[volkman10]

Removal of Cyrus Mistry was absolutely necessary says Ratan Tata.

Ratan Tata, the interim chairman of Tata Sons, said the decision to remove Cyrus Mistry was a 'difficult' one which was made after 'careful and thoughtful deliberation'. In his second email to employees in a week, he added that the tough call was 'absolutely necessary for the future success of the Tata Group

Tata mentioned how he was looking forward to selecting the next 'world-class leader to be the new chairman of the group'.

Source

[prakash_ajp]

Here's an interview with Peter Casey. Naturally, as someone who wrote the book Tata – The World’s Greatest Company, he stands beside Tata:

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Ind...8.ece?w=alauto

[swiftnfurious]

This incident has made TATA a butt of jokes! I have honestly started thinking whether it's a dirty political game.

After reviewing Mistry performance, the Board in a meeting convened on June 28, had unanimously recognised his ‘contribution’ to the group companies. The board is also learnt to have recommended a huge salary raise, according to sources.

Details: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/bus...e_7871901.html

Edit: I think it's clear that there was lot of corruption in TATA motors when RT was leading it. It took a certain Cyrus Mistry to do a sting operation and blacklist the erring vendors / officials to bring the quality aspect back to where it should have been. Sad that Ratan TATA never realized the problems or the need of an audit in spite of the long term quality concerns on the products.

[RavenAvi]

Interesting twists in the tale.

The nomination and remuneration committee which met on June 28, after reviewing Mistry's performance, unanimously recorded its recognition of his significant contribution across group companies. It also expressed appreciation of his "multifaceted initiatives aimed at preserving and promoting cohesive functioning of the group in accordance with its distinctive values", as per the sources cited.

The committee agreed to recommend to the board of Tata Sons an increase in Mistry's basic salary and commission, according to these sources. Though the board had offered a larger increment, Mistry insisted that his salary increase should not exceed the 6% offered to his top team, the Group Executive Council.

Full Article

[volkman10]

Tata Empire split in two as Cyrus Mistry stays Chairman of Group units.

Ratan Tata replaced Cyrus Mistry atop the holding company of India’s biggest conglomerate in a single board meeting. Evicting Mistry from the boards of about a dozen companies in the group won’t be so easy.

A week after the coup at Tata Sons Ltd., Mistry is still chairman and non-executive director of Tata Motors Ltd., owner of Jaguar Land Rover; Tata Power Ltd. and Indian Hotels Co., which runs the Pierre in New York,

Source

[desdemona]

Ratan Tata is getting almost unanimous support from all large financial institutions/banks, international investors, and 'forebearance' from regulators/ministries/government/neta-s/political-party. As also the capital markets as-a-whole. In the UK as well, vitally (for JLR, Tata Steel and TCS, among others.)

THAT is entirely well-deserved and to-be expected.

BUT: before the inevitable dirty external politics begins (by rival conglomerates and their party-political proxies? And/or vice versa, etc) TataSons would be well-advised to lineup those global sovereign wealth/pension funds, say, in order to buyout the Pallonji Mistry-s, IF the latter can be 'persuaded' to sell, at a good/creamy price of course which they're of course entirely within their rights to expect?

And to move fast on esp the Tata Motors front, which should imo do a big global merger-type 'deal', so as to signal a commitment to de-risking the group, deleveraging, rationalising, etc, nevermind that these are the very things that Mr. Mistry is associated-with and seen to be excessively commited-to.

The margin-of-manoeuver via Tata Motors, financially, is still very large after all: the very thing missing in the other large firms at Tata Sons, given recent history and given macroeconomic, political-economic and economic-sectoral conditions in India and globally?

[volkman10]

Tata picks his new crack team to steer ship; Menon, Bhat, Rajan get new roles.

Since Mistry’s removal as group chairman, Tata’s listed companies have lost a combined $6.7 billion in market value. Tata Sons controls 29 listed entities but its equity holdings in many key companies are well below the 51% mark.

