Corporate greed is killing investment

We all know that the RBA has been pushing a line for years that the missing link in the Australian recovery is business investment owing to poor “confidence”. I’ve railed against that any number of times noting that the actual problem is structural in that our competitiveness is shot owing largely to the consecutive booms in banking and mining. From the Roosevelt Institute comes another piece of the structural puzzle:

This paper provides evidence that the strong empirical relationship of corporate cash flow and borrowing to productive corporate investment has disappeared in the last 30 years and has been replaced with corporate funds and shareholder payouts. Whereas firms once borrowed to invest and improve their long-term performance, they now borrow to enrich their investors in the short-run. This is the result of legal, managerial, and structural changes that resulted from the shareholder revolution of the 1980s. Under the older, managerial, model, more money coming into a firm – from sales or from borrowing – typically meant more money spent on fixed investment. In the new rentier-dominated model, more money coming in means more money flowing out to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks.

These results have important implications for macroeconomic policy. The shareholder revolution – and its implications for corporate financing decisions – may help explain why higher corporate profits in recent business cycles have generally failed to lead to high levels of investment. And under this new system, cheaper money from lower interest rates will fail to stimulate investment, growth, and wages because, as we show here, additional funds are funneled to shareholders through buybacks and dividends.
Key Findings
• In the 1960s and 1970s, an additional dollar of earnings or borrowing was associated with about a 40-cent increase in investment. Since the 1980s, less than 10 cents of each borrowed dollar is invested.
• Since the 1980s, shareholder payouts have nearly doubled; in the second half of 2007, aggregate payouts actually exceeded aggregate investment. Today, there is a strong correlation between shareholder payouts and borrowing that did not exist before the mid-1980s.
• This change in corporate finance, associated with the “shareholder revolution”, means there is good reason to believe that the real economy benefits less from the easier credit provided by macroeconomic policy than it once did.
We are not immune. Recall this classic quote from Rodney Adler when interviewed by David James at BRW after the GFC:

“There has been a major change in the upper middle-management layer of most corporations. In the old days, which certainly I believe in, the standard organisation was that equity went into a company, and if you owned that equity after 20 years’ hard work you made a lot of money if you were successful.

About 10 or 20 years ago this all changed. All of a sudden these people on good salaries who hadn’t taken the risk, who hadn’t built the corporation, they said to themselves: ‘I’d like to be rich. I’d like to have equity in the company but I don’t want to buy it.’ And a whole new set of instruments evolved out of America, which then infested the rest of the world, certainly the Western world, where executives became owners but with no risk.

[At that point] capitalism as we know it changed. It is not capitalism because the risk has gone. The executives have the upside and no down-side. That is the problem.”

What does it mean when Rodney Adler makes more sense than the Reserve Bank of Australia?


  1. is shot owing largely to the consecutive booms in banking and mining.

    Nope. In aging.

    I blame the boomers

    • Me too!

      I think we should monetise that somehow. Badges, bumper stickers, perhaps a variety of latte named appropriately, copyright it for an extended period under the FTA, and maybe a course or two at uni.

    • “Throughout history, there’s always been generational tensions. They can be seen in the phases and arc of each person’s life, and in society in the newest music, books, inventions and values that people embrace. Astute psychologists not only say that these generational tensions are normal and healthy, but that they unfold like the seasons—on a individual level over a lifetime, and across society as the decades turn into historical eras.

      You might think that understanding what makes each generation unique, and how those factors end up shaping historical challenges would be of endless interest and concern to parents, educators and politicans. Instead, what we’re seeing today is a rising wave of ill-informed and ugly generational warfare mongering. Led by people such as billionaire investor Pete Peterson, who has long wanted to privatize Social Security, they are trying to incite anger and jealousy in younger Americans by erroneously suggesting that older Americans are stealing their futures.”

      Skippy…. with Pete Peterson et al as wing men what can go wrong….

      • No one here would listen to you. It is much easier to go with the crowd and hate the chosen by the top1% as convenient distraction for their game. The whole point is to liquidate any trace of social policy left from the previous century and to restore the true capitalism, which always has been partly occupied by rentiers. Remember that the labour class didn’t have the means to own their homes, they paid rent. The change after the IIWW was imposed by the need to compete with the so called socialist system. Now everything is going back on its proper place, but it is much easier to blame the generation, which benefited from the existance of socialist system. It is shame to recognise that capitalism is brutal and does not tolerate any social policy, it is not politically correct to do so, that is why it is much easier to blame baby boomers for everything bad in economy and for the future generation suffering. But even if the young manage to just kill all baby boomers, the system soon or later will produce the nex generation of hating youngsters with even less rights and freedom then today milenials.

