WPP

[Bouleversee]

According to The Times, the reason Sorrell quit WPP is that he was alleged to have used a corporate card to pay a prostitute £300. The controversy over his resignation is likely to dominate Wednesday's AGM, especially his entitlement (as a 'good leaver') to a £20m bonus and the lack of transparency surrounding his departure. I've often wondered what on earth he did with all the money he was paid, which apparently still wasn't enough for his appetites. However, WPP has previously said that the amount of money involved in his alleged wrongdoing was not material to the company's finances, so that's OK. Nice picture of him with his pretty young wife who gave birth to his daughter in Nov. 2016.

Am pleased to say I have never held WPP.

[Arborbridge]

Am pleased to say I have never held WPP.

WPP: Will Pay Prostitutes?

[monabri]

From the Telegraph

" It is understood that the whistleblower was an ex-employee who did not produce any evidence to support his claims."

It's about time the company issued a statement!

Edit - oh, I see there is a non disclosure on this....I see smoke!

[idpickering]

I hold WPP, and am treating this as just background noise, and am not reacting in any way regarding my WPP shares.

Ian.

[monabri]

From the FT

Moderator Message:
Sorry, I had to remove this link as it is behind a paywall. I'm sure Googling will bring up lots of information though. Mel

He ( Sorrell) seems to be a real P.O.S. !

[Arborbridge]

I hold WPP, and am treating this as just background noise, and am not reacting in any way regarding my WPP shares.

Ian.

Agreed. Background noise indeed.

[moorfield]

According to The Times, the reason Sorrell quit WPP is that he was alleged to have used a corporate card to pay a prostitute £300.

However, WPP has previously said that the amount of money involved in his alleged wrongdoing was not material to the company's finances, so that's OK.

Am pleased to say I have never held WPP.

It doesn't surprise me that the omerta surrounding his departure invites speculation of this kind. In hindsight, an immaterial amount spent on an illicit activity makes sense, and would have been caught with his pants down (perhaps literally) using a corporate card. However my own HYP choices are agnostic to ethical dilemmas - look hard enough and every one of our holdings will be hiding something unpalatable.

From the Telegraph

" It is understood that the whistleblower was an ex-employee who did not produce any evidence to support his claims."

It's about time the company issued a statement!

Edit - oh, I see there is a non disclosure on this....I see smoke!

Remember you read it here first

viewtopic.php?p=132256#p132256

Aren't we a little curious to know what he's really been up to? The Sunday tabloids may tell us more, but I imagine the lawyers have spent the last fortnight sorting out a non-disclosure package for the (now departed) junior employee involved, so alas we may never know.

Just like that, after 33 years. All very mystifying.

[idpickering]

I hold WPP, and am treating this as just background noise, and am not reacting in any way regarding my WPP shares.

Ian.

Agreed. Background noise indeed.

Thank you Arb. I should add though, that I'm not thinking of buying any more WPP right now either. More because they're at my HYP average monetary value currently than much else to be honest.

Ian.

[Breelander]

From the FT

Moderator Message:
Sorry, I had to remove this link as it is behind a paywall. I'm sure Googling will bring up lots of information though. Mel

Some subscribe to the FT, while others like me have a free registration that allows us to read a few such links each month. Even without any such access, the link would at least show the title of the article. Googling that title then following Google's link to the article gives full access for all. This seems to be a deliberate policy by the FT - a 'free sample' on a Google search to encourage subscriptions.

Please do not delete FT links, there are legitimate ways to read them - but ONLY if we know what they are!

[Spet0789]

I am not sure I believe the alleged transaction.
Pretty sure the most acceptable method is cash? Is that not why punters refer to "sorting out the paperwork"? Asking for a friend....

Of course you are. I defer to an apparent expert.

If I recall correctly, the FT article suggested that he was in the habit of requesting cash for expenses from the company. So potentially he could have used corporate cash for a personal expense.

I don’t own WPP but all this is certainly suggestive of weak controls in an organisation in thrall to a dominant and masterful CEO. Now he has left it wouldn’t be amazing if more cockroaches crawled out. I wouldn’t be a happy shareholder.

[ADrunkenMarcus]

I am not sure I believe the alleged transaction. Pretty sure the most acceptable method is cash?

Agreed! Although certain businesses of ill-repute use innocuous sounding names so that nothing dodgy will appear on clients' credit card statements.

Best wishes

Mark.

[Breelander]

...the link would at least show the title of the article. Googling that title then following Google's link to the article gives full access ...

