« What Ever Happened to Will Power? | Main | It Seems Hot To You ... »

27 September 2010

Comments

Moncler Daunenjacke

So fun article is! I know more from it.

Henry

Slight typo in my post.... I meant to say that I appreciate the opportunity to post my opinions here, not that you should appreciate me doing so !!

Sorry

Peter

Interesting blog post and follow-up discussion.

Mr. Eldon's point above regarding the supposed superiority of non-executive chairmen is well taken; the case for it is largely political and regulatory, not based on results.

As for Mr. Gulliver, whom I know only through press reports, it seems he is known and respected for his risk management skills, not as a reckless dealmaker. Hurling at him that most foul epithet, "investment banker", does not seem to capture accurately his career history.

Somewhat hard-heartedly, I admit to having very little sympathy for Mr. Geoghegan, as the inescapable conclusion is that his own words and behaviour must have contributed greatly to its messy denouement.

Overall, I think the management changes are net positive for the Bank. I wish Mr. Flint and Mr. Gulliver well.

David Eldon

I absolutely don't mind the comments at all. I have heard the points you have raised also put out by others, and understand there are concerns. We don't live in a perfect world.
I think to point (1), the bank chooses to explain its actions because it believes the action it takes is in the best interests of the shareholders. The Nomination Committee consists of a majority of INEDS. I think that says something. And when the time is right for the Chairman to be an Independent Non-Executive Director, I am sure they will do that too.
To your second point, I think the comments made in places like the media about the "inadvisability" of having an Executive Chairman of the Bank ignores the comments of the professionals - the analysts who DO by and large understand the Bank. They should be the people, the check and balance you rely on to ensure that this is not a "closed boys club" - and I think the Bank, by the way, is very transparent. Whilst I know there is a preference in the market to appoint non-executive directors as Chairmen, I am unconvinced that they have collectively done a better job than those who know the organisation. I do not think "one rule fits all" and In fact, I think the USA is beginning to question the wisdom of having outsiders Chair companies they know little about.
Lastly - Stuart Gulliver has been credited with steering the Bank successfully through one of the most economically challenging periods of recent history. He has been in charge of the investment bank - and media reports have all labelled him as an "investment banker" as you have done, but I have not yet read a media report - and I am reading lots, that has singled him out as being irresponsible, reckless, fickle or any other adjective you can think of - in fact they have been unanimous in their praise.
As to loyalty - sadly it seems to be a commodity that is rather lacking today where all we want to do is disassociate ourselves from "difficult situations". This has not been pleasant for the Bank, but I, for one, am satisfied they will come through it successfully.

Henry

David, you are very loyal to the bank and it's people and that's great, but there are a few points on you might perhaps be less loyal
1) The bank chooses to "explain" why it has a non-independent executive director with an implication that it's tradition and the assertion that it's results haven't really suffered (of course nobody really knows that). These seem poor reasons to fly in the face of regulatory and industry expectations.
2) "If anyone thinks Douglas is a "patsy" who will not have the interests of all constituents of the Bank at heart - then they don't know the Bank or its people at all" Exactly the point - we don't know the bank or it's people at all, and we cannot be expected to. The bank is not (or should not be seen to be) a closed boys club. Appointing a non executive independent director is a vital gesture (as well as the right thing to do from a corporate governance perspective)
3) Stuart Gulliver is already being criticised as an "investment banker". Absolutely! Rightly or not, his appointment right at this time, following the worst financial crisis in several generations, caused primarily by the work of investment bankers, is "insensitive" to say the least (I wanted to use much stronger language there....)
I hope you don't mind and appreciate the opportunity to post my opinions here

Cristina

Finally I got to read it! An absolutely cracking piece. Well done.

David Eldon

Royingfai, I think you have just proved the point that learning things by heart is no substitute for using judgement, intelligence and common sense.
Or maybe I didn't write the Blog clearly enough for you to understand. Or did you actually read the Blog? It would seem not.

Andrew

Congratulations Royingfai on missing the point.

Royingfai

As Bob Tricker's student in Corporate Governance, I have to say that Geoghegan was acting like Michael Eisner (Disney) or Lee Iacocca (Crysler). How could the board put up with such a powerful character? Where's the checks and balance? How could someone dare to believe that he must be the next Chairman?

The comments to this entry are closed.