      • Lori,

        Is quite convent to fall into some simplistic cookie cutter narrative for some and stamp away.

        Skippy… Mig-i does not understand that he is just a tool.

      • ”…and to restore the true capitalism”

        If they actually want a bloody revolution they should definitely give that a go.

      • Maybe Lori, but it was the boomers who traded off this hard won fairness for a small percentage of global banking and oligopoly shares, and the chance to be a smiling middleman between the usurers and their rents.

        Your contention is that it could have been any generation bought out, capital just quickly worked out the mechanism to access the underbelly of human greed. Maybe, but as a block they have voted for this, and lead the corruption of our institutions and values.

        Are the economics editors of the daily rags really the one percent, or did they close their eyes as their property portfolios went up and up, and their CBA shares rose 20 fold. I guess it wasnt their fault, they were just greedy, like the politicians, like all humans.

      • “Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger’s syndrome, Asperger disorder (AD) or simply Asperger’s, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests”

        Seems to be appropriate for the situation.

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        Dear Mr H and Mr M… Mr M, what did you expect to happen?! Of course you were going to go bye-bye for a while. You know better. Duh. Come back, and come back a better social-citizen please. Cheers. Mr H, please welcome Mr M back again soon with open arms. Again. On the off-chance that life doesn’t work out that way, I thought I would take the liberty of saying a few words… and then realised the bard would do better than I:

        Alas, poor Migtronick! I knew him, Houses and Holes; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? Your gambols? Your songs? Your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?

        Where shall we find those pearls laid forth before the porkling feeders now? Should we not tremble at the sense of passing of light from this tract of holes, this hovel of houses, this collection of argument and gibes that informs our thoughts and deeds? Wherefore into the darkness do we not tread that touch lighter, that measure shorter, breathing a gasp quicker, as the darkened path before is as of this moment less of our navigator and much less our guide; as its constant wearing of the night pulls on our soul that much tighter.

        Is our vision, nay our sight, not a shade cooler? Do we still head darkly into this good night down the untravelled path now that there is one less companion and brother to light our way? Are the rants of yore now to be a thing forgotten, or will some, who browse their history oft, mark them for use in those days when the veil of darkness covers the soul again with its whispering grasp and solace is sought from familiar stations of memories of brighter times; of old friends and foes long gone?

        The way has divided and with it has gone an uncanny, siren call; a sterling voice for generations to come; a chief for enlightenment; an austral representative for all of us! Now we are absent that which is the better nature embedded, and sometimes hidden, within. His like is not wont to travel this way with us again.

    • Additionally 3d your “What drives corporate greed: shareholders and stockmarket traders” is woefully inaccurate.

      Skippy…. Think tanks and lobbyist mobs were not funded by shareholders and day traders.

  2. “What does it mean when Rodney Adler makes more sense than the Reserve Bank of Australia?”

    Perhaps that even Rodney has more ethics that the leaders at the RBA who are captive to their ideological position and current / future paymasters.

    • This is classic straightforward monopoly capitalism – anyone who has ever read Marx or Barran and Sweezy or those guys will know it exactly for what it is.

      At a certain level the capital accumulation process becomes a drag on economic growth, becomes a succubus on the real economy, and becomes rent seeking monopolistic as genuine capital uses in real sectors with real projects make less and less sense against the returns on offer from just speculating. Then as the real economy starts to go under the FIRE sector becomes the go as the ‘safest’ (or most liquid) place to be and owns all the assets, prices for which have been bid up.

      I linked to a piece last weekend about how the FIRE lobby has evolved from funding economic development to acting as a parasite upon it (Bloomberg or Reuters from memory, maybe Vox)

      • Thank you Gunnamatta, at last the voice of reason. I hope your voice will be heard and people can learn something. I would add that this capitalism when rentiers/monopolies are dominating on a global scale, is a sign of the most developed stage of capitalism. Monopolies are killers of competition and progress and without competition and progress (free exchage of ideas and knowledge) capitalism is dead.

