Why Cheney and Thurman? I would have thought considering AJX is up to its neck in military trials atm Cheney is a bonus. Not that I know if he actually does anything, but it would appear a proper fit.
And given Capitol Hill regulation change I would have thought Thurman is also appropriate, but again I have nought idea of what she actually does / contributes.
This is where we rely on the Chairman to engage the right people and make sure they earn their fees.
We could certainly do with the Chairman explaining to the shareholders at the AGM exactly what the NE Directors did for the company specifically to advance the business strategy of the company, apart from attend board meetings.
Re the remuneration report:
The NE Directors have taken a pay cut as per
was $61,000 US now $50,000 US
The Chairman: was $180,000 US + STI & LTI now $150,000 and no incentives at all.
There's currently 3 NE Directors and the 1 NE Chair totalling pay of $330,000 US for/up to YE 2018 (Aust) on AUD $22M revenue that's approx cost of 1.5%
We apparently need one more director from Australia, although what an Australian Director will add to the business based in US I have no idea.
What does appear to be missing from the board is someone with deep US chemical industry connections and a long history in such, and also someone with extensive European chemical/industry experience for the expansion into that massive market. Perhaps we need 2 x more board appointments. (apart from the token Aussie) Such directors could be invaluable mentors to Dirk & team, who are actually quite young. Currently the board is heavily skewed in political appointments with connections in Capitol Hill and I understand and support that, however, the company needs some industry heavy weights as well, this issue needs addressing.
If 25% of the vote is against remuneration the board will spill and have to be re elected in 90 days.
If there was a substantial share holder publicly advocating board change with more than just grievance, but a significant new board model including proposed new board members that could clearly be shown as a better path forward (Solomon Lew vs Meyer comes to mind) than voting against could be a viable option, considering the companies sp performance.
However I don't see any such entity on the horizon, and certainly not emerging by the November AGM so, what happens if there is a second strike?
It would occur to me the exact same board members would return and be re elected given that there is no other proposed options.
What a complete waste of time and money.
If anyone has a different opinion glad to hear it, if you want to convince me to vote against RESOLUTION 1 give me a sound alternative with a list of board members to replace the Chair and the NE Directors. To vote simply to create a "strike" doesn't appeal to me at all.
The way forward is to lobby the chair to increase the board field of industry experience as a priority.
I'll make my decision how I vote at the AGM on the day. And I would also very much like all the board members to be there and give an account of themselves, we live in hope.
(if any of my remuneration figures above are wrong or incomplete pls correct me)
AJX Price at posting:
37.3¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
