Tyries complaint is that the minutes of the failed Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS were next to useless for investigators conducting postmortems. If the non-executive directors were doing their job of challenging management and assessing risks, it was impossible to tell from written records. Disagreements werent routinely recorded, so the minutes could not serve as a black box to help prevent future mistakes. Sort it out, Tyrie told the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (Icsa) last year.
The body has failed to do so, says Tyrie now. Its response is deeply flawed and inadequate because it clings to the idea that directors must actively demand that their dissent be noted, he suggests. That, as Tyrie implies, seems unhelpful and defensive.
Simon Osborne, who might have expected a quiet life as chief executive of Icsa, is the man in the firing line. I would be very grateful if Icsa could take another look, writes Tryie, terribly politely. Translation: do so before I summon the chancellor and the governor of the Bank of England.
We fly as before Brexit does not make much difference because EasyJet will become an EU co
Just remember to get out of easyJet in good time before Brexit, as this is one business that will be cruicified by restricted travel to and from the EU.
I suspect Easyjet is oversold. Opportunity?
SVG Capital needs to do something about Brand Energy, one of the companies it owns. Their bonds have been downgraded deep into junk territory. They need to change the management totally.
They need to get rid of the CEO and the ex-GE people he brought in. The Houston area is especially bad and the executives there should be removed immediately. The latest Moody’s report said the only thing good about the company is that it can still borrow money. That’s pathetic. That shows how horrible the CEO and his ex-GE friends have been. Brand Energy may be the biggest joke in private equity today. SVG Capital needs to stop letting the CEO of Brand get away with his nepotism and incompetence.
As Policy and Research Director of ICSA: The Governance Institute, I feel I should respond.
We disagree with Andrew Tyrie’s view that our guidance on minute taking is inadequate. This is not because we do not believe that board minutes should record areas of substantive disagreement among directors. They should, and our guidance says so. The minutes of a meeting should include details of decisions made, the reasons for them, actions arising if applicable and the key points of the discussion. This should be sufficient to enable someone not at the meeting to understand not only what decisions the board made but why they made them. Subject only to the need to be balanced, that summary of the discussion should include coverage of material challenge.
However, the overwhelming majority of board decisions are reached by consensus. There may well be a number of views expressed in discussion which may, or may not, form part of the collective decision. The discussion is an important element of the board decision-making process and will often include constructive challenge. That is different from dissent, which we believe should be, and have been told is, rare in board meetings.
A director may well express differing views during a discussion that ultimately results in unanimous agreement, but it is important to distinguish between this and a situation where a director feels the need to disagree publicly with the final decision. Given the collective responsibility of a unitary board, we believe that there should be a high bar before this happens – it is not something that directors take lightly. We therefore believe it entirely appropriate that directors be asked to confirm their formal disagreement with a decision before that dissent is recorded. The guidance clearly states that a chairman can direct that a director’s dissent be recorded even where an individual does not make a request for their dissenting view to be noted in the minutes. We also offer a suggestion as to how dissent might be recorded.
We consider this to be helpful rather than unhelpful.
EasyJet needs to improve its timekeeping if it wants to retain its customers and to offer proper explanations to frustrated passengers.
On a recent weekend visit to friends in Poland the scheduled late afternoon flight from Gatwick arrived so late the last train from Krakow Airport into the city had gone and only three border officials were left to handle a planeful of families returning for a Polish public holiday.
Three days later the return flight due into Gatwick by 11pm was so late the first train home -- long after the Underground system had closed -- landed me home just two hours before I was due to start a day's work.
In Poland I was told many preferred RyanAir despite its downsides because it generally kept better time