      • What follows is a crisis of capitalism. The outcome depends mostly on how our ruling class responds to the crisis. But also on everyone else.
        Previously we have seen concessions made to workers and start the cycle again but slightly improved. A good war to dirstract and kill off surplus workers. And revolution (Guillotines)

        Currently the ruling class are either in full head-in-sand mode, or looting what they can while things collapse. A few signs of sense here and there. My guess would be a good war followed by some restructuring and concessions, basically a repeat of the great depression, WWII, new deal. But we can hope for something better.

      • Try this from last weekends links…….

        Corporate Borrowing Now Flows To Shareholders, Not Productive Investment: Study

        A very good read on the subject is

        ‘The Endless Crisis’ John Bellamy Foster, Robert W McChesney, Monthly Review press, 2012

        Goes into Monopoly-Finance Capital quite convincingly, and crafts a compelling narrative of what has unfolded over the last 20 or so years…..

        I would also have a read through some Robert Reich stuff ..though dating a bit now ‘Supercapitalism’ is a good read…

      • Gunna that article extracted from same report. Note one of the report authors: J.W. Mason, an economist and fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute.

        Just a typical lefty swipe that in fact can be extended across the spectrum – greed is remarkably common.

      • 3d,

        “left-leaning Roosevelt Institute”

        Skippy… Are you daft old boy, now if you want to publicly say the bible is irrefutable truth and everything else is to the left of it…. do so… but desist with the pettifoggery.

      • 3d that is utter bullshit……

        Is any critique of market capitalism an attempt to brng back Stalin?

        Yeah, Franklin Roosevelt was a Marxist……. (or his Institute)

        J.W. Mason’s blog is here……

        make up your own mind

        ….maybe we should put left leaning and right leaning before every last organisation or individual referred to

        Greed may be common across the spectrum, but the best practitioners tend to be on the right…..Regardless, I definitely agree with you that greed should be monitored closely and exposed for the wider community and taxed accordingly, not to mention that there should be strong government intervention to minimise the phenomena….

      • “Something is really operating differently in the world of corporate finance now,” says J.W. Mason, an economist and fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute. “There’s a lot of pressure from shareholders to take every dollar that comes in and send it out the door.”

        From your first article linked above.

      • And 3d what was the driving force behind finalization of the economy…. Marxists?!

        By the way the shareholder meme has been soundly refuted and even dismissed by its authors.

        “This system has been fairly impervious to outside challenge. Once in a while, a company is so abysmally run that an activist investor will take up a proxy fight. But that dog seldom catches the car; instead, they might get a bad CEO to exit or force a restructuring. The stock trades up and the rabble-rousers take their winnings and depart. More polite efforts, even by large, powerful shareholders, are much less effective. For instance, some major institutional investors met with Goldman to object to the idea that the firm would pay lavish bonuses for 2009. The session appears to have had no impact.

        Amusingly, board members themselves promote the “maximize shareholder value” canard. For instance, I was at a conference and chatted up one of the better-known panelists (odds are high you would recognize her name), an economist who has held important policy positions and sits on the boards of several public companies. Somehow the magic “maximizing shareholder value” phrase came up and I took issue with it. She said, “Under Delaware law, directors have a duty to consider….” I gave her a hard look and said, “Equity is a residual claim.” That silenced her, for indeed there is no rebuttal to that. Equity holders are at the bottom of the obligation chain. Directors do not have a legal foundation for given them preference over other parties that legitimately have stronger economic interests in the company than shareholders do.

        So how did this “the last shall come first” thinking become established? You can blame it all on economists, specifically Harvard Business School’s Michael Jensen. In other words, this idea did not come out of legal analysis, changes in regulation, or court decisions. It was simply an academic theory that went mainstream. And to add insult to injury, the version of the Jensen formula that became popular was its worst possible embodiment.

        A terrific 2010 paper by Frank Dobbin and Jiwook Jung, “The Misapplication of Mr. Michael Jensen: How Agency Theory Brought Down the Economy and Might Do It Again,” explains how this line of thinking went mainstream. I strongly suggest you read it in full, but I’ll give a brief recap for the time-pressed.

