management | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

How tech savvy are our corporate CEOs?

How aware of technology are Australia’s Chief Executive Officers?

Yesterday I asked are executives out of touch with IT industry trends.

To figure out the answer to that question, I had a look at the backgrounds of the ASX20‘s CEOs. It’s difficult to draw a conclusion from the results.

ASX 20 CEO backgrounds

Company	CEO	Industry background	Degree
AMP	Craig Dunn	Financial services	BComm
ANZ Bank	Michael Smith	Financial services	Economist
BHP Billiton	Andrew MacKenzie	Mining	Phd in Chemistry
Brambles	Tom Gorman	Finance	Economist
Commonwealth Bank	Ian Narev	Consulting	Law Degree
CSL	Brian McNamee	Medicine	surgeon
Macquarie Group Ltd	Nicholas Moore	Investment banking	lawyer
National Australia Bank Ltd	Cameron Clyne	investment banking	arts/economics
Newcrest Mining Ltd	Greg Robinson	finance	BSci Geology
Origin Energy	Grant A. King	Energy industry	Civil Engineer
QBE Insurance Group Ltd	John Neal	finance
Rio Tinto Ltd	Sam Walsh	mining	BComm
Santos Ltd	David Knox	Oil and Gas	BEng (mech)
Suncorp Group Ltd	Patrick Snowball	Finance industry	Law, LLD
Telstra Corp Ltd	David Thodey	IT/Telecoms	BA (anthropology)
Wesfarmers Ltd	Richard Goyder	Diversified industrial	BComm
Westfield Group	Peter & Stephen Lowy	Investment banking	BComm
Westpac Banking Corp	Gail Kelly	Financial services	BA
Woodside Petroleum Ltd	Peter J Coleman?	Oil and Gas	BEng
Woolworths Ltd	Grant O’Brien	Retail	Accountant

What stands out from the list is the dominance of executives from a financial services and commerce background, although that’s hardly surprising given the weight of the banking sector in the Australian stock market.

An encouraging trend in the mining sector, the other sector highly represented in the index, is how the industry’s CEOs tend to be from a scientific or Engineering background.

Coming from a science background would tend to indicate the CEOs are probably more across technology trends than we’d think, although the compositions of the boards would probably tell us a little more about the net saviness of the corprorate sector.

That might be an exercise for the weekend.

Doing social media right

Whoever runs your social media feed is an official spokesman, it’s important to choose the right person and give them authority.

After last week’s Associated Press hack and the stock exchange fallout, regulators are struggling with implications of social media and informed markets.

In a speech delivered last week the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s Deputy Chair Belinda Gibson and Commissioner John Price gave some refreshing commonsense views on how businesses should handle public information.

The continuous disclosure advice given by Price and Gibson is aimed at meeting the requirements of Australian corporate law, but it’s actually good social media advice.

Having delegations in place for who has authority to speak on behalf of the company – whether in response to an ASX ‘price query’ or ‘aware’ letter, or when they become aware of information that needs to be released to the market, perhaps in response to speculation.
Ensuring that there is a designated contact person to liaise with the ASX, who has the requisite organisational knowledge and is contactable by ASX.
Have a clear rapid response plan and ensure all board members and senior executives are fully appraised of it. Give it a practice run every so often – a stress test of sorts.
Have a plan for when you will consider a trading halt appropriate.
Have a ‘Request for trading halt’ letter template ready for use.
Have guidelines for determining what is ‘material’ information for disclosure, tailored to your company.
Prepare a draft announcement where you are doing a deal that will
likely require an announcement at some time, and a stop-gap one in case of a leak

Having a nominated contact person with requisite organisational knowledge is possibly the most important point for any organisation.

Even if you think social media is just people posting what they had for lunch or sharing cute cat pictures, it isn’t going away and those Twitter feeds and Facebook pages are now considered official communications channels.

The intern running your social media is now your company’s official spokesperson. Are you comfortable with this?

A good example of where this can go wrong is the Australian Prime Minister’s Press Office where an immature staff member has been put in charge of posting messages. The results aren’t pretty.

The funny thing is the Prime Minister’s office would never dream of some dill getting up and saying this sort of thing on her behalf, yet allows an inexperienced, loose cannon put this sort of material in writing on the public internet.

Here’s Twenty Rules for Politicians using the Internet.

On a more mature level, the ASIC executives also have some good advice on writing for social media.

