Hyflux

[bb88]

;
if he's vested (to certain significance), then how is he independent?

can i see this as a step towards better corporate governance?

I prefer an independent director with a sizable stake in the company.
At least, our interests are aligned.

you mean a director and not and independent director in this case.

there are a few type of people that sits on the board of directors:
- executive directors (they hold executive appointments for the daily management of the company i.e. ceo, cfo).
- (simply) directors (they sit on the board to discuss strategic matters of the company but do not involve themselves in the running of the company; do not get a monthly salary aside from director fees).
- independent directors (subset of directors) who are everything a director (above) is, but are also perceived to be independent - they are not vested in the company, no personal interest, etc. and hence and it does not benefit them to make bias decisions.

what you are advocating is also what is a debate of the chairman and the ceo being the same person. some say they being the one and the same person, creates opportunity for too much power in a single person and there is issue of biasness. conversely, like what you say, since they are vested in the company, they will only want the company to deliver positive results. of course there are other parameters like short termism in the conflict of interests.

a note is that the directors' interest and yours can never align. who's looking for long term growth? who's looking for capital gain? who's wanting stable dividends? even then, the director can bail out way before you.