it is in no way emotional.
Good companies set incentives aligned with the overall business goals and therefore those of shareholders. Well thought out incentives align top to bottom and assist in getting everyone to the goal. An incentive without any clear objective or hurdle for achievement wont do much in this regard. Think of owner led with skin in the game - generally a good thing.
This type of stuff creates a perception that they are not interested in stretching themselves to the degree I feel they should be. Now, not even a pip to get the pats on the back for eachother...
I am fine with that, they feel differently to me (as do you), back slaps all round...
Per my second sentence my point is I will look to invest in companies whose modus operandi and incentives are structured more closely to my own way of thinking.
My approach fits more closely with those type of operators as i believe they will have greater success in the long run, unfortunately to me, this demonstrates that they like to take the easy way out which erodes my opinion of their ability.
They took the easy route raising capital, they took the easy route in redesigning the trial. Will they take the easy route when a deal comes along?
So to your point it does not change the quality of the science, but increases my concerns around how they perceive its value in comparison to my own.
See article below if you dont believe it happens....
So if there werent other options out there I may reconsider, but there are, so people saying its standard practice, have to do it to attract talent etc is just BS... Good way to get people who lean lazy / selfish onboard in many cases.
Be interesting to know if JG dished zero hurdle options at his previous gig, CG was aligned to my way of thinking before he showed up so at least he has achieved one "sale" convincing her to change her spots since he got there....
Good luck with your holdings.
https://thesentiment.com.au/resapp-board-and-shareholders-at-odds-over-pfizer-takeover/