Don’t assume that the reader is sophisticated or leave readers to read between the lines. Companies need to highlight key information and tell it plainly.

While the ASIC speech is aimed at the specific problems of complying with company law and listing requirements, it’s a worthwhile guide for any organisation needing to manage its online presence.

Don’t be like the Prime Minister’s office, understand that an organisation’s social media presence is an official channel and treat it with the respect it deserves.

Why Australia needs foreign ownership

Foreign investment is making up for the lack of Australian interest in local assets.

Such are the vagaries of radio that I’ve been asked to comment on ABC Radio South Australia about foreign ownership based on an article that was picked up by The Drum 14 months ago.

That article was written shortly after Dick Smith came out grumbling about the prospect of Woolworths selling the electronics store chain named after him to foreign interests.

My point at the time was that foreign owners would be preferable to some poorly managed, undercapitalised local buyer as the Australian retail industry – even in a declining market like consumer electronics – needs more innovation and original thinking.

As it turned out, Dick Smith Electronics was sold to Anchorage Capital, a private equity turn around fund with an interesting portfolio of businesses.

In the meantime, the argument about foreign ownership of property and businesses, particularly farms, has ratcheted up as opportunistic politicians and the shock jock peanut gallery that sets much of Australia’s media agenda have found a cheap, jingoistic issue to score points from.

So why is foreign ownership of businesses like farms, mines and factories important for Australia?

A fair price for hard work

The main reason for supporting foreign buyers for Aussie businesses is it gives entrepreneurs a chance to get a fair price for their hard work.

A farmer or factory owner who builds their business shouldn’t have to accept a lower price because Australians don’t want to pay for the asset.

It’s not a matter of being able to pay Australians as have plenty of money to invest – a trillion dollars in superannuation funds and three billion dollars claimed for negative losses in 2009-10 show there’s plenty of money around – it’s just that Aussies don’t want to invest in farming, mining or other productive sectors.

We’re already seeing this play out in the small business sector as baby boomer proprietors find they aren’t going to sell their ventures for what they need to fund their retirement.

Access to capital

Should the protectionists get their way then the businesses and farms will eventually be sold to undercapitalised Australian investors at knock down prices.

This is the worse possible thing that could happen as not only do the entrepreneurs miss out, but also the factories and farms decline as they are starved of capital investment.

Cubby Station

A good example of both the lack of capital affecting investment and finding a fair price for ventures is Queensland’s Cubby Station.

While I personally think Cubby Station is an example of the economic bastardry and environmental vandalism that are the hallmarks of the droolingly incompetent National Party and its corrupt cronies, the venture itself is a good example of why the agriculture sector needs foreign investment.

Having been converted from cattle to cotton in the 1970s, Cubbie grew as successive owners acquired water licenses from surrounding properties.

Eventually the company collapsed under the weight of its debts in 2009 and the property was allowed to run down by the administrators until it was bought by Chinese backed interests at the beginning of 2013.

At the time of the acquisition, the company’s former chairman told The Australian, “on reflection, I would go into those things with an even stronger balance sheet — in other words, with less gearing.”

In other words, the company was under-capitalised.

Competition concerns

Another reason for encouraging foreign ownership is that Australia has become the Noah’s Ark of business with duopolies dominating most key sectors.

Bringing in foreign owners at least offers the prospect of having alternatives to the comfortable two horse races that dominate most industries.

The property market

An aspect that has excited the peanut shock jocks has been the prospect of Chinese buyers purchasing all the country’s property.

For those of us with memories longer than goldfish, today’s Chinese mania is almost identical to the Japanese buying frenzy of the late 1980s.

Much of what we read about the Chinese buying homes is self serving tosh from property developers and real estate agents and what mania there is will peter out in a similar way to how the Japanese slowly withdrew.

This isn’t to say there shouldn’t be concerns about foreign ownership – tax avoidance, loss of sovereignty and Australia’s small domestic market are all valid questions that should be raised about overseas buyers, but overall much of the hysteria about foreign ownership is misplaced.

What Australians should be asking is why the locals aren’t investing in productive industries or buying mining and farming assets.

The answer almost certainly is that we’d rather stick with the ‘safety’ of the ASX 200 or the residential property market.

We’ve made our choices and we shouldn’t complain when Johnny Foreigner sees opportunities that beyond negative geared investment units or an tax advantaged superannuation fund.

