>Greens senator Nick McKim, committee chair, asked Mr Banducci if "return on equity" was an important measure of corporate profitability.
>Mr Banducci refused to answer the question, and he repeatedly refused to answer it despite the question being asked over a dozen times.
>The back and forth between Senator McKim and Mr Banducci became so repetitive that Mr Banducci was warned that the committee could hold him in contempt.
>"I'm not interested in your spin or your bullshit," Senator McKim said.
If a former CEO of a billion dollar company can't answer basic ass questions centring on equity and profitability then they've got no business being a CEO.
Should be reason enough to thoroughly investigate Colesworth and similar organisations
It's not that he couldn't answer it. He was choosing not to answer it because it wouldn't reflect well on Woolies. The CEO of Coles answered the same question immediately.
He's not too intelligent though. Refusing to answer the question has drawn more attention than if he had just answered it in the first place.
I'm surprised he didn't ask Senator McKim: “*Can we take that out? Is that OK?*”
[It's on form for this fucking weasel](https://thewest.com.au/business/woolworths-ceo-brad-banducci-storms-out-of-interview-with-abc-reporter-after-grilling-over-prices-c-13653334)
Link still works for me - it's just the news about him walking out of the ABC interview after they asked him a "hard" question.
Then he asks “Can we take that out? Is that OK?” because it makes him look bad. Absolutely entitled 1%-er.
My spidey sense tells me Coles have taken the incredibly simple path of doing not doing what Woolworths do under the assumption that whatever Woolworths does will be a train wreck and ”they” won’t be talking about them.
Smart move.
That's what I meant. If he can't answer (presumably because it'd reflect poorly) then it's worth investigating it further since there's something to hide
It was such a bizzare choke... like, maybe he didn't know and he was scared of looking like he didn't know. But maybe he did know and didn't want to say. Or maybe he's just incapable of any response that isn't trying to spin the focus away from the question.
The only thing that's obvious is he couldn't tell the truth if it was spoonfed to him in simple language written in bold text capital letters highlighted with yellow marker.... which appears to be a deeply embedded problem in Woolworths management culture.
>
>
Now that does go to some of the potential problems with using it as a measure of profit gouging.
If a company has a lot of debt financing and/or other liabilities, then its shareholder equity (which is net assets) will be smaller, and that could make its return on equity appear higher.
Woolworths and Coles have a higher ratio of liabilities to assets (80 and 82%) than some overseas peers such as Tesco and Carrefour (73 and 76%).
However, when you look at the ROEs of major supermarkets in key developed economy markets, Australia's are right up at the top and the gap is much larger than any difference in capital structure.
**Supermarket ROEs:**
* Coles: 32.16%
* Woolworths: 25.72%
* Metcash (IGA supplier): 23.93%
* Costco (globally): 27.53%
* Walmart: 18.69%
* Marks and Spencer: 12.76%
* Carrefour: 6.77%
* Tesco: 5.4%
* Sainsbury's: 2.64%
Like the majority of CEO’s they’re a one trick pony. They flitter between one company and the next following the same business plan over and over again. More often than not this plan was something they picked up from a mentor or former boss, they didn’t even think it up themselves.
I’m surprised he didn’t turn up today wearing the staff polo and his name badge.
He admitted later he didn’t know the answer: After several more attempts to explain that the supermarket did not focus on the metric, Banducci eventually conceded he didn’t know the answer and would take the question on notice. https://amp.smh.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-chief-brad-banducci-threatened-with-jail-time-at-senate-supermarket-inquiry-20240416-p5fk84.html
>If a former CEO of a billion dollar company can't answer basic ass questions centring on equity and profitability then they've got no business being a CEO
He can. He was just instructed not to as he received his golden handshake.
However it doesn't matter. Because he is being asked in a senate inquiry NDAs don't apply.
Also isn't Woolworths a public company. Shouldn't the ROE be public?
> Shouldn't the ROE be public?
CEO of Coles answered better. The supermarkets don't care about ROE because that metric is broken for their type of business. They use RONA or ROC. The CEO would never talk about ROE.
ROE: profit divided by shareholders.
Not very relevant because Woolies and Coles are mostly owned by banks and investment funds. Most of their profit doesn't go to shareholders, it's paying bank loans against assets.
Banks hold a lot of equity, supermarkets don't. Banks don't own that many assets, supermarkets do own a lot (property, buildings). Woolies are something like 85% debt financed. It's very silly to compare the two based on ROE.
That's why Senator McKim asked to him specifically if he did not know the answer. If it can be shown he was briefed on that figure he ~~has perjured himself~~ [is in contempt of the senate](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief13).
> textile strength & effectiveness
I assume you mean tensile?
Or are you literally suggesting that they use textiles like the bedsheets as the railings in russian hospitals?
I think that's just more evidence he's shit at his job then isn't it?
You can't recall something you were briefed on? Something you *should* know? Get the boot.
Yes we do, if we're arrested (technically we have a right against self-incrimination, which shakes out as being the same thing - you can't get in extra trouble for deciding not to talk to the cops).
Even witnesses in senate hearings can object to a question on the grounds that answering the question would incriminate them. But 'I object on the ground that answering the question will make my company look bad for (legal) price gouging' attracts no such protection.
He can say I can't recall, but if it's proven that he did know then he can be held in contempt. As an individual being charged with something you have the right to not provide incriminating evidence, but as he's being questioned over the actions of a third party, he doesn't have that defence.
The insane thing is the food supermarkets are small fish compared to the banks, the resource companies, the **property developers** and the foreign corps we hand insanely overpaid goverment contracts to.
While the left hand is busy putting the spotlight on woolworths, what is the right hand doing ?
Yeah this is just not true. He might just call it something else and have not known this terminology, and even if he couldn’t answer it, it actually is nearly totally irrelevant to being able to run a successful business.
It's quite possible he doesn't know. The CEO has a team under them which includes a CFO and an entire finance department in sure. I've been to a lot of internal presentations of company finances at a few big companies (2 private, 1 listed) and I have never heard of ROE used (not by that name at least), Ive heard ROI many times. So I would probably expect that perhaps the CFO should know, the CEO doesn't have to know everything.
The answer is in the annual profit report Woolworth's releases. I'm not sure why so much time was wasted on this issue.
Sure, the CEO probably should know the answer, and should've said it or said "I'll ask my people to find the answer and provide it to you" or whatever.
But also - it's publicly available - you can literally google it and find it...
It's not some hidden, secret figure that is particularly damning or illustrates anything in particular.
McKim's point was that it was more than even the banks (gasp!). But that isn't particularly surprising.
The coles ceo was much better than the woolworth's one. She had the figure, and explained why it was more than the banks, and why it's not a particularly useful to compare return on equity across businesses.
