Sure, but in lieu of alternative investment returns, e.g...

Sure, but in lieu of alternative investment returns, e.g dividend yield, having a director remuneration structure which utilizes a better balance of different mechanisms may help alleviate some of the animosity created by lack of (or in this instance, recently depreciation) capital appreciation.

The whole point is to strike a balance so as to meaningfully compensate, and incentivize the directors to more closely align with ALL SH's and Directors interests. Obviously, shareholders are going to be disappointed when they see their investment value decline but perceive the "pain" is not equally felt by directors, e.g in 2023 Mr Spadanuda and Mr Andijich total remunerations increased ($400kpa+).

Directors, with little, or minimal short-term incentives will no doubt hide behind the "we are looking at LONG term objectives" argument, which is great, but SH's not on the payroll, and/or making a capital loss still want SOME short-term returns (hence the war-cry for dividends grows).

When I bought in WSI now, do I think Directors can do a better job? Definitely, looking at the history, the way they handled the last financial report was terrible and would have lost a lot of trust. Have they got the appropriate mix of motivating mechanism short-term to do so? Probably not.

In reality, very few companies, especially down at this size, do this right. You see just as many examples where directors are given too many easy performance shares, therefore diluting ownership, creating bad practices of chasing short term gains, and destroying long term-value.

Ultimately, despite management shortfalls, comparatively @ this Mcap this company has value IMO. Even if nothing else, NI for 1HFY23 was circa $4m, 2HFY23 was circa -$2m and they are back to 1HFY24 circa $3m W/+CFO. This suggest the company has good management for small to medium projects but made a costly blunder on their first major $150M+ contract (during Covid mind you), which I think they did admit to in a roundabout kind of way. I have no problem if they stick within their comfort zone <$100m projects pulling in $200 - $300M revenue a year on sustainable margins, and growing organically through strategic acquisitions. With the disclaimer there has to be a divesting plan.