The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://ecforum.org.uk/
Although I've acknowledged that Jim Slater was controversial, no-one (as far as I know) has questioned his integrity and many including myself would argue that he was a positive influence on the UK business scene in encouraging many significant companies to become more efficient.Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:01 pm"A controversial figure in some respects, particularly to those who considered him a financial asset-stripper, but UK chess owes him a big debt."
Yes, but in sport you get your money where you can - cricket got it from Allen Stanford, football has the world cup in various dubious places, partly as delegates take bribes before voting, etc.
Plenty of people questioned his integrity, including the Singapore Government who wanted him extradited for fraud. His dodgy delaings are mentioned here. https://www.ft.com/content/5c1769bc-8f7 ... 9a1dfede9b . If asset-stripping made companies more efficient, could you name a single company which benefitted from Slater's activities?Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:34 pmAlthough I've acknowledged that Jim Slater was controversial, no-one (as far as I know) has questioned his integrity and many including myself would argue that he was a positive influence on the UK business scene in encouraging many significant companies to become more efficient.Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:01 pm"A controversial figure in some respects, particularly to those who considered him a financial asset-stripper, but UK chess owes him a big debt."
Yes, but in sport you get your money where you can - cricket got it from Allen Stanford, football has the world cup in various dubious places, partly as delegates take bribes before voting, etc.
Slater, Walker Securities.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:00 pmIf asset-stripping made companies more efficient, could you name a single company which benefitted from Slater's activities?
I love English chessRoger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 1:12 pmA controversial figure in some respects, particularly to those who considered him a financial asset-stripper, but UK chess owes him a big debt.
From the FT obituary:Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:34 pmNo-one (as far as I know) has questioned his integrity
Slater and some fellow executives were widely suspected of insider dealing
From the obituaryJohn Townsend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:36 pmI wonder when the FT obituary had in mind in referring to insider dealing.
That would be the period from 1970 to 1974. Private Eye of the period or a couple of years later had material on Tokengate.Slater and some fellow executives were widely suspected of insider dealing through an offshoot called Tokengate, which acquired shares in companies that were often involved in Slater deals. Though yet to be criminalised, insider trading was frowned on in the City — not least because adverse publicity might prompt a regulatory crackdown. Slater’s downfall came in the financial crisis of 1974-75.
No, it was just cheating the public. But who cares when someone bungs a few quid our way?John Townsend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:36 pmI wonder when the FT obituary had in mind in referring to insider dealing. No-one should condone insider dealing, but I believe it wasn't actually a criminal offence until 1980.
Slater, Walker therefore created a special incentive plan. It formed investment trusts for its executives and a few of its best clients. The Times of London has alleged that the trusts traded in securities of companies in which Slater, Walker was preparing to take over. The stock would rise when the investing public learned of Slater, Walker's intentions, and the executives would pocket the gain.
This idea was one of Slater, Walker's many innovations, and it was perfectly legal, although the laws of prudence and conscience in the City had prevented such activity in the past.
Authorities in Singapore recently uncovered what they believe to be such an operation. Until 1973, Slater, Walker owned 26.4 percent of Haw Par Brothers International, an investment banking company there.
In Hong Kong, meanwhile, Slater, Walker had an incentive plan for executives, an investment trust now defunct. It has been widely reported here that the trust, called Spydar, traded in securities in which Haw Par was dealing, and Singapore authorities have alleged that Spydar was doing it at the expense of Haw Par's smaller stockholders. One of Spydar's beneficiaries was Mr. Slater.