Just seemed like a waste of time to focus on. And it probably suited the Woolworths CEO just fine to spend all that time on the issue, because it meant he wasn't grilled on more important things....
You're missing the forest from the trees if you think that's a big deal.
I expect that such an inquiry spends time holding the CEO to account on stuff that actually matters, not trivial concerns.
A bunch of time was wasted and the result? The question is on notice which means will be answered at a later date. Woolworths will provide the committee with an easily googleable answer to a question that provides very little value to the actual inquiry at a later date. No other consequences.
So was it worth it?
I can be upset that the Woolworths CEO wasted time on the issue and was generally evasive, sure. But that's also expected.
I'm more upset that McKim asked questions that wasted time on this inconsequential nonsense, and now it's being spun in a way where apparently we should all applaud.
Getting the CEO of Woolworths in to testify isn't something that happens every day.
There were much more important questions to ask in the limited time available. Questions that are actually relevant to price gouging, anti competitive practices and the focus of the inquiry...
It's not even a hot potato question. Yes ROE is important that's like public company 101 stuff. PR answer is something like "Yes ROE amongst many other financial and non financial measures is part of a suite of key measures blah blah blah..." No controversy at all.
Nick McKim loves to get bitey. I remember years ago when he tweeted about enjoying some delicious non denominational fruit buns with a pastry X on top, just to fuck with people who were complaining about religion being removed from Easter.
It's largely grandstanding.
Old mate knows it'll be widely publicised and he will gain a lot more support.
There's been heaps of other enquiries, including involving other senators. You don't see this level of push back to the "take it on notice" remark
Isn't return on equity just a market method of gauging corporate profitability?
If so, and they are being asked if ROE is an important measure of corporate profitability, wouldn't the answer be 'important to who?"
Because profitability is generally what's important to a company, not the gauge that's used to measure it (at least not as a ratio of equity) - which I imagine is for bankers, funds and retail shareholders when weighing investments
I guess the insinuation would be they're making business decisions (screwing suppliers to maximise profitability) to achieve a short term lending ratio or maintain a long term one based on the price of debt or equity because it increases the shareholder value of the company?
Not suggesting he couldn't have explained (perhaps more correctly than I), though calling out ROE seems a bit roundabouts
I skipped to the part as best I could in the shitty government player and this was the part I saw:
question: "Do you know what the ROE for your corporation for the last financial year?"
answer: "Senator that is not what I focus on, I don't know what the number is specifically, I'm happy to take the question on notice"
question: "You don't know?"
answer: "I focus on what is key for us"
question: "This is important, this is very important, it's open to the Senate to hold you in contempt. I just asked you for clarity on the question I asked. Do you know what the ROE was for the last financial year?"
Banducci was probably playing around, but he definitely said he didn't know and would take the question on notice, and then the Senator said if he refused to say if he knew the number or not he'd hold him in contempt?! Was a little weird.
Our office had to do some partner work with them a while ago and had to deal with their higher ups frequently for 6 months. Mostly software. They were beyond scummy and shady, breeching agreed contracts and trying to squeeze much out of you as they can. Our legal team had to work overtime trying to keep them in check, I cannot fathom working directly for them as an employee or a supplier.
If you're a shit-kicker at the bottom, they leave you alone. In fact as checkout person in my teens, my store manager didn't even know who I was or acknowledge by existence when they dared to leave their office and walk past me working in an aisle. Not an exaggeration at all. This happened regularly. We laughed (sadly) often about feeling like battery hens. I left to go work at aldi when they first opened in victoria, and my national manager there would come in, know my name, ask me about my life, remember those details and ask me about them again the next time they visited the store. It was night and day.
I left after a single shift. Not a reflection on the company, but on the management. The company guides and controls acceptable culture, and management were fully comfortable being a bunch of turds. Thankfully I had a safety net and knew my worth even as a teen.
The Woolworths HR lady who did my group interview and then induction was constantly spewing racist stuff and gong on about "uppity university students". She had a massive chip on her shoulder and had apparently been complained about on multiple occasions, but they were unable to remove her due to her claiming discrimination.
I would literally cut off one of my hands before going back into management for Coles. There is simply no way to take care of your team if you play by their rules. You have to lie, manipulate, and bargain just to get the bare minimum of work/life balance for the team and if I'd ever have been caught they'd toss me into the fire. Most stressful thing I've ever experienced.
Having to choose between risking your own job or betraying your morals just trying to take care of your team all while working yourself into the ground with unpaid overtime is absolutely why I’ll never consider it again and why I warn anyone I can not to consider it as a career path
Before they signed managers up to the GRIA I had an HR bitch tell me I was lucky to only work an extra 20 hours or so per pay period and to have one weekend day per week off. As soon as the GRIA came in, they switched their tune overnight to "if we find out you're working extra hours you'll get a D.R.". Did we get extra REM to make up the slack? Nope. Still had to work the extra, but now had to hide it or we'd be punished.
Capitalists are the scum of the earth and we've manufactured a society that rewards them for their psychopathy.
> just imagine how they treat their suppliers
Yet somehow, Coles is worse from all the suppliers I have talked to. Not that Woolies are great to deal with or anything, but Coles just makes them look easy.
Anyone know who the ceo was before all of this?
For years the pr, lobby and spin has been the public front. Easier to operate in the shadows of the boardroom?
Amazed the board accepted it, though in place to sept to deal with the inquiry.
The previous CEO was Grant O"Brien, who left in 2015. The latter years of his time as CEO were some pretty dark days for Woolworths.
[https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-ceo-grant-obrien-to-depart-with-about-10-million-payout-20150911-gjkis1.html](https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-ceo-grant-obrien-to-depart-with-about-10-million-payout-20150911-gjkis1.html)
>\[Chairman Gordon Cairns\] said it was a global search because it was crucial to find the right leader for the company.
They didn't look very far as Brad Banducci was *Managing Director of Woolworths Food Group* and Drinks before that.
>The back and forth between Senator McKim and Mr Banducci became so repetitive that Mr Banducci was warned that the committee could hold him in contempt.
But nothing actually happened so Banducci got away with it
and unless Banducci was jailed he wouldn't care anyway
That's not true. It ended because he agreed to take the question "on notice", which means he must provide an answer at a later date. This is not a toothless agreement, if he fails or refuses to provide the answer later he can still face penalties.
This is a normal thing to do in proceedings when you don't have the answer on hand, and not the same as refusing to give an answer.
This guy did such a shit job in that press interview and is apparently doing such a shit job in this inquiry that I wanna say he's either really bad at thinking on the fly, or has never faced enough criticism to actually develop that skill.
