Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[tikay]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say actually. It is a FACT that the vast majority of active institutional investors perform worse than the broader market yet claim skills in analysing and selecting companies.

They operate to short term performance targets so by necessity they inject a lot of short term thinking into the managements of the companies in which they invest. Often for example supporting and proposing corprate activity that mostly destroys value as synergies are never realised, apart from short term(there it is again) p and l benefits of cost cutting.

That said there is another side of the coin, which is for public companies there has to be a mechanism for removing poor management. Of which there is also plenty.

Yup, it's the short-termism which is the killer. Which is why the share price of one of the UK's finest ever Compamies, Rolls Royce, has, & will always languish. Because the gestation period from concept to profitability is so long. The Trent Series Engines took 20 years to develop, & all that R & D investment does not impress the City nerds. But they miss one thing. Rolls Royce, once it gets an Engine accepted by Boeing or Airbus on a successful Civil or Military long-production run model, happily sell the Engines at cost. And make oodles & oodles of profit out of supplying spares & maintaining those engines over the next 20 years! More than half RR's profits come from spares & maintenance to the installed-engine portfolio - and they forecast that to rise to 70% by 2015. Each engine sold guarantees 20 years of easy money. It's not rocket-science - it's jet-science.

But......

[tikay]

That said there is another side of the coin, which is for public companies there has to be a mechanism for removing poor management. Of which there is also plenty.

Why?

If the Management does not perform, & profits drop, it's self-regulating - they get sacked by those who run the Company.

I'd just say, look, this is my company. If you want to invest in it, fine, go ahead. but let me tell you this. I run this place, not you. And if you don't like how I run it, bugger off. It's my money, my living, my business, & if it needs tinkering with, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. Now feck off. Suitably run through a cooey-wooey filter first, of course.

[tikay]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

[TightEnd]

That said there is another side of the coin, which is for public companies there has to be a mechanism for removing poor management. Of which there is also plenty.

Why?

If the Management does not perform, & profits drop, it's self-regulating - they get sacked by those who run the Company.

I'd just say, look, this is my company. If you want to invest in it, fine, go ahead. but let me tell you this. I run this place, not you. And if you don't like how I run it, bugger off. It's my money, my living, my business, & if it needs tinkering with, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. Now feck off. Suitably run through a cooey-wooey filter first, of course.

Well the shareholders Own the business, and the managers run it for them. So they cannot say "look this is my company"

Another problem is the genereral ineffectiveness and in a lot of cases lack of independence of the non-executive directors (there is a sub industry in executive selection in giving people cushy non-execs by the bucket load) such that they are often not going to sack the managers unless there is outside/shareholder pressure.

Enjoy your nap!

[gatso]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

I'll take one if possible please sir

[TightEnd]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

 

[tikay]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

I'll take one if possible please sir

OK - it's reserved for you. PM me your real name please.

I understand that Indestructable will be there - invited via another Forum - he think TV Cameras might be present - also Jon "The Hat" MW will be present.

[tikay]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

 

Behave. I got it through. I think.

[Claw75]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

Well if Indestructable has no scruples about going two years in a row you can give me one then.  

[gatso]

I assume you missed this little thread http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=38359.0

it's not only the ladies event at the western that does the stupid structure, it's their main event too

No - I saw that, but I was talking specifically about Ladies Only Events, which all have a shocking structure.

As to the Main Event at The Western this weekend, while it's not my cup of tea, many will say the Structure is OK - the omission of a 75-150 is not that big a deal really. What does make me piss is that Starting Level of 50-100. Do they really think we are all stupid?

Coming soon, to a Venue near you, a 50,000 Starting Stack jobbie. Blinds start at 1,000-2,000.

I love the way the Poles do it. every time I've played a big/festival event over there as well as a decent starting stack 50/100 is level 4. they start off with 10/20 20/40 and 30/60.

[Pelham Boy]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

Well if Indestructable has no scruples about going two years in a row you can give me one then.  

 

[tikay]

That said there is another side of the coin, which is for public companies there has to be a mechanism for removing poor management. Of which there is also plenty.

Why?

If the Management does not perform, & profits drop, it's self-regulating - they get sacked by those who run the Company.

I'd just say, look, this is my company. If you want to invest in it, fine, go ahead. but let me tell you this. I run this place, not you. And if you don't like how I run it, bugger off. It's my money, my living, my business, & if it needs tinkering with, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. Now feck off. Suitably run through a cooey-wooey filter first, of course.

