CEO Options... shareholder options., page-11

Hi Windsurfar,

It is easy for commentators to feel uneasy at big option deals for Directors and Management, and in some ways I share your apprehension. I do feel however, you are being a little ungenerous when it comes to assessing the effectiveness of the CEO.

McColl has delivered some compelling achievements in his tenure to date and is putting in place the relationships required to lead to the long-promised liquidity event we all seek. (BTW I strongly doubt a ‘sale’ is the liquidity event the board seeks). Clearly, little can be said of these discussions, so proof is difficult, but it is equally clear that relationships between VLA and major industry participants were non-existent prior to McColl's arrival. Don't forget he was also singularly responsible for attracting the institutions to the register last year.

Undoubtedly Shafren’s contribution has been fundamental, but don’t forget, he too has been well paid to do his R&D job, and has received many, many more tranches of options than the current CEO – with a far more attractive average strike price than those held by the CEO.

I think shareholders have a duty to hold directors and management to account, and the AGM is an excellent forum to do so. However, having attended the last half dozen or so VLA AGMs, and the AGM of many more companies in the biotech sector, I am yet to hear a single voice opposed to equity compensation, much less a meaningful shareholder vote against a Remuneration Report.

On that basis, the Hotcopper posts such as this are little more than urine and wind. If you, and other disgruntled shareholders feel you have a real point to make, table a motion, ask a question, request a comparative analysis, make your point known to the board. Or accept the board is free to remunerate how they see appropriate.