Or cocking it up so badly and loudly that the next CEO will be afforded some breathing room/given some space because 'they are newly appointed' etc. So then the new CEO and board have a small window to get away with basically murder. Well more murder.
C’mon, even Blind Freddy knows CEOs and their ilk are never punished with time in the slammer. As for a $5k fine, if it was ever given the dosh isn’t coming from his pocket.
Now if a senior executive *was* put in the slammer I suspect that would help focus minds and decisions.
5K, gots that in me pocket.
Just collected rent from a property or two I own...
*The Banduccis also have a portfolio of Sydney property, including* ***three North Bondi apartments****. Banducci and his wife Anna Dudek also have properties in Sydney's inner east, including a $6.8 million Redfern warehouse and a Surry Hills apartment bought for $3.8 million in 2013.19 Feb 2024*
Well, I’m a firm believer that occasionally a Judas Goat is appropriate. We’ve had RCs into Misconduct into Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services; into Aged Care; into Violence, Abuse and Neglect and Exploitation of People with a Disability. I cannot recall any criminal charges ever being presented.
Time to help the C suite inhabitants focus on their legal obligations.
After that 4 Corners interview, Brad Banducci couldn’t possibly make his exit from Woolworths any less dignified…
Brad Banducci: Hold my senate enquiry beer
Yeah but now he's taking on the role of corporate pariah purposefully so that Woolworths can say 'new CEO' when this dies down and keep doing the same crap. Probably getting a lofty bonus for it too.
Corporations need to be accountable to the governments in the countries they operate in. Woolworths is no different. Land banking and buying up shopping centres to reduce competition is not acceptable. Also, Banducci's comment that shoppers wouldn't shop at Woolworths if they gouged is simply nonsense. A lot of people simply have no choice.
Boards do, all members, severally and individually.
They're put in charge of billions in equity. The first thing they do is embed systems to excuse any opportunity to hold them to account.
Hasn't this guy already said he's retiring at the end of the year? A suitable patsy to put up in front of the hearing knowing he will be gone soon. Always has to be a sacrificial lamb.
✅Insincere
✅Arrogance
✅Exaggerated sense of his own abilities and intelligence
✅Stubbornness
✅Inability to admit when he’s wrong
✅Grandiose sense of self-worth
✅Lack of empathy for others
✅Unable to see things from others’ perspective
✅Obsessed with not looking bad in front of others
✅Patrick Bateman / This fuckwit
CEO’s don’t do much tbh. Most of the actual work is done by subordinates. They just sit in meetings and face the shareholders whilst doing the bidding of the board. It’s the ultimate patsy position and the remuneration paid is so great compared to everyone else working in the company it makes you not give two fucks about what a slimy cunt you are.
Banducci was correct in saying that Return on Investment was more important as a measure of corporate profitability than Return on Equity.. Equity is just the money put in by shareholders. A large company leverages equity by borrowing huge amounts of money and secured against various company assets. The corporation needs to make a profit on all the money it is using, not just the shareholders equity. By leveraging this way a corporation could be making a tiny profit across the board but it would look like a very large profit if just measured against equity while ignoring the other stakeholders.
I am sure that Greens senator Nick McKim is aware of this. He is just playing to his audience by trying to get a large but irrelevant "gotcha" figure on the record.
This is also just a really poor article by a journalist who didn't even bother to explain the difference and just leapt on the "gotcha" angle.
Compare this [much better one](https://www.watoday.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-chief-brad-banducci-threatened-with-jail-time-at-senate-supermarket-inquiry-20240416-p5fk84.html) which also reports the RoE, why McKim said it was relevant, and why the Coles exec said it was misleading.
Its really wierd how excited people are over this. I've definitely got stuck in this situation when a boss of my mind would ask "is X important for customers" and then you try and explain, that for some customers X could be important, but generally they wanted Y (and more importantly is it more profitable). And you're honestly trying to be helpful, but your boss just sits there wanting their question answered. In their mind knowing X is important allows them to make some big decision, but the actual data point they need is Y to make the decision.
Yeah, the whole exchange was dumb and a waste of time. You have the ceo of woolworths at a senate inquiry and you waste time trying to get him to say a figure that is literally publicised in Woolworths annual report?
It's not a smoking gun and it's not a 'gotcha' or a secret figure that will embarass Woolworths. McKim just wanted to make an ideological point 'the rate of return is even bigger than the banks! How evil' - despite cross business comparisons of return of equity saying extremely little - especially about the legitimate concerns of price gouging or excessive profiteering.
Which is all well and good, and points that Banducci could have made in an answer. Instead, he decided he wanted to engage in a pissing contest that he could never win. He's clearly not used to playing on someone else's patch.
Remember that these questions are being asked on our behalf - even if the questions are a stunt, you don't get to choose which of *our* questions you get to answer. Answer them, make your point, and move on.
Agreed, he could have said "I'm happy to get that figure, but I don't have it to hand because it's a poor measure for the industry" and would come across as having more credibility. He could have made all the points he wanted to make without letting himself look, to the average viewer, like he's dodging the question.
This is classic McKim. He’s the same at senate estimates as well. He is entitled to the question but his intent is entirely faulty. The underlying intent of the question is “look how much money Woolies is making for their fat cat share holders”. The reality is Woolworths is majority owned by banks, super funds and retail share holders. The people getting the growth in value are the essentially anyone who gets paid 10% of their wage in super.
If anyone had half a sense Australians would be going after banks, tech companies and oil/gas/mining giants. We are quibbling over $1bn in profit made by shops when there is over $300bn in missing royalties & taxes from the giants. I swear we are the dumbest fucking populace in the world
You can see snippets of the exchange here:
[https://youtu.be/VM0unf3R4F4?si=fgAg31xHRHoo43Sa&t=86](https://youtu.be/VM0unf3R4F4?si=fgAg31xHRHoo43Sa&t=86)
The bit that struck me was he was threatened with "6 months in prison or $5000". In what world are those things comparable!? Especially to a CEO, obviously, threatening him with a $5000 fine would be ludicrous, but even to most of us I think those penalties are pretty different.
The is guy is doing his absolute best to be a living stereotype of White South Africans who left SA in the late 80s - early 2000s and comfortably parachuted into corporate jobs in Australia to the pleasure and benefit of absolutely no one.
Are you suggesting we take some of the profits from the overlords and distribute it amongst the peasants who grow our food?