Driving a horse and cart in a digital economy

A lack of understanding about how to use digital tools threatens businesses in the 21st Century

“There’s no point in building a highway if no-one can drive” Tasmanian business leader Jane Bennett said about the Australian National Broadband Network during an interview last week.

Jane was touching on an important point about the digital economy – that most businesses aren’t equipped to deal with it.

That half of businesses in the US, UK or Australia don’t have a website illustrates that in itself. What’s really worrying is setting up a website is the easy part and has been standard for a decade.

In many respects this isn’t new, a similar thing happened when mains electricity or the motor car arrived. Many businesses clung desperately to their oil filled lamps and horse drawn carts way past the time these were superseded.

Well into the 1970s there were hold outs who continued to ply their carts despite the costs of keeping horses on the road being far greater than buying a truck.

That failure to learn about and invest in new technologies saw all those businesses die, many of them with the owner who’d eked out a living as a milko or rag and bone man for decades.

On a bigger level, the struggles of the local milkman with his Clydesdale is a worrying reflection of business underinvestment. These folk are stuck with old equipment because they didn’t have the funds to spend on bringing their equipment up to Twentieth Century standards.

In the 1980s I saw this first hand in some of Australia’s factories. A foreman at a valve manufacturer in Western Sydney boasted to me how he had done his apprenticeship on a particular lathe fifty years earlier.

That machine still had the belt and pulley assembly from the days when the factory was powered by a steam engine at one end of the plant. It had an electric motor bolted onto it some time in the 1960s but was largely unaltered since.

It was understandable many Australian factory owners wouldn’t invest after World War II – many industries were protected and property speculation offered, and still does, better returns.

Another reason for not investing was the sheer cost of buying new equipment, major capital expenditures are risky and for most businesses it wasn’t work taking those risks.

Today there’s a big difference, hardware and software are far cheaper than they were in the 1960s or 70s with the big investment being in understanding and implementing the new technologies.

Few businesses don’t have computers or the internet but most of the things we do online are just variations on how our great grandparents worked with documents, filing cabinets and the penny post. We have to rethink how we use technology in business.

It would be a shame if we find ourselves stuck on the side of the highway wondering what the hell happened in the early years of the 21st Century.

Stage coach image courtesy of Velda Christensen at http://www.novapages.com/

Fire and be dammed, the poor management at tech companies

Quick firing firing of employees who make mistakes shows a weakness in the management of many tech companies.

Microsoft manager Adam Orth has joined the ranks of those fired after some poorly thought out comments found their way onto the Reddit discussion boards. The firing of Orth illustrates a weakness in the management of tech firms.

Orth’s firing follows the “forked dongle” affair where two developers lost their jobs over sexist comments at an industry conference.

What’s notable in all these firings is how Playhaven, SendGrid and Microsoft’s management all summarily fired their employees for what at worse could be described as a ‘lapse of judgement’.

One of the conceits of modern management is that risk can be eliminated, the mark of a poor manager is to act quickly to get rid of anything that could potentially be a risk.

These tech companies are good illustrations of this – neither Adam Orth, Adria Richards or the Playhaven developer deserved to lose their jobs over this, all it required was an apology and commitment to be more careful about what they post on the public internet in future.

All of us, including the sensitive and incompetent firing managers, have something on the internet that could embarrass us or our employers. In an era where people are quick to take offense, it’s easy for something taken out of context to spin out of control.

That’s a risk beyond the control of middle managers at software companies.

Hiding from risks or attempting to purge them is not the way to run an organisation. Strong, good managers can do better than that.

Management manual image by Ulrik through SXC.hu

They do it different over here

Microsoft and Apple discover the downside of being multinationals in China

Among expats in Thailand the saying was “the locals can ignore the law, but multinationals can’t.”

Thailand has some pretty strict laws on employee wages, workplace safety and council permits. Pretty well every business ignores them except the multinationals.

Generally Thais don’t complain about businesses not complying with the rules and the authorities are reluctant to take action.

Unless you’re a multinational, in which case the slightest irregularity in pay risks a visit from the police.

A few days in the Bangkok Immigration Gaol while the misunderstanding is sorted out is a good lesson for any sloppy farang country manager who hasn’t been ticking all the boxes.

The recent protests in China against Apple and now Microsoft over warranties illustrate a similar situation in the PRC.

What’s fascinating though is how the complaints against Microsoft and Apple are part of the rising Chinese consumer movement.

It’s a tough life being a consumer advocate in China, leading protests against well connected local companies or their government cronies could be a career limiting move, or much worse.