        In the 1970s, there was a great deal of hand-wringing in America as Japanese and German manufacturers were eating American’s lunch. That led to renewed examination of how US companies were managed, with lots of theorizing about what went wrong and what the remedies might be. In 1976, Jensen and William Meckling asserted that the problem was that corporate executives served their own interests rather than those of shareholders, in other words, that there was an agency problem. Executives wanted to build empires while shareholders wanted profits to be maximized.

        I strongly suspect that if Jensen and Meckling had not come out with this line of thinking, you would have gotten something similar to justify the actions of the leveraged buyout kings, who were just getting started in the 1970s and were reshaping the corporate landscape by the mid-1980s. They were doing many of the things Jensen and Meckling recommended: breaking up multi-business companies, thinning out corporate centers, and selling corporate assets (some of which were clearly excess, like corporate art and jet collection, while other sales were simply to increase leverage, like selling corporate office buildings and leasing them back). In other words, a likely reason that Jensen and Meckling’s theory gained traction was it appeared to validate a fundamental challenge to incumbent managements. (Dobbin and Jung attribute this trend, as pretty much everyone does, to Jensen because he continued to develop it. What really put it on the map was a 1990 Harvard Business Review article, “It’s Not What You Pay CEOs, but How,” that led to an explosion in the use of option-based pay and resulted in a huge increase in CEO pay relative to that of average workers.)

        To forestall takeovers, many companies implemented the measures an LBO artist might take before his invading army arrived: sell off non-core divisions, borrow more, shed staff.

        The problem was to the extent that the Jensen/Meckling prescription had merit, only the parts that helped company executives were adopted. Jensen didn’t just call on executives to become less ministerial and more entrepreneurial; they also called for more independent and engaged boards to oversee and discipline top managers, and more equity-driven pay, both options and other equity-linked compensation, to make management more sensitive to both upside and downside risks.

        Over the next two decades, companies levered up, became more short-term oriented, and executive pay levels exploded. As Dobbin and Jung put it, “The result of the changes promoted by agency theory was that by the late 1990s, corporate America’s leaders were drag racing without the brakes.”

        The paper proceeds to analyze in considerable detail how three of the major prescriptions of “agency theory” aka “executives and boards should maximize value,” namely, pay for (mythical) performance, dediversification, and greater reliance on debt all increased risk. And the authors also detail how efforts to improve oversight were ineffective.

        But the paper also makes clear that this vision of how companies should be run was simply a new management fashion, as opposed to any sort of legal requirement:

        Organizational institutionalists have long argued that new management practices diffuse through networks of firms like fads spread through high schools….In their models, new paradigms are socially constructed as appropriate solutions to perceived problems or crises….Expert groups that stand to gain from having their preferred strategies adopted by firms then enter the void, competing to have their model adopted….

        And as Dobbin and Jung point out, the parts of the Jensen formula that got adopted were the one that had constituents. The ones that promoted looting and short-termism had obvious followings. The ones for prudent management didn’t.”

        Skippy… more rounds in the chamber if needed.

        PS. your not even a capitalist at a fundamental level.

      • @3d1k,

        I must take your lack of rebuttal as a silent form of acquiescence.

        Skippy… sadly my respect for your opinion is diminished as a result, as you, seem only capable of opportunistic interjection.

      • @ skip.

        I’m not sure you can’t run this line without building in a breakdown in norms of capital and monetary policy either. The reason no one cared about owners anymore was because they didn’t matter, capital could now be created and sourced at speed by those with power and no wealth.

        Owners were busy figuring out what this meant nd wondering why execs didn’t listen to them anymore.

        Adler’s lament is to be expected – the rules of money were changed and many were to slow to spot the magic.

      • @aj,

        Sorry I don’t observe money as a commodity.

        Additionally the post by YS unpacks a trend which gave cover for looting, its not like the same thing did not happen in the lead up to the GD.

      • Owners of capital were remarkably passive about the looting. Bank shareholders didn’t seem to care their capital was compromised in risk and bonuses, really they weren’t owners, they were holders that had capital attributed to them.

        The point of making them owners was so they could be fleeced.

        They were a source of the new capital, but never the intended final holder. Alder and his ilk are just dirty they didn’t understand. Corrigan, for example, understood.

      • aj,

        When you have the money and power to shape the narrative across sectors of society and naysayers can be demised with just the utterance of filthy heathen heretic commies or socialists.