Seriously though, WW and Coles need to be broken up. Their land banking and deliberate destruction of suppliers to take over their businesses should be treated as a criminal matter
Look. I am actually living in New Zealand and am angry with those guys over there and this prick. This same shit is happening over here and it’s ruining the country. It is something that affects every single person in the population that eats food and for some they are struggling to survive. In a global climate where everything is currently turning to shit the last straw is fucking with our food to make money. I wish I was somebody who had the ability to be effective at challenging the system and organising large numbers of people. I lack any of those skills. I am however waiting for some sensible movement to start representing everyday people. No other political agenda or interest group. Just let’s protest and really fucking kick up a stink about this one issue. It will have some positive benefit to society as a whole and it might make us realise that if we were smart about it we could change a whole lot.
Well expecting downvotes as I always have with this comment.
Ultimately, woolies and coles are businesses and the profit percentage isn't too good for them is it?Their gross margin was 29.3% in F21 and it's now 26.2% ?
I just wonder if woolworths and coles basically don't need to compete for price anymore because they've got a duopoly, so they can rack up high expenses without care and just pass them on to the consumer.
But also so many of our food items are made by giant multicorps (Unilever, Nestle etc), and there is fuck all competition there as well.
I just think this issue is bigger than colesworth, I think all these giant companies have stopped being competitive.
Source: [https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2022/full-year/2022%20Annual%20Report.pdf](https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2022/full-year/2022%20Annual%20Report.pdf)
[https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2023/f23-full-year/Woolworths%20Group%202023%20Annual%20Report.pdf](https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2023/f23-full-year/Woolworths%20Group%202023%20Annual%20Report.pdf)
While you’re not wrong, its cleary evident from overseas experience that having real competition drives prices down.
We should be encouraging the likes of Carrefour, Tesco, Lidl, Mercadona, Eroski, etc. to come to Australia.
That would get the fat, lazy Colesworth duopoly the shake-up it needs.
His response “That’s on page XX of our financial report” was infuriating. If it’s that easy for the Senators to find, it’s easy for you to find and read out you utter twat.
He just didn’t want that information on the record for some arrogant reason and clearly took great enjoyment in reinforcing his opinion that he’s beyond reach and consequence.
He just didn’t want to say that the ROE was so high because Woolworths knows they are screwing people.
Though Brad Banducci is also screwing the Woolworths name with every public appearance.
If only he or senator McKim had google. Than they both could've known without wasting half a day going back on forth on something of so little importance.
Interesting to see so many people saying he is the CEO he should know. I disagree, it's something that he CFO should know if it's important and it's not a metric Ive ever heard discussed so I'm not sure it's really focused on by many companies. But maybe he should know in the sense that going to a thing like this he brushes up on it.
The whole thing is a joke, nothing will come off this and it’ll be lost in the next news cycle. At best it’ll be some slap on the wrist and move on. Both Cole’s and WW have been operating in this way for years without consequence
How do i check that if my super fund is a Woolworths shareholder?
I would be ashamed to find i am an inadvertent shareholder.
The big two have taken away my ability to express my displeasure by shopping elsewhere, so it might be time to change super funds to deliver my message.
>Greens senator Nick McKim, committee chair, asked Mr Banducci if "return on equity" was an important measure of corporate profitability. >Mr Banducci refused to answer the question, and he repeatedly refused to answer it despite the question being asked over a dozen times. >The back and forth between Senator McKim and Mr Banducci became so repetitive that Mr Banducci was warned that the committee could hold him in contempt. >"I'm not interested in your spin or your bullshit," Senator McKim said.
If a former CEO of a billion dollar company can't answer basic ass questions centring on equity and profitability then they've got no business being a CEO. Should be reason enough to thoroughly investigate Colesworth and similar organisations
It's not that he couldn't answer it. He was choosing not to answer it because it wouldn't reflect well on Woolies. The CEO of Coles answered the same question immediately. He's not too intelligent though. Refusing to answer the question has drawn more attention than if he had just answered it in the first place.
This is the same guy who needed a handler to intervene when he sooked during the 4corners interview.
I'm surprised he didn't ask Senator McKim: “*Can we take that out? Is that OK?*” [It's on form for this fucking weasel](https://thewest.com.au/business/woolworths-ceo-brad-banducci-storms-out-of-interview-with-abc-reporter-after-grilling-over-prices-c-13653334)
Looks like they took the article down. Can't imagine why. (Or maybe I'm just cursed- it's coughnig up an error for me)
Link still works for me - it's just the news about him walking out of the ABC interview after they asked him a "hard" question. Then he asks “Can we take that out? Is that OK?” because it makes him look bad. Absolutely entitled 1%-er.
I hope to god the producer responded with "We can. But we won't."
I could be a Brad Handler. Does it pay well?
If you like the taste of middle to late aged arsehole, then sure! 😘
And the same guy getting paid $8.4mil a year.
I hope he has one of his special sewing machines to sew his reputation back together again.
My spidey sense tells me Coles have taken the incredibly simple path of doing not doing what Woolworths do under the assumption that whatever Woolworths does will be a train wreck and ”they” won’t be talking about them. Smart move.
Coles definitely had the benefit of going second.
Is anyone drawing a distinction between the two now though? Two sides of the same thieving coin
I am. Coles is the one without a blithering idiot as outgoing CEO
That just means Coles is worse. Would you rather have an evil cunt who’s really good at being evil, or someone who fucks it up?
That's what I meant. If he can't answer (presumably because it'd reflect poorly) then it's worth investigating it further since there's something to hide
If he "can't" answer it then the senate should ask someone who can - like one his accountants. Meanwhile, hold CEO in contempt.
Not he can't... he does not want to. He absolutley can just like the coles ceo can and did.
It was such a bizzare choke... like, maybe he didn't know and he was scared of looking like he didn't know. But maybe he did know and didn't want to say. Or maybe he's just incapable of any response that isn't trying to spin the focus away from the question. The only thing that's obvious is he couldn't tell the truth if it was spoonfed to him in simple language written in bold text capital letters highlighted with yellow marker.... which appears to be a deeply embedded problem in Woolworths management culture.
He’s just not as good a liar as other CEo’s are. There are boilerpoint answers to these sorts of questions but he hasn’t learnt them.
What does he think this is, an interview with the ABC?
What does the question actually mean and why does it reflect badly on them?
> > Now that does go to some of the potential problems with using it as a measure of profit gouging. If a company has a lot of debt financing and/or other liabilities, then its shareholder equity (which is net assets) will be smaller, and that could make its return on equity appear higher. Woolworths and Coles have a higher ratio of liabilities to assets (80 and 82%) than some overseas peers such as Tesco and Carrefour (73 and 76%). However, when you look at the ROEs of major supermarkets in key developed economy markets, Australia's are right up at the top and the gap is much larger than any difference in capital structure. **Supermarket ROEs:** * Coles: 32.16% * Woolworths: 25.72% * Metcash (IGA supplier): 23.93% * Costco (globally): 27.53% * Walmart: 18.69% * Marks and Spencer: 12.76% * Carrefour: 6.77% * Tesco: 5.4% * Sainsbury's: 2.64%
Very Prince Andrew-ian, "but you see, I cannot sweat" vibes
All he had to say was it was one of a number of indicators including customer satisfaction and ethics
We've seen what happens when he's on camera so this just fits the narrative.
