DBS CEO Richard Stanley dies from leukaemia

[Bigg]

Amen.

[Cheekg98]

Condolences to all who died with cancer ... and hope those who are fighting cancer will continue to fight on and recover.

 

April 12, 2009

Loss may leave vacuum

By Gabriel Chen

 

If no suitable replacement is found, Mr Stanley's absence will leave a 'vacuum of sorts' in top-level executive leadership, analysts said. -- PHOTO: REUTERS

 

THE loss of DBS Group Holdings' chief executive Richard Stanley will not affect business activity at the bank in the short term, said analysts.

But in the long run, if no suitable replacement is found, his absence will leave a 'vacuum of sorts' in top-level executive leadership, they added.

 

The 48-year-old American - who died on Saturday - was not just a 'people's person' but also a banker with outstanding consumer and commercial banking experience.

 

He spent the last 18 years of his 28-year banking career in Asian markets such as Thailand and China. His colleagues said he was an inspirational leader and brought a sense of purpose to the bank.

 

He understood that its future direction was to focus more on 'under-served' segments such as consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises, they added.

 

But, more importantly, he was also quite willing to articulate that belief proudly in public.

 

During his first results briefing last August, for example, he conceded that DBS had under-invested in POSB's network and heralded a new push to 're-energise' the franchise.

 

Bankers said that while DBS staff have discussed the 'lost opportunity' to do much more with the POSB brand in private conversations, nobody so far had the gumption to say it aloud.

 

On the same day, DBS launched POSB More Value Book, which gives customers discounts on utility bills, groceries and other items.

 

An analyst said: 'You've got this massive low-cost funding base in POSB, so why don't you do something sensible with it? Richard understood this perfectly.'

 

[Gnoikj]

Cancer.Bad way to go...the slow ones especially...

 

On a side note, an observation...some forummers here seem to imply that the rich should die or that Richard Stanley deserves it...c'mon, thats really something only his maker can decide...

 

For those who state that Richard Stanley or the rich deserve such ends, they should really be asking this question "What is the definition of Wealth?" To you a guy like Richard Stanley is, well, rich (pardon any puns!) But compared to the homeless guy staying in the void deck or squatting in East Coast park, your 3 rm HDB flat is a luxury! So by that guy's definition, you deserve to die from cancer??!

 

[David]

On Good Friday morning, I was watching CNA at about 7 in the morning on Life Before Death. As usual a patient would ask the first thing - "why me?".

 

Then the husband realised there is a changed to his cancer-stricken wife when they see so many cancer patient at the cancer clinic. By then the wife was asking "why not me? what makes me so special that I should be immuned to this disease?".

[Gnoikj]

Wait a minute, your definition of morality is based on whether the fellow fires/sacks anyone? Gasp! That would make almost any boss...evil! And doom to the fiery flames of hell!

 

[Modykoh]

Condolences to all who died with cancer ... and hope those who are fighting cancer will continue to fight on and recover.

 

April 12, 2009

Loss may leave vacuum

By Gabriel Chen

 

If no suitable replacement is found, Mr Stanley's absence will leave a 'vacuum of sorts' in top-level executive leadership, analysts said. -- PHOTO: REUTERS

 

THE loss of DBS Group Holdings' chief executive Richard Stanley will not affect business activity at the bank in the short term, said analysts.

But in the long run, if no suitable replacement is found, his absence will leave a 'vacuum of sorts' in top-level executive leadership, they added.

 

The 48-year-old American - who died on Saturday - was not just a 'people's person' but also a banker with outstanding consumer and commercial banking experience.

 

He spent the last 18 years of his 28-year banking career in Asian markets such as Thailand and China. His colleagues said he was an inspirational leader and brought a sense of purpose to the bank.

 

He understood that its future direction was to focus more on 'under-served' segments such as consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises, they added.

 

But, more importantly, he was also quite willing to articulate that belief proudly in public.

 

During his first results briefing last August, for example, he conceded that DBS had under-invested in POSB's network and heralded a new push to 're-energise' the franchise.

 

Bankers said that while DBS staff have discussed the 'lost opportunity' to do much more with the POSB brand in private conversations, nobody so far had the gumption to say it aloud.

 

On the same day, DBS launched POSB More Value Book, which gives customers discounts on utility bills, groceries and other items.

 

An analyst said: 'You've got this massive low-cost funding base in POSB, so why don't you do something sensible with it? Richard understood this perfectly.'

 

at last some amemdments are made.

 

any way...RIP

Edited April 12, 2009 by Modykoh

[Yr1985]

at last some amemdments are made.

 

any way...RIP

 

Local top elites have the habit of screwing up state owned companies and tax payers money, then handover to true foreign talents to pick up pieces.

