(21-07-2012, 12:21 AM)luxurybrand Wrote: [ -> ]Like CrabCrab, I am vested in the Hour Glass for many years now & I enjoy reading the analysis and discussion on this topic very much. Great contributions from “dydx”, “Shanrui” and “Boon” and many others, even though sometimes I find some comments being biased to a certain extent !
Three questions one each for “dydx”, ”Shanrui” and “Boon”
1. To “dydx” : Why r u so sensitive to negative comments on the Hour Glass? 
2. To “Shanrui”: Why do u have a bias view now after attending the AGM?
3. To “Boon”: Why r u so against paying for a good management team of the Hour Glass?
This topic will become even better if each of u can become less bias and more objective in your comments. U have earned my great respect. Keep up with the good works 
Hi Luxurybrand,
Thanks for your kind words of encouragement. Like “orang”, I think you have given me far more credit than I deserve. As mentioned in my post#198, more credit should go to “dydx” and “Shanrui” both of whom have contributed so much to this tread, I was and still am playing catch-up.
I am sorry if you have the impression that I was biased toward the top management team of THG in terms of their remuneration packages. As a matter of fact, while I was looking at the fundamentals of THG, I was also doing some research on corporate governance issues on SGX listed companies in general. And I thought it would be more meaningful and rewarding if I could mix the two exercises together, i.e. subject THG with certain corporate governance issues I was looking at. That was how it started. I could have done it with any other company.
Don’t get me wrong, like “dydx”, I am an advocate of paying “fairly” for good and proven management team. I am even agreeable to scenario C (paying 7.8 million + 2.84 million to the directors)
if it is justifiable. What seems fair to one might not seem fair to another. (Please make your own judgment and draw your own conclusion).
I am not a remuneration expert. The exercise I am doing by comparing pays of top 5 employees/executives of various companies seems like a convenient and logical one to do. Its result at best is only as good as the quality of its underlying samples. One could also interpret the finding as “the executives of other companies (Emperor Watch and Hengdeli) are “underpaid” relative to THG. Also, there are limitations to the study such as - “existence of an outlier” and “sample size is too small”. As more companies are added, the results will change, for worst or for better, who knows? May be, the management of THG are “underpaid”? (Please make your own judgment and draw your own conclusion).
The pay issue will remain a concern of mine until I am convinced otherwise.
Would seeking expert advice from outside remuneration consultants in determining Directors’ pays, as outlined in guideline 7.3 of the revised code of Corporate Governance, be a better way forward?
In my opinion, regardless of the revised code of Corporate Governance with more disclosure and transparency, I believe the issue relating to remuneration of the executive directors of listed companies will remain a contentious one, as it has always been.
Lastly,
Quote from Musicwhiz on confirmation bias: “
When you are vested, you tend to look for positive news to affirm your convictions, and avoid negative news or news which does not conform to your beliefs.” In my opinion, avoid negative news at one's own risk, it could potentially lead to one's poor decision making.
Another quote from Thriftville : “
It's inevitable that those with vested interest can be biased. But why not treat the opposing view as an opportunity to re-evaluate your initial judgments/assumptions". In my opinion, this is a good attitude to adopt.
(Vested in both THG and Emperor Watch)
