remuneration, page-40

RNF,

I agree with you in regard to the ASA. I have been a member of their associations for many years now, and the remuneration packages have been my major concerns ever since I joined them. Steve is very good at what he is doing and always willing to listen to a shareholder.

RNF et all, IMHO incentives should only be awarded when there has been concrete evidence that the shareholders have gained multiple points in the sp. Not before, and not when the sp is hurting shareholders with drops in value.
Most importantly targets should be set, and if those targets are not reached, no rewards are payable. After all it used to be that way sometime ago, but now.......???

Let's hope that the proposed changes in the voting for remuneration resolutions will come into force soon, although there has been a hard campaign against it from the Company Directors Association and the Boards in general.

They argue that they are elected to the Boards, and should be allow to run the company including their remunerations the way they wanted, while the arguments against them is that they are only looking after themslves and not the shareholders interests. How can they ask for huge increase in pay when the shareholders are hurting??? Go and figure, because I simply can't.
By the way, have you ever voted for a Director when he/she is firstly appointed to the board?? I haven't, lol. The only time you get to vote for him/her is at the next AGM, and when the other Directors will use their muscles and voting powers to re-elect him/her back again.

It would mean (if these changes are introduced) that if the Directors and the Company get 20% of the votes against a resolution, the whole Board can be dismissed and has to go to an election. Not 50% plus 1 share any longer. Especially when the Directors hold control of the companies at times, and they vote their holdings in support of whatever they want to pass.

Now RNF, why do you think that WM didn't get his options the last time around?? Think about it mate. It was simply because he couldn't vote his shares in favour of them. While at the same time he supported Hutchinsons options and they got through. Now watch what they will vote for.

If that was allowed and introduced, it would put the skids on the Directors of a Company knowing that their careers could be at stake and reach an abrupt end very quickly.

All in all, it would be very good for the shareholders knowing that the Boards are more accountable for their actions.

Here is hoping.

Buddy