Bae Systems Share Discussion Threads

[fangorn2] 01/4/2013 18:33

Well I think your position is now clear. You should perhaps expect some vigorous debate on these issues if you hang around on bulletin boards, and I hope to see you at the AGM when no doubt the same issues will be debated further.


I'm glad we now have some understanding. Am perfectly happy to have some vigorous debate. It seems there was misunderstanding on both fronts. Hope to make the AGM - we shall see.

If you were offended by my attacks on the typical shareholder complacency summed up in the attitude: "the directors know what they doing, best not to rock the boat at this time, it was a forgiveable mistake", etc, then my apologies.

Not offended at all. Just surprised at the line taken. I'm happy to give as good as I get in such regard so you wont get howls of "I find such remarks offensive"

But I still think you should vote against the 14 days notice for General Meetings.

:)

[roger-lawson] 01/4/2013 18:25

Well I think your position is now clear. You should perhaps expect some vigorous debate on these issues if you hang around on bulletin boards, and I hope to see you at the AGM when no doubt the same issues will be debated further.

If you were offended by my attacks on the typical shareholder complacency summed up in the attitude: "the directors know what they doing, best not to rock the boat at this time, it was a forgiveable mistake", etc, then my apologies.

But I still think you should vote against the 14 days notice for General Meetings.

[roger-lawson] 01/4/2013 16:48

As you rightly pointed out, my first comment on your post (where you said you were voting FOR all resolutions regardless) were:

"And your support of all the other resolutions simply baffles me. Have you actually read and understood them all?"

"With shareholders like you, it's hardly surprising that the engagement of shareholders with companies is so poor."

What's wrong with those comments and questions? They may be direct but there is no reason why you should have become so aggressive in response (and still failed to answer the question even after repeated reminders). You are apparently going to vote FOR Olver and all the non-executive directors who supported the EADS merger even though you concede it was a mistake.

What does it take to get you to vote against a resolution?

And you are also voting for the Remuneration Report and the Resolution on 14days notice for General Meetings without being willing to say why on the latter one despite me asking.

Your views on the miserly pay of the directors of BAE versus other similar US companies may be arguable, but you are not comparing like with like.

Regretably you seem to be like so many shareholders who tick all the boxes the directors recommend without really considering the issues, or in this case even having logical explanations for your responses. Why should you vote for Olver to remain in place despite the debacle of the EADS affair and when it is clear he is already on his way out (the company has hired headhunters to find a replacement). Are you simply keen for him to save face?

[fangorn2] 01/4/2013 15:10

Still no answers to my questions, other than the last one..

How about you answer some of mine sunshine.

You have noticeably failed to answer a single one if you want to be pedantic.

But it is of course possible that you believe the company and its directors can do nothing wrong. Or if they do, they should not be asked to account for their errors.

Except that is not what I said. Talk about deliberately misinforming.

How on earth did someone like you become head of Sharesoc. You're clearly out of your depth and Marben is far more suited to such a role. I can see why Emptyend tired of talking to you.

[roger-lawson] 01/4/2013 15:05

Still no answers to my questions, other than the last one. But it is of course possible that you believe the company and its directors can do nothing wrong. Or if they do, they should not be asked to account for their errors.

[roger-lawson] 01/4/2013 13:53

Ah Fangorn2, you not only continue to ignore my question as to whether you actually read all the resolutions before voting, but specifically ignore my question about the 14 Day Notice resolution.

Debating the issues with someone who is not only anonymous but actually does not like answering questions in return, but simply makes rhetorical points is most frustrating. Would you be connected with the company in some way perhaps, or with their PR firm or Remuneration Consultants? Perhaps you are Olver under a pseudonymn or one of his pals? You know exactly who I am but we do not know who you are and why you might be taking the stance you are taking.

No doubt you won't want to answer those questions either.

[fangorn2] 01/4/2013 13:25

We suggested the whole board should step down (in due course) originally because it is claimed they all supported the merger.

And you think this is a sound idea do you, with the trials ahead faced by the Defence sector?

I have no doubt that in such a large company, there would be other capable people able to step in to the executive roles (or of course capable of being recruited from outside).

