Homepage
PR Newswire
The Q&A provided by the Remuneration Committee is one of the most unthought of reply I have seen, under page 9 and 10
https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/SIAS%20QA...eID=724502
In 2019, yes they may have compared it. But using it in 2022, Best World Co-chairwomen are now the second and third highest paying executives among SGX listed companies. They are paid more than UOB, Wilmar, OCBC CEOs/Chairman and yet manage a business which is less than 10% of the profit scale. On a global scale, comparable CEOs in their industry are paid half of what Best World pays their management.
It shows the IDs were not actively benchmarking. The second question, I would ask of is which are the 22 companies were they comparing? and how did it stand now in 2022 of Best World's remuneration vis-a-vis these 22 companies. I am pretty sure the execs are now paid twice or thrice of these 22 SGX companies executives.
If IDs role is not to help minority shareholders as evident in TTJ and it seems that Best World IDs are also not helping minority shareholders either, I do think that Singapore needs to review its investment landscape and either allow investor activism to kick in or grant SIAS more teeth rather than it just being an advocacy group.
The difficulty in investing in founder led Singapore companies has grown with the tricks played by these founders and it is not good news for Singapore investors. This is probably why many well run but stingy Singapore companies trade similar to the market's valuation of China peers. It shows the market do not trust many Singapore companies outside the Temasek Sphere
I am finding it difficult to invest in Singapore-run companies with the exception of Temasek owned ones. Unfortunately, the SCM incident also shows this investment angle is becoming difficult. And to choose between a Singapore run and China run credible companies, I would prefer the chinese ones because they are more appreciative to OPMI such as yangzijiang and have larger scale.
https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/SIAS%20QA...eID=724502
In 2019, yes they may have compared it. But using it in 2022, Best World Co-chairwomen are now the second and third highest paying executives among SGX listed companies. They are paid more than UOB, Wilmar, OCBC CEOs/Chairman and yet manage a business which is less than 10% of the profit scale. On a global scale, comparable CEOs in their industry are paid half of what Best World pays their management.
It shows the IDs were not actively benchmarking. The second question, I would ask of is which are the 22 companies were they comparing? and how did it stand now in 2022 of Best World's remuneration vis-a-vis these 22 companies. I am pretty sure the execs are now paid twice or thrice of these 22 SGX companies executives.
If IDs role is not to help minority shareholders as evident in TTJ and it seems that Best World IDs are also not helping minority shareholders either, I do think that Singapore needs to review its investment landscape and either allow investor activism to kick in or grant SIAS more teeth rather than it just being an advocacy group.
The difficulty in investing in founder led Singapore companies has grown with the tricks played by these founders and it is not good news for Singapore investors. This is probably why many well run but stingy Singapore companies trade similar to the market's valuation of China peers. It shows the market do not trust many Singapore companies outside the Temasek Sphere
I am finding it difficult to invest in Singapore-run companies with the exception of Temasek owned ones. Unfortunately, the SCM incident also shows this investment angle is becoming difficult. And to choose between a Singapore run and China run credible companies, I would prefer the chinese ones because they are more appreciative to OPMI such as yangzijiang and have larger scale.