Three ways to find a stock you can trust

By Bengt Saelensminde Feb 01, 2012

Bengt Saelensminde

Share with
friends:

Comments (10) Print this article

The public anger over executive pay has been boiling over for months now. But it really came to a head last week with the furore over RBS boss Stephen Hester.

The truth is that Hester’s bonus came at a bad time for the politicians. Just a few weeks before, David Cameron said that he wanted to tackle excessive executive pay head on. And business secretary Vince Cable is been regularly bemoaning the culture of ‘reward for failure’.

So there must have been a flurry of high-level behind-the-scenes phone calls before the RBS boss agreed to dump his bonus.

But there is a disturbing story here that is being ignored. Because while the public fixate over bank bonuses, executive pay at other blue chip companies has been soaring. The last year has seen a huge lift in top-level pay at FTSE 100 companies. And that is terrible news for investors. Because it means their interests are increasingly out of whack with the boards of these companies.

What you need to know is: can I trust the people that run my major investments?

That’s the question I’m going to answer today. I’ll point to three methods I use to spot management that I can believe in.

But first…

How bad have things got?

Last year, FTSE 100 CEO’s saw their overall pay increase by about 32%, while the workforce at large got a paltry 2% wage increase.

Much of that pay increase was down to the fact that the stock market did well, and therefore ‘stock incentive’ plans reaped big rewards for the fat cats.

But this is ridiculous, and sets exactly the wrong sorts of targets for executives. First, they pocketed big bonuses just because the market went up. Do they give back their rewards when the markets go down? No chance.

But more importantly, many of these ill-considered share incentive schemes can end up landing our businesses in trouble.

Often, incentive plans give management options to buy company stock at a pre-determined price. So if the stock goes up, their options are worth more. A lot more! Holding an option is not the same thing as holding shares. Options are short-term instruments offering highly leveraged returns. One of the things that makes options valuable is volatility.

Yes, that’s right. It’s often in the interests of management to get the share price fluctuating wildly up and down... exactly what we shareholders don’t want!

Ideally, management would get the share price down when setting up the incentive plan, and then they want it to fly so they can bail out of their options at a fat profit.

Nowhere was this sort of posturing worse than in the banks. Why did many of the banks take on so much risk? I strongly suspect it was down to badly cooked up incentive plans. Remuneration plans, as Cameron says, that were rubber stamped on a merry-go-round of executives helping each other out. So long as the price rises, they can win big time as they cash in options. If the stock later plummets – so what? They’ll just get more options at a lower price and do it all over again.

Sometimes it feels like we private investors are powerless. And to a degree it’s true. But we can vote with our feet.


Special report

Claim your free report 'The NEXT major bank collapse?'


Buy companies where management is already incentivised

First, look to young companies. The shares of many young companies are often tightly held by management. Many investors hate this – they say it makes them too powerful – and allows them to pursue their own agenda.

But I look at it the other way round. To my mind their own agenda will be to make sure their shares will be worth more over the long run.

One of the criticisms against high-flying SuperGroup is that management are pursuing a high-growth strategy with wild abandon. And I would take that criticism seriously if management were mainly incentivised by share options. It would make me worry that short term targets were taking precedence over long term shareholder value.

But this is a young company. Management own most of the stock. Maybe they’re pursuing a high growth, high risk strategy, but at least they’re doing it for all the right reasons. And outside shareholders can come along for the ride if they want to.

But even when the stock isn’t tightly held by management, a powerful outside shareholder can help.

Go for it Stelios!

This week, the spat between Easyjet’s founder and the board really took off. Though Stelios Haji-Ioannou no longer works for Easyjet, he still holds over 37% of the shares. He hit out against the board: “The gravy train of £180m free shares issued over the last decade must come to an end now!”

He continues “These guys are welcome to resign anytime. As shareholders we could easily replace them with talented executives who’ll cost half as much in bonuses”.

Yeah... go for it Stelios!

Outside shareholders can really shake things up. Powerful hedge funds and strategic investors can force company management to look at things from the shareholders' point of view. It’s always worthwhile checking out the share register and finding out if there’s a powerful shareholder willing to keep management in check.

Find management that you really trust

Finally, what you’ve got to ask yourself is “Do I trust these guys?” Look at the stock incentive plans in place – does it look like management’s taking you for a ride? If the managers do earn shares, do they tend to hold on to them?

Go to the AGM. Listen to the way that management responds to their shareholders. Are they arrogant? Are they sitting in an ivory tower looking down at the plebs? If so, it’s probably best to steer clear.

Do you get the feeling the guys at the top are in it for the long haul?  What’s staff turnover like - especially at the top?

These aren’t fool-proof investment criteria. But I think it’s important that you build a rapport with management. If you can really understand what’s going on with a stock and its management, you can often save yourself some nasty surprises.

I’ve written before about pub operator Shepherd Neame. It’s a family firm, both managed and largely owned by the family. I’ve attended several AGMs, and the feeling of longevity (the firm goes back many generations and centuries) and long-term commitment to shareholders is obvious.

Though the company’s in a tough sector, it’s doing very nicely. The shares have had a tough ride, but it’s a business that I personally feel comfortable with.

That’s why I don’t worry too much about the short-term price movement.

Leave the sabre-rattling and moaning to the guys that do it best: the politicians. For us small investors, it’s best just to avoid the businesses that are set up to enrich management. We don’t want to change the world. We just want our fair share.

• This article is taken from the free investment email The Right side. Sign up to The Right Side here.

