# Royal Commission into Macquarie Bank



## Garpal Gumnut (7 October 2008)

I view of Mr.Fuld's testimony over his CEO remuneration at the failed Lehmans Bank during US Congressional hearings yesterday, should our Parliament not investigate the past and ongoing payments to Macquarie Bank management.

I believe they are not worth it.

A Royal commission may be warranted to investigate the matter as the institutions routinely endorse the decisions of the remuneration committee.

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (7 October 2008)

Worldwide, as a consequence, I think you'll find shareholders will be given more power over remuneration. As they should...


----------



## MrBurns (7 October 2008)

I don't know what all the fuss is about, these are companies with shareholders that can vote board members out if they don't like them.

If these guys have broken any laws charge them but otherwise get a life and look elsewhere to place blame. the system allowed all these things to happen, blame the regulators if you must somebody.


----------



## Mofra (7 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> If these guys have broken any laws charge them but otherwise get a life and look elsewhere to place blame. the system allowed all these things to happen, blame the regulators if you must somebody.



Due to the recent re-structure, only 2 arms of the Macquarie business are still under the entity operating a banking licence, so most of Macquarie is outside of APRA's reach anyway. 

Their "self-valuation" of infrastructure assets may be highly dodgy (IMO) and their calculation of "management fees" a little suspect to me, but it is certainly legal.


----------



## MrBurns (7 October 2008)

Mofra said:


> Due to the recent re-structure, only 2 arms of the Macquarie business are still under the entity operating a banking licence, so most of Macquarie is outside of APRA's reach anyway.
> 
> Their "self-valuation" of infrastructure assets may be highly dodgy (IMO) and their calculation of "management fees" a little suspect to me, but it is certainly legal.




Their valuation of assets would be dodgy but thats the Australian way but if their renumeration is not illegal it's really up to the board to determine if it's appropriate.

Same with Lehman, the boss there is under the pump for taking $500m out of the company, but if there was nothing to stop him I dont see the point in pointing the finger at him.

In any case I don't see how his renumeration could be the root cause of a global collapse or Lehman's collapse for that matter.

But is it it fair ? they say, who cares, they let him take it and it wasn't illegal, fair has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Mofra (7 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> But is it it fair ? they say, who cares, they let him take it and it wasn't illegal, fair has nothing to do with it.



As my Southern US friends would say, "Forget fair; a fair is place we go to judge hogs" 

They haven't had any of the performance bonuses fail to meet shareholder approval so getting a Royal Commission of the ground in the first place would be extremly unlikely to say the least. Either way, doesn't Alan Moss know when to jump ship at the right time!


----------



## MrBurns (7 October 2008)

Mofra said:


> As my Southern US friends would say, "Forget fair; a fair is place we go to judge hogs"
> 
> They haven't had any of the performance bonuses fail to meet shareholder approval so getting a Royal Commission of the ground in the first place would be extremly unlikely to say the least. Either way, doesn't Alan Moss know when to jump ship at the right time!




I agree it would be a waste of time, perhaps the regulators should look into an easier way for shareholders to object to this, ie: tick boxes to ok or object to the size of bonuses but then again the shareholders would always say no, perhaps regulate maximum bonuses dependent on profit but no it's meddling let the market self regulate.


----------



## Julia (7 October 2008)

A Royal Commission into Macquarie Bank?  You must be joking!  For what reason?  How would you justify such a silly waste of tax payer' money?


----------



## Macquack (7 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> In any case I don't see how his renumeration could be the root cause of a global collapse or Lehman's collapse for that matter.
> .



Your going blind Monty, you cant see the forest for the trees. Excessive remuneration (greed) IS at the core of this financial crisis.





MrBurns said:


> But is it it fair ? they say, who cares, they let him take it and it wasn't illegal, *fair has nothing to do with it*.




Alan Moss has infiltrated ASF disguised as Charles Montgomery Burns.


----------



## trading_rookie (7 October 2008)

Allan Moss or Nicholas Moore?, I'd say the later as Moss the 'consultant' couldn't give a rats.


----------



## MrBurns (8 October 2008)

Macquack said:


> Your going blind Monty, you cant see the forest for the trees. Excessive remuneration (greed) IS at the core of this financial crisis.
> Alan Moss has infiltrated ASF disguised as Charles Montgomery Burns.





Yes they paid the guy at Lehmans too much now it's caused a world recession. 

Whatever it is you're on lower the dose.


----------



## kevo (8 October 2008)

Forget a Royal commission. To many Macquarie Bank shareholders will be looking for summary justice.

I said this would happen. I am the prince of the Bears.

Time to go long Newcrest, btw.

Kevo

www.kontentkonsult.com


----------



## nick2fish (8 October 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I view of Mr.Fuld's testimony over his CEO remuneration at the failed Lehmans Bank during US Congressional hearings yesterday, should our Parliament not investigate the past and ongoing payments to Macquarie Bank management.
> 
> I believe they are not worth it.
> 
> ...




Yep........ The big difference here is Lehmans are dead and about to be buried
              MQG are alive and kicking

Which as we all are aware is no small feat in these times of financial turmoil.

They have survived the Sub Prime and IF they survive the credit frezze give them a pay rise I say


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (8 October 2008)

Ahem,

I'm very conscious of internet security and not using my real name...hopefully no one is interested enough to find out who I am.

I may have worked at Macquarie during my career.

I may have met Allan Moss several times.

If you were to say my name Allan may go  "Oh _that_ guy".

In fact I may have had lunch (with a small number of other people) with Allan within the last quarter and come to the conclusion that:-

1) I don't care that he's paid an obscene amount of money...I wouldn't *want* to do his job.

2) If  company increases it's market capitalization by 5 billion dollars is a fair payment for the managing director...($30M)? It's highly subjective. (Yes yes given the pedants on this forum I know they've lost market capitalization this is merely an example).

3) Allan Moss has a very interesting skill set.

4) He's been at the helm for a *long* period of time.

5) He doesn't decide what he is paid...other people do that. He just says things like...'I'm getting too old for this $hit"...and the Board make him an offer he can't refuse.

Sir O puts his dark glasses back on and slinks away into the shadows.


----------