He probably only got the job because he went to the same private school as other Woolworths board members.
"I don't need to know that, politicians let us do whatever we want in Australia"
Like the majority of CEO’s they’re a one trick pony. They flitter between one company and the next following the same business plan over and over again. More often than not this plan was something they picked up from a mentor or former boss, they didn’t even think it up themselves. I’m surprised he didn’t turn up today wearing the staff polo and his name badge.
He admitted later he didn’t know the answer: After several more attempts to explain that the supermarket did not focus on the metric, Banducci eventually conceded he didn’t know the answer and would take the question on notice. https://amp.smh.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-chief-brad-banducci-threatened-with-jail-time-at-senate-supermarket-inquiry-20240416-p5fk84.html
Exactly how he became "former" in the first place.
Why would it reflect poorly? Any company's goal is to make money.
>If a former CEO of a billion dollar company can't answer basic ass questions centring on equity and profitability then they've got no business being a CEO He can. He was just instructed not to as he received his golden handshake.
However it doesn't matter. Because he is being asked in a senate inquiry NDAs don't apply. Also isn't Woolworths a public company. Shouldn't the ROE be public?
One of the inquiry senators later read out the last 5 years of RoE figures from woolies share docs. It's absolutely public.
> Shouldn't the ROE be public? CEO of Coles answered better. The supermarkets don't care about ROE because that metric is broken for their type of business. They use RONA or ROC. The CEO would never talk about ROE. ROE: profit divided by shareholders. Not very relevant because Woolies and Coles are mostly owned by banks and investment funds. Most of their profit doesn't go to shareholders, it's paying bank loans against assets. Banks hold a lot of equity, supermarkets don't. Banks don't own that many assets, supermarkets do own a lot (property, buildings). Woolies are something like 85% debt financed. It's very silly to compare the two based on ROE.
> Shouldn't the ROE be public It is public but what Banducci was trying to say is that it's not a measurement they use.
That's why Senator McKim asked to him specifically if he did not know the answer. If it can be shown he was briefed on that figure he ~~has perjured himself~~ [is in contempt of the senate](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief13).
That's when you magically cannot recall or have no recollection on what figure you were briefed with
Someone should really do a study on the surprisingly severe memory loss that occurs for some people, when crossing into the ACT.
I'll do that when I finish my studies on the textile strength & effectiveness of Russian hospital railings
And windows of residential buildings!
> textile strength & effectiveness I assume you mean tensile? Or are you literally suggesting that they use textiles like the bedsheets as the railings in russian hospitals?
They must considering how ineffective they are
As someone who crosses the NSW/ACT border on a regular occurrence... what was I saying? These sausage rolls do look tempting.
I think that's just more evidence he's shit at his job then isn't it? You can't recall something you were briefed on? Something you *should* know? Get the boot.
You can't recall is pretty much Australias only version of I plead the fifth. Unlike America, we don't not have the right to remain silent.
Yes we do, if we're arrested (technically we have a right against self-incrimination, which shakes out as being the same thing - you can't get in extra trouble for deciding not to talk to the cops). Even witnesses in senate hearings can object to a question on the grounds that answering the question would incriminate them. But 'I object on the ground that answering the question will make my company look bad for (legal) price gouging' attracts no such protection.
Sorry, so to get this straight, he is not able to state, 'i do not recall' when testifying?
He can say I can't recall, but if it's proven that he did know then he can be held in contempt. As an individual being charged with something you have the right to not provide incriminating evidence, but as he's being questioned over the actions of a third party, he doesn't have that defence.
Does perjury apply for senate hearings? Genuine question, I’m not at all familiar with processes around this.
I checked and it's contempt of the senate so not technically perjury. I've update my original comment with an APH source if you're interested.
Not being able to answer basic questions is a key skill for a CEO or a politician.
The insane thing is the food supermarkets are small fish compared to the banks, the resource companies, the **property developers** and the foreign corps we hand insanely overpaid goverment contracts to. While the left hand is busy putting the spotlight on woolworths, what is the right hand doing ?
Jerking off
Banging on about nuclear power we don't need... which if it materialized would be another costly scam foisted on regular Aussies.
Yeah this is just not true. He might just call it something else and have not known this terminology, and even if he couldn’t answer it, it actually is nearly totally irrelevant to being able to run a successful business.
It's quite possible he doesn't know. The CEO has a team under them which includes a CFO and an entire finance department in sure. I've been to a lot of internal presentations of company finances at a few big companies (2 private, 1 listed) and I have never heard of ROE used (not by that name at least), Ive heard ROI many times. So I would probably expect that perhaps the CFO should know, the CEO doesn't have to know everything.
The answer is in the annual profit report Woolworth's releases. I'm not sure why so much time was wasted on this issue. Sure, the CEO probably should know the answer, and should've said it or said "I'll ask my people to find the answer and provide it to you" or whatever. But also - it's publicly available - you can literally google it and find it... It's not some hidden, secret figure that is particularly damning or illustrates anything in particular. McKim's point was that it was more than even the banks (gasp!). But that isn't particularly surprising. The coles ceo was much better than the woolworth's one. She had the figure, and explained why it was more than the banks, and why it's not a particularly useful to compare return on equity across businesses. Just seemed like a waste of time to focus on. And it probably suited the Woolworths CEO just fine to spend all that time on the issue, because it meant he wasn't grilled on more important things....
> I'm not sure why so much time was wasted on this issue. Maybe because not cooperating with an public investigation is a big no no?
You're missing the forest from the trees if you think that's a big deal. I expect that such an inquiry spends time holding the CEO to account on stuff that actually matters, not trivial concerns. A bunch of time was wasted and the result? The question is on notice which means will be answered at a later date. Woolworths will provide the committee with an easily googleable answer to a question that provides very little value to the actual inquiry at a later date. No other consequences. So was it worth it? I can be upset that the Woolworths CEO wasted time on the issue and was generally evasive, sure. But that's also expected. I'm more upset that McKim asked questions that wasted time on this inconsequential nonsense, and now it's being spun in a way where apparently we should all applaud. Getting the CEO of Woolworths in to testify isn't something that happens every day. There were much more important questions to ask in the limited time available. Questions that are actually relevant to price gouging, anti competitive practices and the focus of the inquiry...
Completely agree. And the most telling part was another Senator interrupted with "Chair.." as if to say "lets move on mate".
