it's time we killed gluttony

I can't stand it... Over my dead body.

In the space of 9 years.

Base director pay has gone from 30k to 95k or 316%
General manager base pay has gone from 195k to 670k or 344%
CEO base pay has gone from 280k to 1,080k or 386%

During the same time for shareholders:

Dividends have gone from 4.5c to 6c or 133%
Share price has gone from 60c to 97c or 162%
Share price adjusted at 5%pa CPI would go 60c to 93c or 155%
Share price adjusted for inflation has gone from 60c to 64c or increased by 6.7%
Dividends adjusted for inflation have gone from 4.5c to 3.5c or dropped by 22%
The general manager base pay adjusted for 5% CPI has gone from 195k to 562k or increased by 288%.

The market cap has gone from $46m to $178m

BUT:
Shareholders have had to fork out 3x in capital raisings.
$72.5m at $1.25
$59m at $5.80
$41m at $2.08

A truer reflection of market capitalisation would be to exclude shareholder contributions. Excluding the effect of capital raisings, the market cap has gone from $46m to $5.5m... That's right a staggering fall of 88%, without shareholders pitching into the begging bowl to prop the company's bank account, the company would be at a value of around $5m or 6.5c/share.

Who would like to draw a chart excluding the effects of capital raisings, dividend payouts, DRP and option conversions? It's not going to be pretty, unless the chartist lines the borders with flowers and fluffy animals - then it may look okay.

Since, shareholders in the end have found themselves where they were back in 2003 and not much better off (if you were misfortunate to buy into the raisings then you should be barking for blood). Can we not treat the management the same?

Whoelse loved Kevin's rant about remuneration? The sneaky git takes us for such fools that he selects data to support his own argument... why on earth in a supposedly honest analysis of remuneration policy does the analyst in this case select 2 years of data for executives and 4 years of data for directors? With that sort of bias, he should be happy he didn't try to forge a career in Academia - he would've been weeded out as a 1st year.

The fact is Seymour has gone from 37k to 201k from 2003 to 2011.
The fact is Kempton has gone from 326k to 1,508k from 2003 to 2010. I'm quite resourceful too with deceit :)

Interesting to note, Turnover per staff member:
2009 = 1,280,210
2010 = 1,282,947
2011 = 1,170,689

But the fact is there is less workload per staff member (this is despite inflation working positively on this statistic).

"It could be argued that floods and cyclones and their effects on our business should result in adjustments to
KPIs for bonus calculations. However to the credit of our staff, no one has ever suggested this as they all
realise the Company has had to bear the consequences of these disastrous events."

What planet is he living on?? Seriously, It "could be" argued? It "should be" adjusted?

Sounds like a threat, we could have awarded bonuses but we the noble management elected not to. However to their discredit they are yet to realise the predicament of shareholders versus the management, after all we should bear the consequence of prolonged disastrous performance together.