Interesting how the no vote increased on a show of hands. That...

Interesting how the no vote increased on a show of hands. That suggests to me that while institutions may have played a part, retail shareholders may well have had an impact that is not being disclosed. What proportion of shareholders were institutions at that point? What was the no vote? Mmmmmmmm.

An interesting thing to contemplate if you do your sums. What is the proportion of institutions this year? (Removing Gavin's shares from the count since he can't vote ). Oh that's it. Doesn't really stack up and I'm guessing that retail votes will count this year as for last

One other little point that Cracker has mentioned a few times.

The vote that drives the strike is on the remuneration report which is backward looking. So despite what even you seem to agree were excessive payments for FY 16, including dishing themselves out more shares and big bonuses (on which last year's vote was based), the Board ignored that warning and handed themselves further payments which they managed to keep for the duration of FY 2017. (On which this year's vote is based).

Don't bother trying to tell me that Nick took a pay cut. Check the payments he received. He knows full well why he took a pay cut and it had nothing to do with concern for the business. Moreover it hardly returned his remuneration to a more appropriate level.

Check the fact that we were still paying him relocation expenses despite us being told in 2016 that these would disappear in 2017. Check the figure. When did Nick move? Which relocation are we talking about? Because I sure hope it's not the one in 2013 - which might in any case need a bit more discussion.

I think that if you did a bit of research you would also find that the payments to the chair are not quite in line with the market for a company with this sized market cap. Nor is the termination clause - it's rather unusual for a small cap Executive, let alone a director with no executive responsibilities.

Btw I get why some people just want this conversation to go away - those who have watched the shareprice fall and think that silence will fix the problem, and most likely those who we are talking about. There's maybe another group who think these things are normal. Or others who think that Alexium's board isn't as bad as other small caps they have seen. There are also others who think that exercising their voice will make no difference. Well it did last year and your commentary is proof of that.

Or others who think that the Board has done a sterling job despite the share price woes, the amount of executive remuneration that has been paid out and the impact on the bottom line, reinforced by the auditors notes to the accounts.

There have also been a lot of comments about our relationship with Nick. Pinto has clear made how we feel clear on another thread. It's very easy to like him. He can be charming and charismatic when he's not having a hissy fit over something.

I guess some people knew well before us that there is not necessarily a connection between that and good practice. And we, like others, are posting in the same style as them - hints and statements. But what you might note is that we have changed what we've say. Ranting at us, as some have done, implies that we exercised influence. Well we own our stuff. Others should own theirs.

So "pissing in the wind" or not I'm doing what others are free to do as well. Express my thoughts on the matter. DYOT however as you always should have

Parsifal


Parsifal