On the other hand it’s safe to criticise an American corporation and its much more likely to get results.

So managers of foreign companies in China have to be far more responsive to complaints than their local counterparts as Apple and Microsoft have learned.

For multinationals there is an upside to this, foreign companies tend to get better staff as they don’t mess people around with pay and their products are seen as being better because they do honor warranties.

It ends up being swings and roundabouts, but it does emphasise the traps for inexperienced expat managers who can unwittingly get themselves in trouble.

Apple and Microsoft have learned their lesson about customer service in China, you wonder how many others are still to do so.

Penny wise and pound foolish

Saving money on technology is often a bad investment as the V8 Supercars found

“We were penny wise and pound foolish” says Peter Trimble, Finance and Systems director of the V8 Supercars, about the IT setup he found when he started with the motor sport organisation 18 months ago.

The V8 Supercars were like many businesses who had outgrown their basic IT setup and were struggling as a result.

A touring organisation – “a travelling circus” as described by CEO David Malone – with 15 races in Australia, New Zealand the US has some fairly unique challenges as contractors, teams and a dispersed workforce put demands on the businesses which a basic small business system struggles to cope with.

What Trimble found at the business were employees struggling with cheap internet connections and antiquated, inadequate servers.

Focusing on the pennies and missing the bigger picture is a common problem when managements skimp on technology which leaves their staff spending more time on IT problems than getting their jobs done.

Basically the $80 a month home internet connection doesn’t cut it when you have more than two or three workers and the server that worked fine when those people were in the same office becomes a security risk when a dozen a people are trying to login over the Internet.

It wasn’t surprising the V8 Supercars management decided to go with a cloud computing service – in this case Microsoft Office 365 – and invest in proper, reliable internet connections.

What the Supercars found that being penny proud and pound foolish with IT doesn’t work for a business, office tech is an essential investment.

Paul travelled to the V8 Supercars in Launceston courtesy of Microsoft Australia.

Corporate palaces and the new Ceasars

An opulent corporate headquarters is often the indicator that management’s mind is on things other than customer service or shareholder’s return.

One of the key traits of managerialism is executives spending vast quantities of shareholders’ money on opulent corporate headquarters, is Apple the latest company to succumb to this disease?

Building a new headquarters is fun for managers. One company I worked for in the early 1990s was debilitated for months as executives spent most of their time moving walls, rearranging desk positions and changing lift designs to reflect their status as grand visionaries.

For the company gripped with delusions of management grandeur a flashy head office is the must have accessory. It’s the corporate equivalent of the Skyscraper Index and is almost as good a predictor that a change in fortunes is imminent.

Apple’s new headquarters is nothing if not impressive. Bloomberg Newsweek reports the building which, at two thirds the size of the Pentagon, will house 12,000 employees is currently estimated at costing five billion dollars, sixty percent over the original budget.

The plans call for unprecedented 40-foot, floor-to-ceiling panes of concave glass from Germany. Before the Cupertino council, Jobs noted, “there isn’t a straight piece of glass on the whole building?…?and as you know if you build things, this isn’t the cheapest way to build them.”

With over a $120 billion in cash, Apple can certainly afford to spend five or ten billion on new digs despite the grumbling of shareholders who have had to settle for a stingy 2.4% dividend from their shares.

The big question though for Apple shareholders though is whether a project like this indicates a company that has peaked with management more intent on building monuments to itself or its genuinely visionary founder rather than deliver returns to owners or products to customers.

On the latter point, there’s no evidence of Apple losing their way with their products yet, but it’s something worth watching in case management becomes distracted with their building project.

For the company I worked for, the distracted managers all vanished one day when the main shareholder of the Thai-Singaporean joint venture discovered they’d been fiddling the books. They probably needed to pay for the office fit out.

Technology Cannot Save You – the limitations of relying on IT

Managerialism will always trump technology which is why IT can’t solve problems caused by management incompetence.

One of the great conceits of modern times is that technology can solve any problem – the problems of Sydney’s transport system is an example of how IT can’t overcome managerial incompetence.

The irrepressible New Australian has a good post about Sydney transport system and its battles with the opal card.

Australian governments have been troubled with smartcard ticketing systems for decades, the Opal Card itself was promised in time for the Sydney Olympics thirteen years ago. Little has been done since.

The fundamental problem is that governments are being sold technology solutions to fix management and political challenges.

In Sydney’s case the problem is a complex fare structure and a Balkanised public transport system – check the situation for a commuter wanting to travel from Parramatta to the city.