Source

[RavenAvi]

An unnamed Tata Sons board director spills some interesting beans:

The director also defended the track record of former Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry and said he could not be blamed for the losses in the Nano project, which he had inherited.

“The board was concerned over the Nano and we had discussed several options as it was losing money on every car and the inventory was only piling up,” the director said asking not to be named. “After sinking in Rs 6,000-7,000 crore in the Nano till date, what is the result?”

“The entire board is the owner of the decisions and not Mistry alone. If Cyrus is removed for this reason then the entire board should be sacked,” said he.

Full Article

[safari_lover]

A very nice article on Tatas and trust. Many interesting anecdotes in there.

Many years later, they said, when India had gained independence from the British, a letter arrived at their headquarters from Tatas. Now that we can, how much shall we pay you for the technology you have provided us, it asked. That letter, they said, is a legend in our company of what trust means. You honour your debt, even when it is not legally binding, and even when it is not demanded of you.

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/GOx9...-of-trust.html

[honeybee]

Today's ET has carried a news article stating Cyrus Mistry stopped all new contracts to Shapoorji Pallonji group as soon as he was appointed chairman - citing a potential conflict of interest. This has cost the Shapoorji Pallonji group a huge amount of money as their order book stands blank.

If this is true, at least one accusation of corporate misgovernance falls flat on its face. Whatever support Tata may garner from investors and other stakeholders, if the board lauded Mistry of a fantastic performance only a couple of months back, sacking him for non-performance and not following the 'ethos' of Tatas does call for some serious explanation.

I guess there's more to it than meets the eye. And for the sake of transparency I wish Cyrus Mistry does not go down without a fight. As consumers we have placed a lot of trust on the brand Tata, and as consumers we must know if that trust was misused.

Originally Posted by prakash_ajp

Here's an interview with Peter Casey. Naturally, as someone who wrote the book Tata – The World’s Greatest Company, he stands beside Tata:

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Ind...8.ece?w=alauto

If you go through the news report, there is only opinion, and no facts. When a business is conducted, the primary aim is to make profits. There are thousands of stakeholders, including shareholders and customers, who have placed faith in the Nano and if Tatas don't make a profit out of the Nano, everybody suffers. You will have rampant cost cutting which will affect quality, delayed deliveries, substandard service, dishonoured warranty claims and whatnot if the company does not make money. If Tata wants to be philanthropic, he can be with the money he is getting as dividends. Bill Gates did not bleed money on selling Microsoft products. Sure, they do give away Student Editions, but they have never run a business like a charity.

So if Peter Casey thinks Cyrus Mistry should sell his stake and exit and let Tata run the show, at least I want to know the facts of the argument. Buying companies like Corus and JLR at the height of their valuations when nobody else was buying, and then trying to maintain them even at the cost of every shareholder's money would amount to charity and not business.

I mean just look at the mess this move has created. Mistry is still chairman of many group companies which are listed, and he can't be removed from their chairmanship as easily. So effectively the entire Tata group is now confused as to who is the boss. And looking at how things are unfolding, Mistry won't bow out easily. After all his reputation has been tarnished. If Tata did want to preserve the 'ethos', why did he humiliate Mistry like this?

Originally Posted by safari_lover

A very nice article on Tatas and trust. Many interesting anecdotes in there.
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/GOx9...-of-trust.html

Interesting anecdotes, but they still do not explain why Tata felt like removing the chairman of the group in such a manner. Even an ordinary office employee gets sacked in a better manner.

Tata vehicles, at least the passenger vehicles, are not known for their quality (barring the latest offerings) or the fit/finish. Is that because lapses in quality control or workmanship are not attended to in an effective manner leading to a "Chalta Hai" attitude? Obviously a "human" approach would be to give second chances to suppliers supplying substandard parts, or employees performing substandard work. However it has huge implications for the buyers of these products who deserve better.