Well the shareholders Own the business, and the managers run it for them. So they cannot say "look this is my company"

Another problem is the genereral ineffectiveness and in a lot of cases lack of independence of the non-executive directors (there is a sub industry in executive selection in giving people cushy non-execs by the bucket load) such that they are often not going to sack the managers unless there is outside/shareholder pressure.

Enjoy your nap!

Yes, yes, of course. But if the Board of Directors are bright enough, they will have retained enough of the Shares to ensure they can do exactly what they want. They only raise Share capital to accelerate growth, therefore by-passing steady, sustainable, organic growth - it's Catch-22. Greed is the killer. Grow slowly, steadily, & you dont need shareholder investment, which in turn leads to the tail wagging the dog.

Nap imminent, though I have loads of stuff to do - but my gander is up now, all this Institutional tosh has got me wound up like a coiled spring.

And breathe.....

[TightEnd]

That said there is another side of the coin, which is for public companies there has to be a mechanism for removing poor management. Of which there is also plenty.

Why?

If the Management does not perform, & profits drop, it's self-regulating - they get sacked by those who run the Company.

I'd just say, look, this is my company. If you want to invest in it, fine, go ahead. but let me tell you this. I run this place, not you. And if you don't like how I run it, bugger off. It's my money, my living, my business, & if it needs tinkering with, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. Now feck off. Suitably run through a cooey-wooey filter first, of course.

Well the shareholders Own the business, and the managers run it for them. So they cannot say "look this is my company"

Another problem is the genereral ineffectiveness and in a lot of cases lack of independence of the non-executive directors (there is a sub industry in executive selection in giving people cushy non-execs by the bucket load) such that they are often not going to sack the managers unless there is outside/shareholder pressure.

Enjoy your nap!

Yes, yes, of course. But if the Board of Directors are bright enough, they will have retained enough of the Shares to ensure they can do exactly what they want. They only raise Share capital to accelerate growth, therefore by-passing steady, sustainable, organic growth - it's Catch-22. Greed is the killer. Grow slowly, steadily, & you dont need shareholder investment, which in turn leads to the tail wagging the dog.

In the private sector, of course but in the plcs, the multinationals especially, the managements have little hope of holding enough shares to wield control. Hence the importance of Non Execs, and their failure plus Instititutional shortcomings often leads to football manager like revolving doors

[tikay]

Ding & Claw - I have not PM'd anyone, so I don't know who did.

But I have 6 tickets, snoops & Robert want one each, that leaves 4.

If you want me to give you one, just say.

Well if Indestructable has no scruples about going two years in a row you can give me one then.  

My pleasure.

So that's Claw & gatso.

[tikay]

That said there is another side of the coin, which is for public companies there has to be a mechanism for removing poor management. Of which there is also plenty.

Why?

If the Management does not perform, & profits drop, it's self-regulating - they get sacked by those who run the Company.

I'd just say, look, this is my company. If you want to invest in it, fine, go ahead. but let me tell you this. I run this place, not you. And if you don't like how I run it, bugger off. It's my money, my living, my business, & if it needs tinkering with, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. Now feck off. Suitably run through a cooey-wooey filter first, of course.

Well the shareholders Own the business, and the managers run it for them. So they cannot say "look this is my company"

Another problem is the genereral ineffectiveness and in a lot of cases lack of independence of the non-executive directors (there is a sub industry in executive selection in giving people cushy non-execs by the bucket load) such that they are often not going to sack the managers unless there is outside/shareholder pressure.

Enjoy your nap!

Yes, yes, of course. But if the Board of Directors are bright enough, they will have retained enough of the Shares to ensure they can do exactly what they want. They only raise Share capital to accelerate growth, therefore by-passing steady, sustainable, organic growth - it's Catch-22. Greed is the killer. Grow slowly, steadily, & you dont need shareholder investment, which in turn leads to the tail wagging the dog.

In the private sector, of course but in the plcs, the multinationals especially, the managements have little hope of holding enough shares to wield control. Hence the importance of Non Execs, and their failure plus Instititutional shortcomings often leads to football manager like revolving doors

Selecting the right Non-Execs is key Rich, as you know. There is, as you noted earlier, a whole bucket-shop industry of Non Exec Freeloading & utterly gormless Directors. Shoot them all, they achieve nothing except appease the City Code on Non-Execs.