Important Information
Your capital is at risk when you invest in shares - you can lose some or all of your money, so never risk more than you can afford to lose. Always seek personal advice if you are unsure about the suitability of any investment. Past performance and forecasts are not reliable indicators of future results. Commissions, fees and other charges can reduce returns from investments. Profits from share dealing are a form of income and subject to taxation. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and may be subject to change in the future. Please note that there will be no follow up to recommendations in The Right Side.

Managing Editor: Frank Hemsley. The Right Side is a regulated product issued by Fleet Street Publications Ltd.

Fleet Street Publications Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. FSA No 115234. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do

Comments (10)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. LERENARD

    (01 February 2012, 04:34PM)  Complain about this comment

    Shareholders are not powerless. However most of the shares are controlled by fund managers who are no different from the company executives taking advantage of the system. All profits should go to shareholders and any bonus deals should be agreed and voted on beforehand by all shareholders. This requires reform of company law which simply will not happen under this parliament in spite of the best efforts of the Liberal Democrats: The big Tory donors will never agree to any meaningful change. Mass demonstration and civil disobedience might be the only way forward.

  • 2. Richard Stead

    (01 February 2012, 05:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    The points made were well founded. But it also raises for me the whole question of takeovers and mergers. They are very difficult to make successful. Sometimes necessary though they are one should be wary of companies who rely upon them to produce growth, and be especially wary if the object of the takeover is less than 100% suitable. Debt incurred to enable takeovers is high risk and usually for the benefit of the CEO who as head of a bigger corporation will award himself accordingly.

  • 3. asdak1

    (01 February 2012, 07:27PM)  Complain about this comment

    Hello Bengt, A great article and very topical. I was e-mailing Tom Bulford the other day regarding Sirius Minerals having a share placing of 50m. shares. The Chairman of the Company bought 18.8m shares at a discount of 23.4%, costing him £3.4m! The lowly shareholder, of which there are many, didn't get a look-in at this cosy deal. It just means I will be selling when the price recovers to a sensible figure and bail out to invest in another Company. This also touches on your previous articles regarding small cap co's who continue to require cash for exploration etc. Don't get me wrong, I am fully committed to small caps, but we all need to play fair and a rights issue against a placing gives a chance to the smaller shareholder to increase their 'ownership' of that Company.

  • 4. Ceebie

    (01 February 2012, 09:39PM)  Complain about this comment

    I'm with Lerenard on this; last sentence included, or even especially. Only when a fear factor is introduced will it be likely that greedy capitalists will be minded to act with decency. As a moderate, retired teacher I'm unlikely to provide the necessary threat myself but will certainly be cheering from the sidelines.

  • 5. Justice

    (01 February 2012, 11:15PM)  Complain about this comment

    These people managing our Public Ltd Companies are parasites and legal thieves, they are self protecting by having director ships in each others companies, so the crucial voting that enables their extortianate salaries, pensions and other perks, will never be threatened, by the outsiders ( shareholders ), who own the Companies. This is a very large fat cat community of which the hated Banking sector is just a small part, the selfish greed of these people is out of control , and they occupy the high ground dominating the decision making of those public servants who could and should deter them, but as these public servant decision makers will be hoping to become members of, or reap some benefit from, this community, I fear Mass demonstration and civil disobedience ( as stated by LERENARD in comment 1) could be the only option left for justice to prevail.

  • 6. Irish Warlock

    (02 February 2012, 12:31AM)  Complain about this comment

    I am a great fan of Shepherd Neame. It's a fine English company with top quality products. I recently bought 350 shares which I will tuck away for quite a few years and raise a glass or two courtesy of the dividends.

    Cheers!

  • 7. BJ

    (02 February 2012, 08:17AM)  Complain about this comment

    Good article and thought provoking.
    However much we would like to get fair play across the board, human nature tends to be, get what you can and not worry about others.
    As a small investor it's hard to see what we are able to achieve. Of course people should be well rewarded for doing a good job but this is out of control
    For most ordinary investors we like to think that the guys running the company are doing it with the interest of the shareholders in mind .......... how wrong can we be?

  • 8. 4caster

    (05 February 2012, 08:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    As usual, Bengt, you have identified the problem. But young quoted companies run by founder-investors are few and far between, and I never touch AIM-quoted companies with a bargepole. The buy/sell spreads are huge, very few pay decent dividends, and many fall by the wayside. The FT AIM Index remains way below its level of 15 years ago. We keep being told by MoneyWeek to choose big high-yielding tobacco companies, pharmaceuticals, utilities, Shell, AVIVA, etc. We are highly likely to enter another bear market before the euro-crisis is solved, and I'm afraid small, young companies that pay little if any dividends will be hit harder than the mature cash cow businesses.

  • 9. 4caster

    (05 February 2012, 09:53PM)  Complain about this comment

    Companies are supposed to be owned by shareholders, who have votes and should be able to negotiate executive remuneration agreements that serve their interests.
    But in practice most shares are held in trust by nominees, and company votes are wielded by trust managers, who are on the SAME GRAVY TRAIN.
    Or, to mix metaphors, they have their snouts in the same trough.
    We are encouraged for reasons of taxation to invest through ISAs and pension schemes, thereby becoming disenfranchised from proposing, and voting on, motions at shareholders' meetings.
    As the beneficial owners of the companies in which we invest, we need legislation to empower us to insist that company boards serve us.
    Margaret Thatcher empowered ordinary trade union members through secret ballots and the abolition of undemocratic practices like the closed shop and show of hands at mass meetings.
    Let's have the same rights for beneficial share-owners.

  • 10. 4caster

    (05 February 2012, 09:54PM)  Complain about this comment

    For the sort of remuneration scheme that should apply, see Merryn's excellent suggestion:
    http://www.moneyweek.com/blog/shareholders-should-be-given-more-rights-executive-pay-57224

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


>