I suspect it was the one called "Martin Sorrell's downfall: why the ad king left WPP" - a real eye-opener, Google it...

[MDW1954]

I am not sure I believe the alleged transaction.
Pretty sure the most acceptable method is cash? Is that not why punters refer to "sorting out the paperwork"? Asking for a friend....

The FT article suggests that he was fond of large amounts of cash... and then segues into the discussion of prostitutes.

MDW1954

[monabri]

...the link would at least show the title of the article. Googling that title then following Google's link to the article gives full access ...

I suspect it was the one called "Martin Sorrell's downfall: why the ad king left WPP" - a real eye-opener, Google it...

It was that article...a real people person, eh?

[Arborbridge]

In my view, we are being naive if we think all expenses of powerful bosses are utterly beyond reproach. And one small misdemeanor, once rationalised, leads to another, perhaps larger, one. Even at a very lowly level (which I encountered in business) one can make ethical issues about the type and quality of expenditure demanded by different people in an organisation - those at the top rationalising their need for the finest hotels etc, whilst those at the bottom are paid the minimum.

The flashing red finger is not pointing at one man's desire to gain what he can (that being human nature) but the accountants and auditors who are too craven to bring them to book. As someone has already mentioned: it's the lack of systemic controls which is worrying. All power corrupts.


Arb.

[idpickering]

In my view, we are being naive if we think all expenses of powerful bosses are utterly beyond reproach. And one small misdemeanor, once rationalised, leads to another, perhaps larger, one. Even at a very lowly level (which I encountered in business) one can make ethical issues about the type and quality of expenditure demanded by different people in an organisation - those at the top rationalising their need for the finest hotels etc, whilst those at the bottom are paid the minimum.

The flashing red finger is not pointing at one man's desire to gain what he can (that being human nature) but the accountants and auditors who are too craven to bring them to book. As someone has already mentioned: it's the lack of systemic controls which is worrying. All power corrupts.


Arb.

Well said Arb. Have a rec/thanks sir.

Ian.

[Gengulphus]

From the FT

Moderator Message:
Sorry, I had to remove this link as it is behind a paywall. I'm sure Googling will bring up lots of information though. Mel

Some subscribe to the FT, while others like me have a free registration that allows us to read a few such links each month. Even without any such access, the link would at least show the title of the article. Googling that title then following Google's link to the article gives full access for all. This seems to be a deliberate policy by the FT - a 'free sample' on a Google search to encourage subscriptions.

Please do not delete FT links, there are legitimate ways to read them - but ONLY if we know what they are!

I'd suggest that those who want to post FT links could very nearly as easily copy in the headline followed by "(Google it)", and thereby contribute to educating others about those legitimate ways!

Gengulphus

[Ricksure]

I think WPP holders like myself should be concerned about the rumours Sir Sorrell has or is about to buy a shell company and start up in opposition to WPP, he is in the enviable position of knowing all the best clients, the spending budgets and brightest staff to poach should he decide to set up in business again

[MDW1954]

From the FT

Moderator Message:
Sorry, I had to remove this link as it is behind a paywall. I'm sure Googling will bring up lots of information though. Mel

Some subscribe to the FT, while others like me have a free registration that allows us to read a few such links each month. Even without any such access, the link would at least show the title of the article. Googling that title then following Google's link to the article gives full access for all. This seems to be a deliberate policy by the FT - a 'free sample' on a Google search to encourage subscriptions.

Please do not delete FT links, there are legitimate ways to read them - but ONLY if we know what they are!

I'd suggest that those who want to post FT links could very nearly as easily copy in the headline followed by "(Google it)", and thereby contribute to educating others about those legitimate ways!

Gengulphus

I sought advice from other moderaters on this, as I wasn't aware that posting links to articles behind paywalls was necessarily against any TLF rules. And in any case, a number of us subscribe to the FT, and a direct link would be useful.

Moreover, the argument that it is useful to see the article's title is persuasive, as that helps to locate it through other means.

I don't wish to disagree with another moderator about this; simply to reinterpret things a little more sympathetically.

So here is the link: https://www.ft.com/content/617147b4-6cda-11e8-852d-d8b934ff5ffa

Added as per another poster's request: if you aren't a subscriber, it may work for you, or it may not. If you are "registered", it will work if you are within your limit.

MDW1954

[Breelander]

...in any case, a number of us subscribe to the FT..

I don't, but I am registered for free. That gives access to a limited number of articles each month, this one included. It also gives access the FT Portfolio service, my main reason for registering.

You can register here: https://www.ft.com/register