If Tata found Cyrus did not have the right ingredients to lead the Tata group, why wait for four years and unceremoniously remove him one fine day? Wasn't the expectation made clear to him at the time of joining? Wasn't a performance review conducted every year to assess what he was doing and let him know if any course correction was required? There is zero evidence of any of this having happened. However there is evidence to the contrary of the board being satisfied about Mistry's performance. So it's hard to buy the argument that Mistry was sacked for not keeping to the Tata values.

[chncar]

Originally Posted by safari_lover

A very nice article on Tatas and trust. Many interesting anecdotes in there.



http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/GOx9...-of-trust.html

Ever since this episode happened people have been crawling out of the woodwork to write puff pieces about Ratan Tata. Nothing new, just the usual PR exercises aided by a corrupt media.

While most people have high regard for the Tata group as a whole, and rightly so, given the kind of people who founded it and built it over the years, it is undeniable that the halo (largely PR-based and artificially constructed) around Ratan Tata and the narrative of him being an incredible businessman and benevolent father figure has now gone away and the reality is beginning to come out. A lot about him smelled fishy even earlier (the Radia tapes etc) but now for many people the reality is out in the open.

Anecdotes are all fine and dandy (though the type the author has mentioned can easily be made up, and there are much better genuine and credible ones out there already on the Tata group) but the only way that trust can be established is through transparency. From the latest episode which smells very much like a cover up, they seem to be going in the opposite direction.

[safari_lover]

Originally Posted by honeybee

Interesting anecdotes, but they still do not explain why Tata felt like removing the chairman of the group in such a manner. Even an ordinary office employee gets sacked in a better manner.

Of course it doesn't. I don't think it pretends to explain it either. We'll probably never get to know the reasons for Mr. Mistry's removal and everything that's going around in the media is pure speculation, IMO.

Originally Posted by chncar

Ever since this episode happened people have been crawling out of the woodwork to write puff pieces about Ratan Tata. Nothing new, just the usual PR exercises aided by a corrupt media.

The article doesn't mention Ratan Tata even once!

[chncar]

Originally Posted by safari_lover

The article doesn't mention Ratan Tata even once!

It doesn't have to. The timing of the article and the fact that it is being quoted in the context of this thread is self explanatory. And there have been plenty of other articles that do mention Ratan Tata that came out soon after this episode. I could count 3 on the Rediff front page the same day.

I myself am a great admirer of the Tatas but nobody should stand on past laurels and none of that legacy should be used to rationalize or paper over problems that are happening today.

[prakash_ajp]

Originally Posted by honeybee

If you go through the news report, there is only opinion, and no facts.

Of course, it is one man's opinion, albeit an import one as far as Tata is concerned. I have been going through the last few pages and haven't come across much in the name of fact. It is all mostly speculation, one way or other. And please keep the "who remained to be anonymous" to the western war propaganda, they don't count as facts.

I wish Tata were more open on this issue too, but all we can do at this point is wait for the real news to unfold, if it ever will. To his part, Mistry made some comments too, that in my opinion, were not in good taste. For e.g., he was not allowed to do his job, Tata kept interfering etc.

I am not really a Tata stakeholder, but I have been their customer for long time, including living in a house built by them and I can vouch for their honest way of doing business.

BTW, I have people working for Tata all around me and talking to them I couldn't sense any worries as employees. They appear to think that the company is doing fine as long Ratan Tata is around.

[condor]

Originally Posted by prakash_ajp

I have been going through the last few pages and haven't come across much in the name of fact. It is all mostly speculation, one way or other.

+1

The entire episode so far has been pure speculation. Apart from Mistry's leaked (?) letter, and the points from the response to it, hardly anything is factual. People have quoted bits & pieces from diverse sources, but there is nothing concrete / coherent about the reason / cause for the current state of things.

Originally Posted by prakash_ajp

To his part, Mistry made some comments too, that in my opinion, were not in good taste. For e.g., he was not allowed to do his job, Tata kept interfering etc.

It is not that Cyrus & RT are strangers to each other. They would know each other personally too, apart from the professional interactions. One question is - did Cyrus keep in touch with RT after taking over ?