director performance rights - sham, page-10

Wayword and Frogster,

I totally agree with Wayword’s post. However I’d support Performance Rights (whatever legitimate way that could be structured), if they were linked to actual company performance. But the problem (and my frustration) is they want to get those Performance Rights on top of the massive salary and wages expenses on a solid ground of no performance history.

Look at the company financials for 2012 and 2013 years: Directors + 2 senior executives wages make (!) 72% (~$2.65mil) of the total losses.
MD was payed about $1mil in total for 2013 (he even got a bonus of $80K and 40% pay rise, what for? Making some savings on reception and recycled paper? or turning up to work?) , new MD is on the way to that figure.

These sort of figures are normal for companies with 5-10 projects on the books, with few prod or near production projects and strong balance sheet (i.e. sp between 50c to $2).

What we have at WHL: 2 tenements and full bucket of promises of blue skies. (once the farm outs are executed whl won’t be the operator, just an observer).

The workload + performance and remuneration are way too disproportional and unsustainable but now they ask for more: they need performance rights otherwise they can’t “focus” enough on getting the projects going. As a result they need to tap the markets every 9-12 months for more capital for “working capital and exploration”. This is a great workplace to prepare for retirement – not much is happening and big $ payed.

I will support the performance rights but only if they review the fixed remuneration according to the size of the company and peg the rights to shareholder value. Who am I kidding? Just day dreaming..