Ferry fare $7.20
Train fare $5.00
Bus fare $4.60

The above fares are the standard single journeys, to make matters worse there’s a mind boggling range of concession, off-peak and periodic fares whose structure owes more to political opportunism, managerial incompetence and agency jobsworths protecting their turf than any logic or fairness.

Without a logical or consistent to calculating the fares, computer algorithms have no hope – managerialism trumps coding every time.

Basically Sydney has no chance of getting their system working properly without having an integrated fare and management structure. Technology cannot fix this problem.

This is not just a Sydney problem A great example of how incompetent management can screw up what should be a straightforward implementation is in Melbourne which has a comparatively simple time based price structure.

Melbourne’s Myki card has had a similarly troubled life being delivered decades late, hundreds of millions over budget and being so user unfriendly it seems designed to solve the city’s transport overcrowding problem by chasing away passengers.

Basically management incompetence by arrogant bureaucrats and ignorant ministers doomed Melbourne’s project from the start.

Australian governments aren’t the only organisations that fall for the fallacy that technology can solve their problems, around the world corporations and public agencies have made the same mistake.

This is something technologists, and more importantly taxpayers and shareholders, should keep in mind when a CEO or minister is trumpeting the latest technology to fix their organisation’s woes.

Image of the Opal Card brochure courtesy of The New Australian

Too many presidents spoil the enterprise computing broth

Oracle has an interesting management problem as revenues stagnate.

Last week Oracle, the world’s third largest software vendor, had an eight percent drop in its stock price after the company missed earning estimates.

Part of the research for are article I’m writing on the company involved digging into the organisational structure of the company and interestingly it has a pair of ‘co-presidents’ – Mark Hurd and Safra Katz.

Safra is the Chief Financial Officer who has a pretty powerful CV and seems well qualified for the job of controlling the finances of a $150 billion dollar company.

Mark on the other hand is my favourite IT executive, his tenure at HP is a case study in the entitlement culture of modern managerialism and no small reason for that company’s present day problems.

The analyst briefing (free subscription might be required) following Oracle’s disappointing reports betrays a little bit of tension between the two. First Safra;

We’re not at all pleased with our revenue growth this quarter. So it didn’t help that our quarter ended on the same day as the sequester deadline. What we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force as Q3 deals fall into Q4.

Since we’ve been adding literally thousands of new sales reps around the world, the problem was largely sales execution, especially with the new reps, as they ran out of runway in Q3.

It seems there’s a touch of ‘dog ate my homework’ in mentioning the US political sequester, but the message is clear – “what we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force.”

These are IT sales people we are talking about, ‘a lack of urgency’ is an insult to a group of people who have been known to work 120 hour weeks and sell their grandmothers if it means getting a fat commission.

Mark is in the poo. We quickly learn why when it’s his turn to speak,

We’ve added over 4,000 people to the Oracle sales force in the last 18 months. We’ve significantly expanded our customer coverage. We’ve seen material growth in our pipeline. But Q3 [conversion rates] were below what we expected, while our actual win rate went up.

An investor would hope there’s material growth in the sales pipeline when you’ve added 4,000 salespeople to your workforce.

In Oracle’s case though revenues have fallen .8% for the year and are only up 2% over the time Mark’s added all those go-getting Willy Lomans to the company’s payroll.

The interesting thing with Oracle’s figures is the company has spent nearly $400 million on restructuring costs over the last year, has hired over 4,000 new sales people and yet total operating costs, and margins, have barely moved in that time.

Which indicates somebody in Oracle is bearing the costs of Mark’s hiring spree.

During Hurd’s tenure at HP, he was notorious for penny pinching and cutting worker’s benefits. While staff were finding they were stuck in economy for international business meetings, Mark himself was staying at some of Europe’s best hotels and showing off his bank account to attractive employees.

Hopefully history isn’t repeating itself.

Probably the most perplexing thing with Oracle today are Mark’s and Safra’s roles of c0-Presidents. What on Earth are those roles?

Most telling with the co-Presidents is that they aren’t really in charge – if Larry Ellison, the CEO and founder, wakes up one morning and decides either Safra or Mark have to go then they’ll be out of the company well before lunchtime.

Along with carparking spots, inflated executive job titles are good indicator an organisation’s management is focusing on it’s perks, benefits and privileges rather than delivering for customers and shareholders.

