Like I say, he is no Mother Theresa. I don't think this is the...

Like I say, he is no Mother Theresa. I don't think this is the best business on the ASX, but I'm also pretty sure it is far from the worst. Very far.

The reported earnings, on average, well match reported cash flows.

Returns on capital (even stripping-out property revals) have, over the years, been more than acceptable. Even when retail spending was in the doldrums, over the FY's years 2011 to 2014, returns-on-capital were far very from disastrous.

The balance sheet has always been strong. In the last 9 years net debt-to equity has always been less than 30% and currently stands at about 18%, and only represents about 20% of the book value of owned property (of course for this,he get's accused of having a lazy balance sheet). Net interest cover, at the nadir of consumer spending, was still above 5 times. It currently sits at about 20 times.

The overseas forays have been unsatisfactory, but their damage has been limited as the amount of capital directed there has been relatively modest. He didn't, for instance, do the lemming march into China. Having a very substntial stake, he is well aware that it his capital he is wagering (unlike when, let's say Woolie's, goes into hardware, or expands into New Zealand).

He thinks for himself and is not driven by the "institutional imperative". I'm not suggesting this forgives all the negatives. I am suggesting that we are much more forgiving of those corporate leaders that say the right things and tick the right boxes, but ultimately do less good for a corporation than a goat tied to the office door knob.