It is not the least bit surprising to me that the Treasurer Scott Morrison came out this morning with robust criticism of the dishonorable conduct by Board/s and Company Executives revealed in the report from APRA investigations, which have been running independently of the Royal Commission into the Banks.
It is also not surprising that if there are deeply entrenched governance and ethical inadequacies occurring and being brought to light in the big corporates, it is little wonder that ASIC is found to be impotent and it would seem even more about arse covering and keeping up appearances as a business regulator, than pursuing the people who appear to provide themselves with enourmous unjustified rewards regardless of declining performance of the enterprise they are responsible for?
Oh! But that all looks quite simple in theory? Okay so I guess there needs to be evidence of wrongdoing! Anecdotal complaints from shareholders hitherto seems not to generate sufficient scrutiny as far as I can see. We seem to have to rely more on Four Corners than any established enforcement or regularitory authority to protect against corporate wrong doing.
Tougher laws about wrongful behaviour by Boards/Directors and Company Executives going off the rails is one thing, but corporate crookery and other wrongful conduct will only be properly brought out and rectified if the regulatory agencies are equipped and empowered to pursue the perps. I mean punish the perps, not the shareholders.
Beyond that the whole insult of golden parachutes and departure bonuses that we have all observed occurring over a number of years, is enough to show that corporate culture has become corrupted by self interest and lack of accountability.
I know it is all too late but I believe there were failures in transparency and proper disclosure EGO to Shareholders and we often saw obscure and inconsequential announcements from the head shed which withheld detail presumably under the guize of the sensitivity of the information.
Down the track the revelations from the demise of EGO suggest to me that the circumstances and measures involved in the financial package which ultimately brought about the killer move at the hands of MIN, were indeed very sensitive. Perhaps even reckless and indifferent to the interests of shareholders.
Would anything have turned out differently had the CEO and Board opted to run a CR before going back to MIN for more borrowings?
I believe Doc was right all along - That Red Gully was not the jewel in the crown! That the CEO was able to snow the BoD into spending good money after bad at Red Gully left the anno box empty to the point that other prospects could not be pursued.
Moreover, I believe that it was a further exercise in futility when after our erstwhile CEO took his package, an undertaker was brought in to ensure the run down to the hitting the kill switch went according to plan.
We will never know I guess?
Anyway, that horse has bolted, and the stable door has slammed shut!
EGO Price at posting:
12.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
