Next Investors logo grey

I mean really, do independent directors matter? – OPINION

Published 25-NOV-2015 10:35 A.M.


4 minute read

Hey! Looks like you have stumbled on the section of our website where we have archived articles from our old business model.

In 2019 the original founding team returned to run Next Investors, we changed our business model to only write about stocks we carefully research and are invested in for the long term.

The below articles were written under our previous business model. We have kept these articles online here for your reference.

Our new mission is to build a high performing ASX micro cap investment portfolio and share our research, analysis and investment strategy with our readers.

Click Here to View Latest Articles

Yesterday’s result from the Harvey Norman (ASX:HVN) annual general meeting shows that if it weren’t immediately apparent, retail investors have very little power in the game when it comes to the big boys.

There have long been rumblings about the way the retailer operates, particularly with the make-up of its board.

Harvey Norman has claimed three of its nine non-executive board members are ‘independent’, except they’re not exactly the hands-off figures you may expect.

Christopher Brown, Kenneth Gunderson-Briggs and Graham Paton in particular have been queried as to their independence.

These three men in particular have been on the board for 28 years, 12 years, and eight years respectively.

Doesn’t give you the sort of independence you want from an independent director.

Harvey Norman is by no means a bad-performing company, indeed in the latest financial year it reported net profit after tax growth of 26.6% on the previous year to $268.1 million.

In the past year, its shares have gone up about 7.5% to $4.05.

This beats investing in Myers, which has suffered share price loss of over 40% in the previous year.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald under persistent questioning about the independence of its board, Harvey responded with incredulity, likening Harvey Norman to a family company rather than a public company.

“If we have people who don’t think like that they’re not on the board – that’s why we don’t like criticism from uninformed people because we know how hard we work,” he was quoted as saying.

“If you don’t believe us, sell your shares and stop complaining – buy your shares from other retailers who you think do it better.”

In fact, just on 5.36% of shareholders ended up voting against the company’s renumeration report. But, of course that’s a misleading number.

It turns out that 5.36% of shares were used to vote against the report. It may very well be that the dissenters represent a larger proportion of shareholders, but the institutional shareholders hold most of the cards.

Mad about milk

A lot of the incredulity about Harvey Norman’s recent strategy has centred around a rather unexpected move into dairy this year.

Back in September shareholders in HVN found out that they weren’t really invested in a retailer but an agriculture company.

It turned out that HVN had taken a 49.9% stake in a Victorian dairy farm for $39.9 million.

Next Investors Image

HVN gave very little indication as to why it invested shareholders’ money in the dairy industry.

That’s somewhat of an about-face.

While the rationale for the acquisition later played out in the press, there was a fairly short statement to the ASX about it.

There was no rationale, no slide deck, no explanation to shareholders about the deal or why the company had elected to take this step with shareholders’ cash.

For some, it smacked of the type of decision which could be made without strong independent directors providing a dissenting voice to the Harvey family.

That’s not to say some confusing decisions haven’t been made by companies with strong, independent boards, but there’s likely less chance of independent directors providing no opposition to such a plan.

If HVN investors wanted to be exposed to dairy, they’d invest in a company which does dairy as its primary business.

The voice of sanity?

So does an independent director actually provide the voice of sanity within the boardroom or are they just there for appearance’s sake and to pick up the paycheque?

The Australian Shareholders Association, which acts as an advocate for retail shareholders, says that independent directors really shouldn’t be on the board for more than 12 years.

It also says the majority of the board should be genuinely independent.

“A majority of the board should be comprised of genuinely independent directors,” it says in its voting guidelines for ASX 200 companies.

“Strict independence criteria includes issues such as tenure, associations and related party transactions. Where there is not a clear majority of independent directors, ASA may oppose the re-election of directors classified as ‘not independent’.”

The reasoning is that non-executive directors are more likely to pipe up and provide some kind of opposition for shareholders when companies are on the brink of making potentially baffling decisions.

It’s easier to do that if you’re not good mates with the CEO or chairman.

One of the most dangerous things you can do in business is, to put it bluntly, believe your own bullshit.

Ideally, independent directors provide that guard against hubris and is why it’s vital for large companies such as HVN to make sure their boards are largely independent.

The author does not own shares in HVN

General Information Only

S3 Consortium Pty Ltd (S3, ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’) (CAR No. 433913) is a corporate authorised representative of LeMessurier Securities Pty Ltd (AFSL No. 296877). The information contained in this article is general information and is for informational purposes only. Any advice is general advice only. Any advice contained in this article does not constitute personal advice and S3 has not taken into consideration your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Please seek your own independent professional advice before making any financial investment decision. Those persons acting upon information contained in this article do so entirely at their own risk.

Conflicts of Interest Notice

S3 and its associated entities may hold investments in companies featured in its articles, including through being paid in the securities of the companies we provide commentary on. We disclose the securities held in relation to a particular company that we provide commentary on. Refer to our Disclosure Policy for information on our self-imposed trading blackouts, hold conditions and de-risking (sell conditions) which seek to mitigate against any potential conflicts of interest.

Publication Notice and Disclaimer

The information contained in this article is current as at the publication date. At the time of publishing, the information contained in this article is based on sources which are available in the public domain that we consider to be reliable, and our own analysis of those sources. The views of the author may not reflect the views of the AFSL holder. Any decision by you to purchase securities in the companies featured in this article should be done so after you have sought your own independent professional advice regarding this information and made your own inquiries as to the validity of any information in this article.

Any forward-looking statements contained in this article are not guarantees or predictions of future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may cause actual results or performance of companies featured to differ materially from those expressed in the statements contained in this article. S3 cannot and does not give any assurance that the results or performance expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements contained in this article will actually occur and readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

This article may include references to our past investing performance. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of our future investing performance.