Should directors of boards own shares in their companies ?

Investors and credit lenders have often raised concerns about the level of commitment and decision-making acumen when members of  company boards do not have any personal investment in the companies they are collectively directing. Often referred to as 'skin-in-the-game', there is now a stronger focus on directors own shareholdings in their companies. The Australian Shareholders Association (ASA) believe that non-executive directors and key management personnel should have sufficient 'skin-in-the game' to ensure greater alignment with shareholders' interests. While noting that more companies in recent years have been introducing minimum shareholding  guidelines, there are many who refuse to place a requirement in writing. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) has a similar perspective to the ASA and believes that any well governed board requires their directors to hold equity in the company.  Yet ACSI's research has found that 11 per cent of the ASX 200 directors own no shares in the the companies they govern and many of these directors have been on their boards for over 10 years.  

Not surprisingly perhaps, the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) while professing to have no set policy position cites all the reasons not to require directors to own shares - including discouraging potential candidates from accepting board positions; causing more caution and a short term focus for directors who do own shares; or potentially compromising a director's independence if they own more 5 per cent or more. These are weak arguments and not surprising given AICD's protective view which often seeks to minimise the level of guidance and compliance on directors from outside parties. It does not however resolve the question and the ASA and ASCI positions sit in stark contrast to AICD.

The Archibald Prize 2016 - Preview

Barry Humphries by Louise Hearman

The clink of champagne flutes, the swish of food trays and the furtive and not-so-furtive chatter of viewers heralded the first private viewing of the 2016 Archibald Prize before it opens to the general public on 16 July. Now in its 95th year (it was first awarded in 1921) and as popular as ever with hopeful artists (and often their subjects too) there is always that level of anticipation to see whom has been selected for the final cut and who were the subjects of their portraits. From well in excess of 2,000 entries, some 51 finalists were chosen to be hung this year with a smattering of regular entrants and some much newer artists appearing for the first time.

There were the usual swag of self protraits by artists Natasha Walsh, Nick Mourtzakis, Tsering Hannaford and one by Yvette Coppersmith where she envisaged herself as actress, Rose Byrne. Various politicians of current note - Woollahra Mayor, Toni Zeltzer (by artist Sinead Davies), Troy Grant, NSW Deputy Premier and Minister for the Arts (by artist Mark Horton) and Federal Liberal Minister for Energy and Resources, Josh Frydenberg (by artist Camillo De Luca). The well-known established and perennial favourites are there such as Imants Tillers, Guan Wei, Nick Stathopoulos, Nicholas Harding who all have entries although none are really so striking as to be controversial. Some of the portraits are almost naive in their structure and texture such as the portrait of art gallery owner, Roslyn Oxley (by artist, Sally Ross) or Dinosaur Designs co-founder, Louise Olsen (by artist, Belynda Henry).

The selected finalists this year are something of a staid collection - vanilla, pedestrian and acceptable but nothing that would frighten the horses. Perhaps when its all said and done, the Archibald has reached gentrification and like the gallery in which it resides, merely sits in the realm of the comfortable, the obvious and the commercially unsurprising. 

1985 Archibald winner, Guy Warren by Danelle Bergstrom

UPATE: Artist Louise Hearman has won the 2016 Archibald Prize for her portrait of Barry Humphries (top of this posting)

2016 Australian Federal Election - The count goes on

The 2016 Federal election is now over and the citizens of Australia can ponder the reasons for the inconclusive result which eventuated from the ballot count. The current Liberal /National Party Coalition Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was not immediately returned to office and  will have to wait for a further two days to establish how many seats in the House of Representatives it has won.

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) under the leadership of Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, likewise did not achieve enough seats to immediately claim victory in the election either however their recovery of seats in previous lost heartland electorates has given them considerable hope that they are close. ALP members and campaign support staff had predicted the Liberal/National Government would be returned to office but with a slender 2 to 3 seat majority only. Given the uncertainty of many seats and the need to count a large number of postal votes that may or may not be the case. A national-wide average swing of 3.68% away from the Coalition and to the ALP was recorded with some seats showing margins of over 7%.

The real winners initially are the independents or minor parties (referred to in Parliamentary terms as the 'cross bench'). In the Upper House, the Australian Senate, the number of cross bench members was 18 members prior to the election. Senate voting reforms passed this year were due to reduce this number but the converse has occured as a result of the double dissolution election. On present trends, there are likely to be more cross bench members not less.

The current ballot count shows the Liberal/National Parties [LNP] have 70 seats, the Australian Labor Party [ALP] with 71 seats, the Greens with 1 seat, 4 seats to other Independents and 4 seats still undecided. In order to take Government, 76 seats are needed. The possibility of a minority Government remains strong.

UPDATE - 6 July 2016
Amusing to see how confusing the tally count has been going: the ABC has the LNP on 70, the ALP on 67, Independents on 5 with the remaining seats undecided. The Australian Electoral Commission  has the LNP on 68, the ALP on 68, Independents with 5 with the remaining seats undecided.

Sydney Film Festival 2016 - Film Review - Maggie's Plan

Ethan Hawke and Greta Gerwig - Maggie's Plan

Director and screenwriter, Rebecca Miller has created a somewhat off-beat comedy film with Maggie's Plan.  What is this film about  and what is its focus ? Is it a satire on the New York intellectual elite? Is it a comment on the nature of modern relationships ? Is it an observation on women and the need for children ? Or simply a meandering muddle through all of the above.

