Price Is A Problem In The Absence Of Value

The CEO of AMP is resigning, so I had a look at how the stock price has performed under his tenure.

Since being CEO, AMP’s stock has fallen 7% compared to the ASX 200 Index, which has risen 168% over that same time.

Hmmm……

BHP’s recently retired CEO oversaw a total stock return of negative 17% while the benchmark index broke even.

Qantas’ current CEO can brag that his company’s stock price has declined 46% during his watch vs. the index return of + 55%.

Myer’s stock price has left shareholders 14% poorer (and I am counting dividends)  under the current steward but the index has climbed 28% over the same time period.

But I can hear the cries already. They’re in a tough industry, it’s cyclical, they inherited a bad egg from the previous boss, it’s competitive and margins are tight.

Perhaps the board is equally to blame for poor stock price performance as much the management team that is charged to execute the strategy?

To contrast, the current ANZ’s boss has presided over a 42% total stock return whilst the index fell 3%, Westpac’s stock performance has been an impressive 90%, which handsomely beats the 15% return that the index managed and last of all, had you owned that boring old power utility, AGL when their present CEO took over, your total return is 55% versus the ASX 200’s negative 3%.

Some commentators talk about what legacy a departing CEO has left or the systems they put into place.

Whilst they are being rewarded handsomely (which I don’t object to), shareholders rewards should be somewhat aligned.

Don’t even get me started on their “golden handshake” severance pay.