        Well you have an environment where some even think Krugman is a lefty, a guy that religiously observes the IS-LM, more Milton than Keynes, yet the howls.

  3. A big stockmarket trader could drive a company equity price down. Which in turn would drive corporate greed?


  4. A friend on Board of BigCompany. Senior manager demands remuneration review citing divergence from peers. Board subcom spend inordinate time seeking appropriate reports to ascertain cohort remuneration. Said manager no hands on, effectively collater of subsidiary functions. Reports indicate manager suitably remunerated (Very) offers xxxxxx increase regardless – as friend said, it’s just business and there’s some greedy bastards out there. Shut them up.

    This filters thru everywhere, even the public service, where possibly even less justified.

    Not greedy corporates. Simply greed.

  5. Dont mean to poop on your carpet, but its nit just the corporate.

    You guys once linked to a beautiful article highlighting bogan boomer mentality.

    Some couple bought an inner city Brisbane house for two time wages in the 80’s. They were expecting $1.3mil and were holding out because recent softening of prices had meant underwhelming offers had come forward. They were then having subtle digs at younger people for not paying what they were entitled to.

    Due to take exempt status, an item they bought for two years wages, they were wanting to receive nearly 20 years wages, for essentially doing nothing.

    That level of greed is the sane this article berates, it is only a variation of scale, not a variation of kind.

    • …and that’s why small business is in decline in Australia. Why work hard when you can buy a couple of properties, sit back relax and do fuck all as the value of an object that adds nothing to the economy appreciates rapidly. The problem lies squarely with the political class to fix and won’t do a thing about it.

  6. So there was no corporate greed before 1980? This does not make sense.

    My own view is investment intensive manufacturing went to Asian countries (globalisation) while the rise of technology and services resulted in less investment in Developed Markets. For example, creating software is less capital intensive than building a iron ore smelter or factory.

    There’s also the secular decline of interest rates which makes borrowing to fund dividends and buybacks more attractive.

    Changes in the macro landscape are the cause, not “corporate greed”.

    • kinetic ritual

      No, there has always been greed, just not such unfettered greed, enabled by deregulation and detachment from previous social norms. And as Adler and many others have correctly noted, that greed is now disconnected from actual risk and skin in the game.

      Those changes in the macro landscape didn’t just *happen*. They were purposeful, strategic initiatives flowing from economic ideologies.

      • “Deregulation” the term fed to us visa Econ 101 etc that even our well numerated clever professors became obsessed with believing……you really mean regulated controlled MMT centralised software that is enabling this whole ponzy to increasingly continue it’s disconnection with the real world…

    • It’s a problem with corporate culture where the CEO only care about his pay packet. Take IBM for example. It is borrowing money to back back share, because the CEO’s performance bonus is linked to ‘earning per share’. Meanwhile, R&D expensive is reduced, which is fatal for a tech company.

      Another example is Qantas. The 2 billion dollar loss was a direct result of a clause in the contract which says the CEO will get a bonus if Qantas retain 65% of the domestic market, so the CEO started a capacity war with Virgin. Once Qantas stop flying empty planes to prop up the 65%, it is once again making money.

      The most blatant example is Steven Elop in Nokia. There was a clause in his contract which stipulates he will earn 25 million dollars if Microsoft buys Nokia. So Elop sabotaged Nokia, and it was subsequently sold to Microsoft for less than 1/10 of the price in a few years.

      • shitty/incompetent boards is not indicative of systemic problems…

        collapsing real demand, disguised by suicidal fiscal policy across the g20, sure – happy to criticize that, but shitty boards per say is not indicative of anything as far as i can tell.

      • ‘Shitty boards’? The board is on the game as well.

        FOr Qantas, look up who owns the leasing company that Jetstar uses, and you may understand why Jetstar continues to exist even though it doesn’t make money.

        IBM’s CEO is also the Chair of the board. So a lot of oversight there!!

        I do agree that the Nokia board is grossly incompetent, as the Nokia Chairman didn’t realize what the ’25 million dollar clause’ in Elop’s contract means, or looked up the history of how Elop managed to wreck every company he had been with. Jorma Ollila once made Nokia into the biggest mobile phone company in the world, and he also made the mistake which destroyed it.

      • @T,

        There is a cornucopia of legal opinions on the immediate need to restructure board room compliance, duplicitous nature currant in the prevailing system is fraught with negative incentives.

