Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

MNY

Click for more information

0.00%

$3.15 money3 corporation limited

I agree. Add into that a pile of cash and 50m in borowing...

First 6 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
JoeGambler

1,236 Posts.

114

29/06/18

11:35

Post #: 34034745
Share

Originally posted by Madtrader ↑

It is a net positive that he will be retained in the business to assist growth. I can't help but view a 3% open ended bonus in this fashion as potentially having some issues and we are left without much detail...

- Firstly poor capital decisions can be made and kept out of EBITDA depending on how EBITDA is defined (e.g. asset write-offs), which doesn't seem appropriate. What if a new computer system is developed because there is the feeling that the team want to do something big and bold, but the system actually doesn't meet its cost of capital, doesn't work, etc. etc. A write off might be included in a normalised EBITDA (who knows), but normal D&A isn't and I feel that a bonus scheme should feel the costs of capital allocation decisions. EBITDA is a metric that assumes you don't need to invest in capital and that the operating cash flows can be made without it.

- does it include a normalisation for the cost of capital. Not straight debt funding costs but cost of capital - for example 15-16% on equity. If total bottom line grows at the expense of returns on equity, I'm not sure that's something that's worth paying for as a shareholder and I wouldn't want to see growth at all costs.

- what claw back provisions are in there? The lending cycle for secured automotive loans could easily be 3-5 years on average and thus if poor loan underwriting occurs that means large write-offs later I would like to know what provisions are included to capture those events, or other such items that will only appear on a longer term basis and what deferal or other claw back mechanism ensures the effects of decisions made that only show up later are factored.

- is the scheme a short-term cash or does it include deferred payment terms and tranching.

- what provisions are included regarding non-financial targets. If there are none at all, then this would be completely inappropriate in my view as it has the potential to incentivise unethical decision making. For example, there should be requirements included regarding regulatory compliance, enforceable undertakings, ombudsman type issues, etc.

- straight growth in EBITDA will potentially lead to entrenched decision making regarding dividend policy as there is less incentive to pay out a dividend when the Chairman is incentivised to retain the funds in the business. That will only have a counter-balance if the cost of equity on opening equity each year is factored into the required EBITDA normalisation each year on a compounded basis.

I could go on and on, but it is uncertain from the announcement how poorly devised or not the arrangement actually is and it's quite likely it is poorly devised from a shareholder's perspective. Depending on how it is structured will have an influence on whether I want to continue with my holding as in my experience one of the most powerful tools in creating wrong or unintended consequences is poorly designed incentive schemes for senior executives. They can be incredibly toxic. 3% of growth isn't a small amount to the individual and will create real life behaviours so if under the hood the above items aren't taken into account, then I will need to consider my shareholding. At the moment we are left guessing however on what I feel is a material item.

Expand

I agree.

Add into that a pile of cash and 50m in borowing headroom and the temptation to lower lending standards for short term growth is a real risk.

If incentives are paid out quickly and on the back of 'normalised' operating earnings, it could be a recipe for short term thinking.

He certainly has a track record and decent skin in the game, as does Scott Baldwin now, however like you say, we will need to see the finer details.

I wouldn't be suprised if it is structured poorly from a shareholders point of view. This is the same management team that paid themselves millions of low strike price options a couple of years ago for ousting Rob Bryant and pursuing auto lending.

Auto lending has been sucessful so far, however the bar was set very low and the dillution is significant relative to that.

Last edited by JoeGambler: 29/06/18

MNY Price at posting: $1.93 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
2 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

ACW

This biotech stock raised $11M in a risk-off environment. Its Alzheimer's drug could change the game

Dale Gillham's weekly wrap: Bold moves in NZ, caution in Australia

History-making uranium sample grades and an imminent drill run. Infini Resources is poised to transform in 2025

Ice-cold winner: Cryopreserver Vitrafy escapes November's IPO struggles to end debut week higher

ADD

Parkes Au-Cu project to 'transform' Adavale Resources with key targets

RSG

Resolute shares bounce back as second payment made to Mali government to secure workers' release

Week 48 Wrap: ASX flirts with 8,500pts; APRA declines mortgage loan easing; Trump's Bessent tied to Dem donor

MIN

MinRes's Ellison knows he screwed up – for that reason, hunt for new Chair to be sped up

WC8

Pan Asia rebranding to 'clear confusion' after bagging $35M for Chile projects

HotCopper Highlights: Your most watched stocks for Week 48, 2024

There are more pages in this discussion • 1 more message in this thread...

First 6 Last

Add MNY (ASX) to my watchlist