Perhaps Oracle’s analysts and common stock holders should be focusing more on management’s behaviour more than the details of the company’s sales performance.

Walmart pays for cutting staff

Cutting staff numbers is costing Walmart dearly as customers desert the retailer for better stocked competitors.

Along with the carpark test, a lack of customer service is one of the best indicators that a company has lost its way.

Unattended reception desks, closed cash registers and deserted delivery docks are reliable indicators management has focused on short term staff savings which will ultimately cost the business dearly.

Walmart is the latest example of this with Bloomberg Businessweek reporting that US shoppers are deserting the chain because shelves are empty and stores don’t have enough staff.

The claim stock is piling up out the back of stores is particularly concerning, the just in time inventory management of modern retail chains means there’s little room for error as outlets don’t have a lot of space whil the cash flow of the business and its suppliers is based on getting goods quickly into the hands of eager consumers.

Some of Walmart’s pain will be spread among suppliers as the store’s contracts will push undoubtedly some of the costs of rejected deliveries back onto logistics companies, effectively creating problems through the entire supply chain.

No doubt there’s plenty of angry suppliers and truck drivers who are grumbling about lost time and payments on Walmart contracts. That won’t be good news for the company’s buyers when contracts come up for negotiation.

Even though Walmart’s management can throw some of their problems over the fence, the fundamental issue of losing customers can’t be missed.

Walmart’s isn’t the only retailer who’s fallen for the short term fix of cutting store staff to give a quick profit boost as department stores and big box outlets around the world struggle with the damaging effects of not being able to serve customers.

That Walmart, one of the industry’s global leaders, would make such a mis-step shows the pressures on managements as economies deleverage and credit wary consumers decide that don’t need more junk in their homes.

Cutting costs isn’t going to address those bigger trends, it’s going to take original thinking and management commitment to adding real value to customers.

Service is just the start of a long process of refocusing the retail empires.

Image of Albany Walmart courtesy of UpstateNYer through Wikimedia

Privileges and princelings

Many companies have developed a culture of executive privilege in an era of easy money.

A strange thing about Australian business reporting is that its often full of gossip and name dropping as any third rate scandal magazine.

In a perverse way, treating business executives like the Kardashians gives the average mug punter – and shareholders – a glimpse into how these companies do business. Like this story in the Australian Financial Review;

Hamish Tyrwhitt was unaware of the latest drama unfolding within the Leighton board as he relaxed in the Qantas First Class Lounge in Sydney on Friday morning.

Indeed, the contractor’s chief executive officer was busy chatting to former Wallabies captain John Eales while waiting to board a flight to Hong Kong where he was due to close a recent deal to build the Wynn Cotai hotel resort in Macau and enjoy the Sevens rugby tournament.

The timing was not good. Tyrwhitt had only just boarded the flight when the news broke that chairman Stephen Johns and two directors had resigned. Tyrwhitt was forced to change his plans and is expected back in Sydney for a board meeting convened this weekend.

Nice work if you can get it.

A few pages further in the day’s AFR is another gem;

One July evening about four years ago, off the south coast of France between Cannes and St Tropez, two men sat in the jacuzzi on the top deck of a 116-foot Azimut motor yacht. It was about 3am and the sea was rough. The spa water was sloshing about and had given the latest round of caprioskas a distinctly bitter taste.

Dodo boss Larry Kestelman was telling his good friend, M2 Telecommunications founder Vaughan Bowen, about the challenges of growing his internet service provider business.

It’s tough doing business when the spa waters are choppy. One expects better from a seven million dollar boat.

That second article raises another point that’s often overlooked, or unmentioned, when reporting Australian business matters.

on Thursday the 14th, something unexpected happened. At 12.30pm, after no activity all morning, shares in the thinly traded Eftel started to rise sharply. By the time the market closed at 4pm, Eftel had soared 44 per cent to 39.5¢. Someone with knowledge of the deal was insider trading.

Insider trading? On the Australian Security Exchange? Somebody had better call those super-efficient regulators who were responsible for Australia cruising through the global economic crisis of 2008.

Somebody obviously wanted their own 116ft luxury yacht or corporate box at the Hong Kong Sevens.

Both of these stories illustrate the hubris and privileges of corporate Australia and its regulators.

One wonders how well equipped these organisations are for an economic reversal when their leaders are more worried about caprioskas and their spots in the first class lounge.

We may yet find out.

First class airline seat images courtesy of Pyonko on Flickr and Wikimedia.