration
Shutterstock |
Under the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Section 300A), companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (the ASX), must present a remuneration report at every Annual General Meeting which sets out the policies for the amount of remuneration paid to key management personnel as established by the company's governing Board. Key management personnel are typically the Chief Executive Officer and senior executives including directors on the Board itself. The report must show the nature of the remuneration and exact value including salary, bonuses, short and long term incentives, options on shares and an explanation on performance hurdles which apply.
Since an amendment to the Act in 2011, there is now a two strikes voting power and re-election process for the Board itself should shareholders find the remuneration report repeatedly unacceptable. What this means is that for the first strike, a 'no' vote of 25 per cent or more of the votes cast rejecting the adoption of the remuneration report at the Annual General Meeting is needed. Should this occur the Board is required to provide an explanation on the proposed action the Board will take or a reason for taking no action on the remuneration report. If, in the following year at the next Annual General Meeting, a 'no' vote of 25 per cent or more occurs again, there must be a 'spill' motion of the positions of all members of the company Board responsible for the remuneration report at that meeting.
For the spill motion of the Board to succeed, the resolution must be passed with 50 per cent or more of eligible votes. Should the 'spill' motion succeed, within 90 days the directors must stand for re-election to the Board.
In 2018 there were a record number of first strikes for many companies -
Company Name and % of votes against the remuneration report:
National Australia Bank 88.1%
Mineral Resources 63.62 %
AMP 62.20%
Telstra Corporation 61.98%
Harvey Norman 50.63%
NRW Holdings 49.05%
Westfield Corporation 47.50%
QBE Insurance 45.60%
Goodman Group 45.46%
Tabcorp Holdings 40.40%
Myer Holdings 38.17%
Austal Limited 37.24%
Karoon 37.05%
Computershare 31.89%
Healthscope 29.29%
APA Group 24.96%
Many other companies received a high level of 'no' votes but not sufficient to reach the 25% threshold of a first strike. These include Ramsay Healthcare, MYOB, Japara Healthcare, Challenger Limited, JB Hi-Fi, Seek, Qube Holdings, IOOF Holdings, APN Outdoor, Coca-Cola Amatil. All of the companies with a first strike will need to work hard to avoid a second strike in 2019.
Monday, 24 December 2018
Christmas 2018
Shutterstock |
Wherever you may be, happy Christmas !
Sunday, 11 November 2018
100 years on - The Armistice of 1918
British troops arrive in Cologne following the Armistice 1918 |
The cost for Australia in terms of lives lost in World War 1 was very high:
- 416,809 enlisted
- 62,000 killed
- 156,000 wounded
It would only be twenty-one years later than another World War would commence.
Lest we forget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)