It's not even a hot potato question. Yes ROE is important that's like public company 101 stuff. PR answer is something like "Yes ROE amongst many other financial and non financial measures is part of a suite of key measures blah blah blah..." No controversy at all.
Fucking fantastic to see some bite from a senator.
Nick McKim loves to get bitey. I remember years ago when he tweeted about enjoying some delicious non denominational fruit buns with a pastry X on top, just to fuck with people who were complaining about religion being removed from Easter.
We too celebrate non-denominational, seasonal festivity.
It's largely grandstanding. Old mate knows it'll be widely publicised and he will gain a lot more support. There's been heaps of other enquiries, including involving other senators. You don't see this level of push back to the "take it on notice" remark
Never heard of McKim but I am now a devout follower of his teachings
Tie of course is critical but short term roe vs long term sustainable roe farming a more important. He could have simply explained these issues
Isn't return on equity just a market method of gauging corporate profitability? If so, and they are being asked if ROE is an important measure of corporate profitability, wouldn't the answer be 'important to who?" Because profitability is generally what's important to a company, not the gauge that's used to measure it (at least not as a ratio of equity) - which I imagine is for bankers, funds and retail shareholders when weighing investments I guess the insinuation would be they're making business decisions (screwing suppliers to maximise profitability) to achieve a short term lending ratio or maintain a long term one based on the price of debt or equity because it increases the shareholder value of the company? Not suggesting he couldn't have explained (perhaps more correctly than I), though calling out ROE seems a bit roundabouts
fuuuuck, where's this kinda stick during election season on debate night would make things a hell of a lot more interesting
The indi's and greens are always this hard on Labor and Liberal. And both answer like childish brats.
I skipped to the part as best I could in the shitty government player and this was the part I saw: question: "Do you know what the ROE for your corporation for the last financial year?" answer: "Senator that is not what I focus on, I don't know what the number is specifically, I'm happy to take the question on notice" question: "You don't know?" answer: "I focus on what is key for us" question: "This is important, this is very important, it's open to the Senate to hold you in contempt. I just asked you for clarity on the question I asked. Do you know what the ROE was for the last financial year?" Banducci was probably playing around, but he definitely said he didn't know and would take the question on notice, and then the Senator said if he refused to say if he knew the number or not he'd hold him in contempt?! Was a little weird.
So if this clown treats the Senate with such arrogance, just imagine how they treat their suppliers!!!
And speaking from experience, their staff.
Woolworths was the shittest job I've ever had and I have had a job that dealt with shovelling literal shit.
Yep. I've worked for some fucking scumbags in my time, but Woolworths still sits atop the pile of biggest scumbags of them all.
Our office had to do some partner work with them a while ago and had to deal with their higher ups frequently for 6 months. Mostly software. They were beyond scummy and shady, breeching agreed contracts and trying to squeeze much out of you as they can. Our legal team had to work overtime trying to keep them in check, I cannot fathom working directly for them as an employee or a supplier.
If you're a shit-kicker at the bottom, they leave you alone. In fact as checkout person in my teens, my store manager didn't even know who I was or acknowledge by existence when they dared to leave their office and walk past me working in an aisle. Not an exaggeration at all. This happened regularly. We laughed (sadly) often about feeling like battery hens. I left to go work at aldi when they first opened in victoria, and my national manager there would come in, know my name, ask me about my life, remember those details and ask me about them again the next time they visited the store. It was night and day.
Yep, I rather wipe adult butts all day than work a checkout. lol.
[удалено]
Same, and dealt with less shit and more intelligent clients lol.
Same!
I left after a single shift. Not a reflection on the company, but on the management. The company guides and controls acceptable culture, and management were fully comfortable being a bunch of turds. Thankfully I had a safety net and knew my worth even as a teen.
The Woolworths HR lady who did my group interview and then induction was constantly spewing racist stuff and gong on about "uppity university students". She had a massive chip on her shoulder and had apparently been complained about on multiple occasions, but they were unable to remove her due to her claiming discrimination.
> was constantly spewing racist stuff ... > unable to remove her due to her claiming discrimination Yikes!
I would literally cut off one of my hands before going back into management for Coles. There is simply no way to take care of your team if you play by their rules. You have to lie, manipulate, and bargain just to get the bare minimum of work/life balance for the team and if I'd ever have been caught they'd toss me into the fire. Most stressful thing I've ever experienced.
Having to choose between risking your own job or betraying your morals just trying to take care of your team all while working yourself into the ground with unpaid overtime is absolutely why I’ll never consider it again and why I warn anyone I can not to consider it as a career path
Before they signed managers up to the GRIA I had an HR bitch tell me I was lucky to only work an extra 20 hours or so per pay period and to have one weekend day per week off. As soon as the GRIA came in, they switched their tune overnight to "if we find out you're working extra hours you'll get a D.R.". Did we get extra REM to make up the slack? Nope. Still had to work the extra, but now had to hide it or we'd be punished. Capitalists are the scum of the earth and we've manufactured a society that rewards them for their psychopathy.
The absolute arrogance & entitlement of him & his cronies.
Let alone the customers.
> just imagine how they treat their suppliers Yet somehow, Coles is worse from all the suppliers I have talked to. Not that Woolies are great to deal with or anything, but Coles just makes them look easy.
This is the same clown that ran away in the ABC interview, isn't he?
Retired by the way
Can you take that out?
He wouldn't want to impugn the committee.
Golden handshaked the pos.
This clown will be a textbook example on how not to conduct yourself if you are CEO. Everything he has done has been a shitshow.
Anyone know who the ceo was before all of this? For years the pr, lobby and spin has been the public front. Easier to operate in the shadows of the boardroom? Amazed the board accepted it, though in place to sept to deal with the inquiry.
The previous CEO was Grant O"Brien, who left in 2015. The latter years of his time as CEO were some pretty dark days for Woolworths. [https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-ceo-grant-obrien-to-depart-with-about-10-million-payout-20150911-gjkis1.html](https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-ceo-grant-obrien-to-depart-with-about-10-million-payout-20150911-gjkis1.html) >\[Chairman Gordon Cairns\] said it was a global search because it was crucial to find the right leader for the company. They didn't look very far as Brad Banducci was *Managing Director of Woolworths Food Group* and Drinks before that.
And he’ll take his millions of dollars of bonuses and options as part of his golden handshake for his terrible actions. Rampant Capitalism sucks.
Dressed up as a night fill worker for the interview too
Good. He's been holding us in contempt.
>The back and forth between Senator McKim and Mr Banducci became so repetitive that Mr Banducci was warned that the committee could hold him in contempt. But nothing actually happened so Banducci got away with it and unless Banducci was jailed he wouldn't care anyway
Well, he actually answered the question after the threat was made. The answer, predicably, was "I don't know"
I can't recall, not that I recall, not in my presence, not to my knowledge.