 

[Picanto]

Wait a minute, your definition of morality is based on whether the fellow fires/sacks anyone? Gasp! That would make almost any boss...evil! And doom to the fiery flames of hell!

 

 

if you are one of the 900 that were sacked, you will see his death in a different light.

 

[Blackmazda6]

the sunday times quoted many that says he's a good man. they can't be wrong.

 

 

a good man will not retrench 900 staff even without consulting the union and govt. thats' why i dun agree about the good man part.

 

[Gnoikj]

Too simplistic...900 people sees him as deserving of death because he sacked them, so i pose the same question to you...as a boss, forced to retrench in order to save the jobs of more, is the person evil? What about those whose jobs he kept? A few thousand of them? They view him as a hero then?

 

Basing the character of a person on whether he fires people? That is just a lame excuse, and displays a really lazy approach to thinking...

Edited April 12, 2009 by Gnoikj

[Gnoikj]

Nah..picanto says he's an evil guy...Picanto can't be wrong...

 

Right/Wrong? Moral issues that have stumped the greatest thinkers in human histroy reduced to a few postings based on criteria which are really just a joke...

 

 

[Arowana1]

Too simplistic...900 people sees him as deserving of death because he sacked them, so i pose the same question to you...as a boss, forced to retrench in order to save the jobs of more, is the person evil? What about those whose jobs he kept? A few thousand of them? They view him as a hero then?

 

Basing the character of a person on whether he fires people? That is just a lame excuse, and displays a really lazy approach to thinking...

 

i tink the feeling is that he sacked to save the profits. bank would have still posted black for subsequent quarters even without the sack. in addition, there were alternatives in place from the last recession to prevent job lost, including taking away the 10% monthly variable component, reducing bonus, reducing increment, etc. instead, he took the capitalist method, which is to retrench straight away. i expect companies to be more socially responsible, esp local companies. not asking for free makan but everyone gets lesser to save others. why not?

[B777jubilee]

A major decision like retrenchment is likely to be a decision by the management committee and have to be approved by board of directors. Richard Stanley is just a front cos of his position as a CEO. So before accusing Richard Stanley, we should look at a more objective point of view, it is unlikely to be his personal call, its more like a management committee decision, Board decision or controlling shareholder decision or a combination of both. DBS is a listed entity and to leave such major decision in the hands of just the CEO is highly unlikely.

 

Cut that man some slack, he is already dead. DBS is not his family business, and it doesnt benefit him to retrench and break the livelihood of many people.

[Darth_mel]

Well, all these negative comments proved that paying him 5 million dollars was worth it from pappy's point of view.

 

Objective achieved. Target has been shifted from the source to the messenger.

[Drive_carcar]

Guys, let this be a wake up call to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Go for regular medical checkups. I do it once a year. Even if it costs $600 or more, go for it. You pay more than that for treatment if you get any major illnesses. This kind of money cannot save.

 

Condolences to the family of Mr Stanley.

No lah... when your number is up, it is up. Going for regular medical checkups only make you more aware of the current queue number and whether is your number coming up soon.

 

I think there much more value is realising and coming to terms with our own mortality, and to make peace with God early.

[Drive_carcar]

the sunday times quoted many that says he's a good man. they can't be wrong.

You really do believe every word that is published in Striats / Sunday times.....?

 

Oh dear!

[Drive_carcar]

Too simplistic...900 people sees him as deserving of death because he sacked them, so i pose the same question to you...as a boss, forced to retrench in order to save the jobs of more, is the person evil? What about those whose jobs he kept? A few thousand of them? They view him as a hero then?

 

Basing the character of a person on whether he fires people? That is just a lame excuse, and displays a really lazy approach to thinking...

Sometimes retrenchements are a "business" decision that has it's roots in selfish personal interests. Firing people is really the ultimate lazy approach to thinking; it is a knee jerk reaction to answer to the board that the management is doing something, without actually doing very much, except to make somebody else take the fall for the management's bad moves in the past.

 

Any CEO's that have even a tinge of humanity left in them, would hesitate to retrench people, even when it would save the company, and when it makes no difference whether the company would sink or not, they would rather not do it.

 

Yes, I would like to believe the late Richard Stanley must have agonised and lost much sleep over retrenching so many people. However, he is as we know now, not available for comments anytime soon. So I'll give him the benefit of doubt only on the basis that i do not know him personally.

[Darth_mel]

You really do believe every word that is published in Striats / Sunday times.....?

 

Oh dear! sweatdrop.gif sweatdrop.gif sweatdrop.gif

 

Haha, dat's why pappy still in power mah !

Edited April 12, 2009 by Darth_mel