But you don't know for sure so why rock the boat without doing some research prior to changing the whole management board - such as who internally might fit the profile. Who outside of BAe in the Defence sector might fit the bill - whether they'd be willing or able to move, and how much their remuneration package would be?

Otherwise just calling for a management reshuffle with no plan B sounds exactly like the criticisms you are levying at the failed EADS merger.

At the end of the day, we only give recommendations and shareholders are encouraged to make their own minds up. We don't tell people how to vote.

Yet as soon as someone points out they disagree with your "recommendations" you launch into them telling them they don't know what they're talking about, do they know how to read the accounts etc etc.

Sounds like you're trying to tell me HOW to vote.

It is of course exceedingly unlikely that institutions would vote for the removal of any executive directors

Of course, because unlike YOU someone like Neil Woodford actually knows what he is doing, has spent years as a BAe shareholder, and more importantly,looks at THE BIGGER PICTURE rather than a one off failed deal. You know, the bigger picture that I mentioned, maintaining British excellence in the field of engineering and the manufacture of defence equipment.

The key point is that now Mr Olver is clearly going, and sooner rather than later, there is no good reason for him to hang around.

Given he's been at BAe since 2004 there is no doubt that it's time for some new blood - given the fragility of the Defence market I'd rather his departure wasn't rushed, unlike yourself. Now is not the time to engage in hasty firings without due diligence on suitable replacements.

It is a pity you did not answer my question regarding reading all the resolutions. For example why do you support a change in the legal requirement for 21 days notice for an AGM to 14 days?

Frankly as soon as you started telling me I didn't know what I was doing I lost interest.

And you might be happy with the levels of pay at this company, and the remuneration structure, but many are not.

Not quite sure why you or anyone else have an issue with BAE's board pay. It's hardly as generous as it's main competitors..

General Dynamics


BOD remuneration. 2012 up 20.4% to $38,979million

Former CEO $18million in remuneration
CEO $6.887m
CFO $4.894m


BAE seems hardly generous.

[fangorn2] 01/4/2013 13:25

Boeing

https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/097023/20130301/CMBO_157699/


I suspect the tale will be similar here. Well remunerated BoD which makes BAe look a tad stingy.

[fangorn2] 01/4/2013 13:25

Double post.

[roger-lawson] 01/4/2013 13:07

We suggested the whole board should step down (in due course) originally because it is claimed they all supported the merger. I have no doubt that in such a large company, there would be other capable people able to step in to the executive roles (or of course capable of being recruited from outside). But the recommendation just issued was not quite so clear cut regarding the other directors and we simply said shareholder might wish to "vote against or abstain". At the end of the day, we only give recommendations and shareholders are encouraged to make their own minds up. We don't tell people how to vote. It is of course exceedingly unlikely that institutions would vote for the removal of any executive directors so our recommendation was more an encouragement for change rather than in expectation of anything happening on the 8th May.

The key point is that now Mr Olver is clearly going, and sooner rather than later, there is no good reason for him to hang around.

It is a pity you did not answer my question regarding reading all the resolutions. For example why do you support a change in the legal requirement for 21 days notice for an AGM to 14 days?

And you might be happy with the levels of pay at this company, and the remuneration structure, but many are not.

[owenski] 01/4/2013 11:45

Indeed, Roger Lawson. Apathy is probably what directors of PLC's rely on when they use to company to increase their own wealth. Mixed opinions over BA. at the moment, I tend to be supportive of King but question the need for Olvers presence.

Regards

[jacobs322] 31/3/2013 21:13

those interested might want to take a look at Spread Betting eMagazine April edition which is now online – the issue is a Gold Mining Supplement Special. [not related but interesting]

[miata] 20/3/2013 17:29

30 day movers, FTSE Top 10:

Name 30 day Chg (%)
BAE Systems 19.61
Prudential 17.3
Aggreko 16.58
IAG 15.18
IMI 13.79
L&G 13.23
Sainsbury 13.17
REXAM 12.28
Rolls-Royce 12.09
ITV 11.2

[miata] 20/3/2013 11:23

9:30 am wobble this morning due to the BoE minutes which led to a blip on the USDGBP exchange rate. Result 6:3 against adding to QE.