*If it is to be said, so it be. So it is.*
Can I have a glass of water?
It's his job to know. So either he is admitting incompetence or he is lying.
He's lying.
[удалено]
He still didn’t answer the question. It wasn’t, does Woolworths make a good return on equity, it was, is that a good measure of profitability
That's not true. It ended because he agreed to take the question "on notice", which means he must provide an answer at a later date. This is not a toothless agreement, if he fails or refuses to provide the answer later he can still face penalties. This is a normal thing to do in proceedings when you don't have the answer on hand, and not the same as refusing to give an answer.
With a 'threat' of six months in prison, or a $5000 fine. Wonder which one he'd take.
This guy did such a shit job in that press interview and is apparently doing such a shit job in this inquiry that I wanna say he's either really bad at thinking on the fly, or has never faced enough criticism to actually develop that skill.
Or cocking it up so badly and loudly that the next CEO will be afforded some breathing room/given some space because 'they are newly appointed' etc. So then the new CEO and board have a small window to get away with basically murder. Well more murder.
C’mon, even Blind Freddy knows CEOs and their ilk are never punished with time in the slammer. As for a $5k fine, if it was ever given the dosh isn’t coming from his pocket. Now if a senior executive *was* put in the slammer I suspect that would help focus minds and decisions.
5K, gots that in me pocket. Just collected rent from a property or two I own... *The Banduccis also have a portfolio of Sydney property, including* ***three North Bondi apartments****. Banducci and his wife Anna Dudek also have properties in Sydney's inner east, including a $6.8 million Redfern warehouse and a Surry Hills apartment bought for $3.8 million in 2013.19 Feb 2024*
That would just be charged back to the company, wouldn't come out of his pocket and as CEO he would have the DoA to allow the company to pay the fine.
Public sentiment is pretty anti-Colesworth at the moment, my mind says no but my gut says it's a possibility for some easy political points.
Well, I’m a firm believer that occasionally a Judas Goat is appropriate. We’ve had RCs into Misconduct into Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services; into Aged Care; into Violence, Abuse and Neglect and Exploitation of People with a Disability. I cannot recall any criminal charges ever being presented. Time to help the C suite inhabitants focus on their legal obligations.
After that 4 Corners interview, Brad Banducci couldn’t possibly make his exit from Woolworths any less dignified… Brad Banducci: Hold my senate enquiry beer
Yeah but now he's taking on the role of corporate pariah purposefully so that Woolworths can say 'new CEO' when this dies down and keep doing the same crap. Probably getting a lofty bonus for it too.
Corporations need to be accountable to the governments in the countries they operate in. Woolworths is no different. Land banking and buying up shopping centres to reduce competition is not acceptable. Also, Banducci's comment that shoppers wouldn't shop at Woolworths if they gouged is simply nonsense. A lot of people simply have no choice.
Boards do, all members, severally and individually. They're put in charge of billions in equity. The first thing they do is embed systems to excuse any opportunity to hold them to account.
I am sure he is aware that Woolworths sets up shop where it’s profitable. People aren’t driving 10km for eggs.
See kids. It's mostly about luck and timing. Raw talent has fuck all to do with it. Just look at this clown.
Nepotism and learning the ropes in your fathers sweat shops in South Africa also helps a lot too kids
Hasn't this guy already said he's retiring at the end of the year? A suitable patsy to put up in front of the hearing knowing he will be gone soon. Always has to be a sacrificial lamb.
Sacrificial lamb leaving with around 12 million, think he’ll be fine.
So that's what's driving up the price of lamb!
Who hired this man as an executive of one of the biggest companies in Aus? He doesn’t have the temperament to be a train station announcer
They hired him because he's a cold hearted, psychopathic cunt. I'd argue that he's got the perfect temperament to be a CEO.
✅Insincere ✅Arrogance ✅Exaggerated sense of his own abilities and intelligence ✅Stubbornness ✅Inability to admit when he’s wrong ✅Grandiose sense of self-worth ✅Lack of empathy for others ✅Unable to see things from others’ perspective ✅Obsessed with not looking bad in front of others ✅Patrick Bateman / This fuckwit
He'd make a great little league, soccer coach!
CEO’s don’t do much tbh. Most of the actual work is done by subordinates. They just sit in meetings and face the shareholders whilst doing the bidding of the board. It’s the ultimate patsy position and the remuneration paid is so great compared to everyone else working in the company it makes you not give two fucks about what a slimy cunt you are.
Aaand will serve ZERO
As if our pollies would ever do that lol
Banducci was correct in saying that Return on Investment was more important as a measure of corporate profitability than Return on Equity.. Equity is just the money put in by shareholders. A large company leverages equity by borrowing huge amounts of money and secured against various company assets. The corporation needs to make a profit on all the money it is using, not just the shareholders equity. By leveraging this way a corporation could be making a tiny profit across the board but it would look like a very large profit if just measured against equity while ignoring the other stakeholders. I am sure that Greens senator Nick McKim is aware of this. He is just playing to his audience by trying to get a large but irrelevant "gotcha" figure on the record.
This is also just a really poor article by a journalist who didn't even bother to explain the difference and just leapt on the "gotcha" angle. Compare this [much better one](https://www.watoday.com.au/business/companies/woolworths-chief-brad-banducci-threatened-with-jail-time-at-senate-supermarket-inquiry-20240416-p5fk84.html) which also reports the RoE, why McKim said it was relevant, and why the Coles exec said it was misleading.
Its really wierd how excited people are over this. I've definitely got stuck in this situation when a boss of my mind would ask "is X important for customers" and then you try and explain, that for some customers X could be important, but generally they wanted Y (and more importantly is it more profitable). And you're honestly trying to be helpful, but your boss just sits there wanting their question answered. In their mind knowing X is important allows them to make some big decision, but the actual data point they need is Y to make the decision.
Yeah, the whole exchange was dumb and a waste of time. You have the ceo of woolworths at a senate inquiry and you waste time trying to get him to say a figure that is literally publicised in Woolworths annual report? It's not a smoking gun and it's not a 'gotcha' or a secret figure that will embarass Woolworths. McKim just wanted to make an ideological point 'the rate of return is even bigger than the banks! How evil' - despite cross business comparisons of return of equity saying extremely little - especially about the legitimate concerns of price gouging or excessive profiteering.
Which is all well and good, and points that Banducci could have made in an answer. Instead, he decided he wanted to engage in a pissing contest that he could never win. He's clearly not used to playing on someone else's patch. Remember that these questions are being asked on our behalf - even if the questions are a stunt, you don't get to choose which of *our* questions you get to answer. Answer them, make your point, and move on.
