Agreed
@Copter
Easy for people like you to crap on about wrong and right.
The directors have to pay for the options and then they cannot sell the things due to their position.
What have you ever done but mist likely sit back with an opinion.
I believe in the new board and the company.It is still a very tough space to navigate and they all get my vote.
In fact, most of the company agree with me and even though Thorney boycotted these guys, they still romped it in.
Thank goodness for a democracy.
Totally outrageous that the rest of Australia has to work for their money, while the privileged few can write themselves a blank cheque in the form of "In-The-Money Options" with no downside risk and immediately realize significant profits while the rest of the shareholders bear the brunt of the downside risk. Shareholders buy their shares on-market, while insiders swindle the benefits they've been provided and entrusted with by the company's owners (i.e Shareholders).
I read something interesting actually about the lack of shareholder activism in Australia vs in the US, and I strongly believe that Australia could do with far more activist funds. In the US, activists quickly circle in on ineffective managements, company excess (I.e options issues, improper expensing of company funds), capital inefficiencies, and so forth.
If I were an activist fund, I'd be taking a look at a company such as MNY and asking myself - we've got a company here trading at 9 x FY17 EPS, it's obviously being discounted by the market for some reason or another. Why's the market not awarding this company a higher multiple given it's growth rate and ROE? If it's down to management inefficiencies (which it partially is), then there's significant upside in going in there, shaking the board, and advising management that there's no more 'freebies'. Management need to be better aligned, dilution should be limited to a more reasonably priced options issue for Directors, and aside from that, available for acquisitions only.
(20min delay)