');
    • limpid

      Just visiting?   27/12/16

      Please click "Sign Up" and login to use the full functionality of the site.

Risso

Full Members
  • Content count

    11,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Risso last won the day on April 3 2016

Risso had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,164 Excellent

About Risso

  • Rank
    Sporting Nostradamus

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    IOM

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

1,902 profile views
  1. Zelda - Breath of the Wild

    Sorry that’s gone way over my head I’m afraid.
  2. Zelda - Breath of the Wild

    46. Will probably still be playing this when I’m 56!
  3. Zelda - Breath of the Wild

    This is so vast, it’s huge. Never, ever run out of things to do. Because I’m quite bad ass now and all pimped up I’ve taken to going round and handing out a portion of whupass to any and all guardians I meet.
  4. Zelda - Breath of the Wild

    I've done all the 4 Divine Beasts now, and am now going for all of the Ancient armor, which you need a lot of Guardian parts for. If you haven't done all of the divine beasts, do the Gerudo camel one last. Something REALLY annoying happens after you do that might spoil your exploaration, it's pissing me right off.
  5. U.S. Politics

    Yes, I tried to communicate it to you via the medium of telepathy, but I think your tinfoil hat is blocking the signal.
  6. U.S. Politics

    Unless of course, they are deriding actual, crazy batshit mental conspiracy theories like the moon landings not happening.
  7. Zelda - Breath of the Wild

    The hints above really helped with that, tbh, did it the next try after reading the advice. The mini boss fight was very easy indeed.
  8. I honestly don't know Pete. Being a bit of an accounts geek, I've looked at a few 'clawback and malus' provisions in various Plc accounts today, and most of them have that misstatement line in. Corporate Governance says that big companies have to have the provisions in their accounts, but the act doesn't prescribe what the triggers for clawback should be. It could be that "corporate failure" is just too wide a definition to have any chance of being legally enforceable? I mean, it's possible to think of circumstances where a company goes bust through no fault of the directors, and in that case would it be legal to strip them of their remuneration? Obviously that isn't the case with Carillion, but I would think that in general clawback might only be enforceable for actions that the directors themselves were responsible for, and if so, the 2015 accounts might just not have drafted it very well. Another point is, there are surely times when you'd want to take a bonus back, even if the company hadn't gone bust? If say the profits had been overstated and bonuses had been paid accordingly, you'd surely expect the bonuses to be paid back? If the only trigger is corporate failure, then theoretically the directors would be free to keep the cash. By putting the misstatement and fraud line in, I would think that would lead to more refunds than when companies go bust, albeit that very obviously isn't the case here.
  9. Crypto currency

    Took a grand profit out of Ethereum, which I'm very glad about, as it's absolutely tanked over the last couple of days. I'm square at the moment, but going to sit tight and hopefully things will bounce back over time. I've also got a friend who's a currency trader, and he's currently returning about 20% a year on "proper" currencies, so that's going in the right direction.
  10. Also on the topic of bonuses, I believe that the Liquidator has the power to make them return the cash as well.
  11. Zelda - Breath of the Wild

    I'm on the boss fight for the camel now, probably the hardest one.
  12. I don't think it is that clear cut, unfortunately. The remuneration policy including bonuses isn't decided by the executive directors themselves, rather it's the supposedly independent non-exec Remuneration Committee, so that's one defence they'll have. In any case, I can't see looking at the circumstances that it really matters. The accounts MUST have been materially misstated in which case those are the circumstances under which the bonuses can and will be clawed back.
  13. The Film Thread

    Spot on. I never used to miss an episode, but it's far too self-referential these days.
  14. That's the crux of the issue in my opinion. Details of the 2015 bonuses are here - http://annualreport2015.carillionplc.com/downloads/Carillion_AR15_Governance.pdf from page 57 onwards. They detail what the directors' bonuses are based on, and how they performed. On the question of clawback on page 61 it says "– A clawback provision is operated that gives the Remuneration Committee the right to recover all elements of bonus. in relation to circumstances of corporate failure, which may have occurred at any time before malus is operated." On the equivalent 2016 report at http://annualreport2016.carillionplc.com/downloads/Carillion_Governance.pdf it says the same thing, ie "- A clawback provision is operated that gives the Remuneration Committee the right to recover all elements of bonus." as above, but importantly adds the following paragraph later in the report: - ‘Malus’ or ‘clawback’ may be applied if: (1) the results for the year in respect of which the award was made (or, in the case of a LEAP award, for a year in the performance period) have been misstated, resulting in a restatement of the Company’s accounts (other than where the restatement is due to a change in accounting standards, policies or practices adopted by the Company); or (2) the participant is guilty of gross misconduct. So, I think the question is, was this merely a clarification of the rules regarding clawback as required by the new Corporate Governance Code, or what is it indeed put in place to protect directors' interests? I don't think this is clear cut, as the results at the time appeared to be fairly healthy and the Remuneration Committee is supposed to be independent of the main executive board, but who knows? I think it's largely a moot point anyway, as I would be very surprised if it could be argued that the accounts weren't misstated, and if this is the case, the bonuses could be clawed back.
  15. So you think that 2016 remuneration for Carillion directors was based on the fact that that the remuneration committee knew that they were going to go bust in 2018?