        Skippy… or are you to argue that sitting on multiple boards is a good thing, cashing pay checks for agreeing with CEO demands.

    • So there was no corporate greed before 1980?

      Of course there was, but it was controlled by laws and culture.

      The point being made is that is no longer true – which is why, say, most workers have relatively little job security and executives think being paid orders of magnitude more than workers is acceptable.

      It is an offshoot of the hyper-individualism that has overtaken the western world. As with so many problems today, it can be laid at the feet of Thatcher and Reagan.

  7. Perhaps increased corporate greed is a function of increased wealth. I’ve read research suggesting that on average the more money people have, the greedier they become. Conversely, I can vouch that the poor people I’ve met in many countries have been the most generous. And here I don’t mean the desperately poor and alienated but people with a place to live, OK food and good community but little else.

    • Experience borne out by charities in that the more generous come from less affluent; the most affluent are the tightest – or asset rich and cash poor, in any case, getting money from them is like squeezing blood from stone.

  8. “What does it mean when Rodney Adler makes more sense than the Reserve Bank of Australia?”

    Perhaps we can view the current path we are on as something akin to Dante’s trip through the 9 circles of Hell.
    H&H, you may be our Virgil, walking us through and doing your best to explain what we see and why.
    And Mr. Adler is just one of the many characters we meet along the way who describes just one aspect of the horror.

  9. Normally such corporate debt would affect the capital gains of the firm.

    I take it the argument that corporate debt isn’t having the same effect on capital gains as the expectation is for future cashflows not require discounting, and in fact, future cashflows are expected to come from future corporate debt, so it is stuck in the debt trap.

    But what structural change can stop this?

    Change taxation on interest expenses?

    • Really I think we need to revisit the corporate structure and rethink it from first principles. It’s broken, largely inherited from early monsters like the East India Company and I think simply broken.

      The rampant rise in control fraud and short term greed are just a result of the greshams dynamic imposed by the flawed corporate structure.
      As for how to fix it, thats a tricky one.

  10. Another thing, doesn’t this corporate greed just push the risk onto the debt-holders?

    Shouldn’t the market sort this out? That seems to be the problem, the debt-holders see no downside.

  11. Hmmm
    Corporate Greed = Corporate Inefficiency = Business development Opportunity = New Competition

    What we have in Australia is not simply Greed rather its a cancerous form of old-school-tie corruption meets nepotism. This cancer eats at the very soul of the entrepreneur until there is nothing left, just a hollow shell.

    I often wonder what has changed over the last 30 years. Where are the wealthy individuals that actually want to use their wealth to build the businesses that leverage Australia’s human capital. When I was starting out my career I had the privilege of working with a great Australian entrepreneur named Paul Trainor. It is my fervent hope to one day consider myself worthy to walk in Paul’s footsteps.

    • They exist C-B. I know one of the founders of Atlassian very well. They have both done very well (on paper over a billion). And both of them are heavily involved in the IT scene in Australia, as venture capitalists and mentors themselves.

      I was heartened to hear Malcolm Turnbull rang up to have a beer with the founders just to chat and see what the govt could do to help. That said, the only thing they want (easier ATO rules about giving employees stock) hasn’t yet eventuated.

      • They exist C-B. I know one of the founders of Atlassian very well. They have both done very well (on paper over a billion). And both of them are heavily involved in the IT scene in Australia, as venture capitalists and mentors themselves.


        I was good mates with Scott Farquhar’s wife at school and met him many times back when we lived in Sydney. He’s a genuinely good bloke and wants everyone around him to succeed.

        An old college mate ended up working at Atlassian for a few years as well and couldn’t speak highly enough of the experience.

        The problem is people like him tend to be a minority amongst “entrepreneurs”.

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      “Corporate Greed = Corporate Inefficiency = Business development Opportunity = New Competition”

      Not when Corporate Power exceeds that of the state.

  12. Wow Rodney Adler being quoted on MacroBusiness, that is, how do I say, Bazaar…….???
    Having said the above very sarcastically I must say he makes an OK point. I’m guessing that not many punters who have 9.5% of their weekly wages shunted into super funds run by way over remunerated dickheads, actually gets that the persons running their very simple super fund is paid a squillion dollars to do not very much!!!!