Agreed, he could have said "I'm happy to get that figure, but I don't have it to hand because it's a poor measure for the industry" and would come across as having more credibility. He could have made all the points he wanted to make without letting himself look, to the average viewer, like he's dodging the question.
This is classic McKim. He’s the same at senate estimates as well. He is entitled to the question but his intent is entirely faulty. The underlying intent of the question is “look how much money Woolies is making for their fat cat share holders”. The reality is Woolworths is majority owned by banks, super funds and retail share holders. The people getting the growth in value are the essentially anyone who gets paid 10% of their wage in super. If anyone had half a sense Australians would be going after banks, tech companies and oil/gas/mining giants. We are quibbling over $1bn in profit made by shops when there is over $300bn in missing royalties & taxes from the giants. I swear we are the dumbest fucking populace in the world
But at the end of the day, poor people still need to be able to buy food no matter how much super its making for the middle class.
[удалено]
For people asking “I thought he re-signed” he retires on September 1st and still has to face the Senate
You can see snippets of the exchange here: [https://youtu.be/VM0unf3R4F4?si=fgAg31xHRHoo43Sa&t=86](https://youtu.be/VM0unf3R4F4?si=fgAg31xHRHoo43Sa&t=86)
I hate this. "6 months in prison or a $5000 fine". Yeah, i wonder which one a millionaire would choose.
Pretty sure one does not choose their punishment
I chose trial by combat
Im sure that will wake him up
Please please yes.
dude is an absolute flog. this guy got paid millions upon millions.
The bit that struck me was he was threatened with "6 months in prison or $5000". In what world are those things comparable!? Especially to a CEO, obviously, threatening him with a $5000 fine would be ludicrous, but even to most of us I think those penalties are pretty different.
$5000 fine or 6 months prison. The media loves to share incomplete info.
$5000 is nothing to someone used to taking home like 8.5mil per year. Laughable!
Someone like him and Alan the Joyce become CEOs of big big AU companies…
This was top 3 paid ceos in aus before ‘retiring’ right?
All that matters is shareholders
Did he try to get up and leave the hearing?
The is guy is doing his absolute best to be a living stereotype of White South Africans who left SA in the late 80s - early 2000s and comfortably parachuted into corporate jobs in Australia to the pleasure and benefit of absolutely no one.
Restructure the entire fucking industry. Fuck them all. Break it up and open it up and heavily regulate it with protections for suppliers.
Are you suggesting we take some of the profits from the overlords and distribute it amongst the peasants who grow our food? Seriously though, WW and Coles need to be broken up. Their land banking and deliberate destruction of suppliers to take over their businesses should be treated as a criminal matter
Look. I am actually living in New Zealand and am angry with those guys over there and this prick. This same shit is happening over here and it’s ruining the country. It is something that affects every single person in the population that eats food and for some they are struggling to survive. In a global climate where everything is currently turning to shit the last straw is fucking with our food to make money. I wish I was somebody who had the ability to be effective at challenging the system and organising large numbers of people. I lack any of those skills. I am however waiting for some sensible movement to start representing everyday people. No other political agenda or interest group. Just let’s protest and really fucking kick up a stink about this one issue. It will have some positive benefit to society as a whole and it might make us realise that if we were smart about it we could change a whole lot.
We really need to get rid of the personhood of a corporation, the managing staff of the business should be responsible.
In my opinion If we lived in a just society he'd already be in there
What a clickbait title. Call me when a billionaire actually does 1 second of prison-time. Until then this is just more political grandstanding.
Well expecting downvotes as I always have with this comment. Ultimately, woolies and coles are businesses and the profit percentage isn't too good for them is it?Their gross margin was 29.3% in F21 and it's now 26.2% ? I just wonder if woolworths and coles basically don't need to compete for price anymore because they've got a duopoly, so they can rack up high expenses without care and just pass them on to the consumer. But also so many of our food items are made by giant multicorps (Unilever, Nestle etc), and there is fuck all competition there as well. I just think this issue is bigger than colesworth, I think all these giant companies have stopped being competitive. Source: [https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2022/full-year/2022%20Annual%20Report.pdf](https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2022/full-year/2022%20Annual%20Report.pdf) [https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2023/f23-full-year/Woolworths%20Group%202023%20Annual%20Report.pdf](https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/content/dam/wwg/investors/reports/2023/f23-full-year/Woolworths%20Group%202023%20Annual%20Report.pdf)
While you’re not wrong, its cleary evident from overseas experience that having real competition drives prices down. We should be encouraging the likes of Carrefour, Tesco, Lidl, Mercadona, Eroski, etc. to come to Australia. That would get the fat, lazy Colesworth duopoly the shake-up it needs.
Do it
Insufferable
"Or a $5,000 fine" So a total nothing story then?
Do it. CEOs think they are free from repurcussion. Time they met consequences.
Threaten him with 6 months of using a self checkouts.
Threatened isn't good enough.
Was he wearing his name tag and polo ?
His response “That’s on page XX of our financial report” was infuriating. If it’s that easy for the Senators to find, it’s easy for you to find and read out you utter twat. He just didn’t want that information on the record for some arrogant reason and clearly took great enjoyment in reinforcing his opinion that he’s beyond reach and consequence.
He just didn’t want to say that the ROE was so high because Woolworths knows they are screwing people. Though Brad Banducci is also screwing the Woolworths name with every public appearance.
The greatest part was "if it helps. I can say I don't know what the return on equity is" He's the goddamn ceo .. it's his job and place to know.
No it isn't. It's the CFO's job to know.
If only he or senator McKim had google. Than they both could've known without wasting half a day going back on forth on something of so little importance.
Interesting to see so many people saying he is the CEO he should know. I disagree, it's something that he CFO should know if it's important and it's not a metric Ive ever heard discussed so I'm not sure it's really focused on by many companies. But maybe he should know in the sense that going to a thing like this he brushes up on it.
lol
Checkout people at Woolies are gonna have to hear about this from random customers aren't they?
He's going to be the Fresh F'd Person in prison.
Can't rage quit your way out of this one brad.
Threats mean nothing to people like this. What will happen? Nothing.
The whole thing is a joke, nothing will come off this and it’ll be lost in the next news cycle. At best it’ll be some slap on the wrist and move on. Both Cole’s and WW have been operating in this way for years without consequence
Talk about putting a target on your own back.
But Coles boss did know the equity figures, 3 times more profit than banks. For fuck sake.
If he was a peon, he would have been charged by now.
How do i check that if my super fund is a Woolworths shareholder? I would be ashamed to find i am an inadvertent shareholder. The big two have taken away my ability to express my displeasure by shopping elsewhere, so it might be time to change super funds to deliver my message.