The plot for this film follows the romantic misadventure of career adviser Maggie (Greta Gerwig) and her desire to become a mother. As no particular romantic interest has materialised Maggie decides to go it alone through artificial insemination. Maggie is no Bridget Jones and in the course of her travels runs across writer, John (Ethan Hawke) who falls for her. One problem she must face is John's wife, career academic, Georgette (Julianne Moore). Maggie gets the guy but decides that she would like to hand him back to his ex-wife and so the film plods on.

What is it with the roles taken by Ethan Hawke in recent years? They almost all now appear to be introspective and narcissistic. In Maggie's Plan it is no different and his character in this film can be compared to the insufferable Beyond Midnight  in 2013. Greta Gerwig in the principal role as Maggie is little more than a vague almost dithering air-head - perhaps the contrast is intended to be a counterpoint to the intense Julianne Moore (who has been given an impossibly silly foreign accent for her character). This is no portrayal of New York communities, Woody Allen style. The film lacks the black noir of Allen and the sharp dialogue often associated with East Coast films set in New York. Its pleasant enough but little else.

Sydney Film Festival 2016 - Film Review - It's Only the End of the World

Marion Cotillard and Vincent Cassel - It's Only the End of the World

It's Only the End of the World directed  by Xavier Dolan (with the screenplay also written by him) won the Grand Prix and the Ecumenical Jury Prize at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. Why ?

This is a mess of a film which, in large part, is due to the director's interpretation (or lack thereof) of a stage play by the late Lean-Luc Lagarce.  Perhaps the relative youthful age of 27 for Dolan might have some influence on how he approached the film and the dialogue of the main characters.

The storyline follows the return of successful writer, Louis (Gaspard Ulliel) to his hometown and family as he is dying from AIDS. He has been absent for 12 years and his trip is to announce his impending demise. No sooner has he materialised then, despite warm welomes, the family descends into endless arguments between his mother (Nathalie Baye), sister Suzanne (Lea Seydoux), brother Antoine (Vincent Cassel) and sister-in-law Catherine (Marion Cotillard). Louis actually never makes his announcement but spends his time in dreamy recollections of past events.

As one reviewer in Vanity Fair commented, the film is overcome by pretention and the few good sequences arrive 'amidst a hideous clamor of pointless yelling and shoddy character work' A superb French cast was wasted with either no viable dialogue  or endless shouting. Marion Cottilard is left as the mumbling, stammering sister-in law and Vincent Cassel spends almost the entire film being bellicose and bullying everyone else.

The film will be released in France and Canada in September 2016.

Sydney Film Festival 2016 - Film Review - Captain Fantastic

Viggo Mortensen and the children in Captain Fantastic

Screenwriter and director, Matt Ross' Captain Fantastic is a funny, sometimes bitter sweet film focussed on the relationship between a father and his six children and the challenges they face when confronted by tragedy. The central role of the father, Ben Cash, is portrayed by the versatile, multilingual Viggo Mortensen and he delivers a commanding performance. The film has screened at both Sundance and Cannes (in the Un Certain Regard section) in 2016 and the film is due for release in July 2016 in the US.

The storyline for the film follows the efforts of idealistic father, Ben Cash to raise his children in a partial alternative lifestyle in a stretch of forest in Washington State, far from civilisation. They are taught Marxism, martial arts and encouraged to read and question. There is no Christmas Day but rather Noam Chomsky Day and self sufficiency is the mantra. The Mother, who appears only in flashbacks, has been hospitalised and passes away leaving both Ben and his children to confront the challenge of reintegration into wider society. As the children travel down to their Mother's funeral, their observations about what they see in society and their relatives has a number of priceless moments. There are many social issues raised in the film - the children, although home schooled in the wilderness by their parents, are vastly healthier, better informed and educated than their mainstream counterparts. Their state of health and fitness gains amazed comments from doctors when one of Ben's daughters is injured in a  fall. Ben's eldest son gains offers of admission to college from every Ivy League University in the US.

This is ultimately a heart-warming film about the strength of family and provides a welcome contrast to the number of films in recent years focussing on dysfunctional family units.

Sydney Film Festival 2016 - Film Review - War on Everyone

Michael Peña and Alexander Skarsgård - War on Everyone

John Michael McDonagh's latest film, War on Everyone is reminiscent of a Tarantino style of storytelling rather than his earlier black humoured films, The Guard and Calvary. This film is a fast-paced, action packed 'shoot-em first' film with sharp dialogue and plenty of gratuitous violence.

The storyline is centred on Detectives Terry Monroe (Alexander Skarsgård) and Bob Bolano  (Michael Peña), a pair of corrupt, boozed up police officers who display little interest in solving crimes as much as they do with lining their pockets from various scams. When British aristocratic criminal, Lord James Mangan (Theo James) masterminds a major heist on their territory, the two anti-heroes are determined to find the culprits and recover the million dollars for themselves. Anarchy ensues with blackmail, drugs and shoot-outs just some of the action as this unlikely pair of 'law' enforcers roll across New Mexico to Iceland in hot pursuit of their target.

Skarsgård and Peña are well cast as the odd couple of policing (Starsky and Hutch they are not) and New Mexico the perfect setting for wreaking havoc.  The film does not have the same level of nuances and satire of The Guard nor the darkness of Calvary so McDonagh's script varies from his previous work. It is nonetheless an easy film to watch with more than a few laughs (in the best of Irish irony).