Gee a very sad period for those who wish to share ideas about VMT on Hot Copper, a lot of flaming and baiting, and down ramping on here in recent times. I'm always looking to learn but nothing worthwhile comes from that.
I was chuffed by the "more $$ than sense" insult that I got as it's not easy to accumulate or even hold onto the $$ without a decent dose of sense.
I am not trying to convince anyone that my opinions are correct but think its important that, those participating in the discussion to genuinely learn from others, need to know the facts in relation to the following propositions that are being put.
(1) The share price is in decline because Phill Campbell resigned
(2) The board of directors are the driving force behind company performance.
(3) That Charles and Ivan are able to pay themselves handsome performance bonus shares because we don't have a chairman holding them to account.
The resignation.Here is the VMT share price chart that puts the resignation line on the 4/11/2020 which is the day it actually happened.
The share price rose immediately after the new director was introduced and stayed up in the weeks after the resignation. By the 27th January it was back up to 58 c.
Is it really logical to blame what happened after that on Phill's resignation ?
The Board's RollThe following screen shot taken from a Victorian Government web site gives a clear and concise, precise of the boards function.
When one is investing in a public company where the managing director is the major share holder it's important to realise that you are investing in that persons ability not the ability of the independant directors who he decides to appoint with the support of those who are backing him.
(3) Performance BonusesBullet point 6 in the above screen shot points out that the board is responsible for the remuneration of the head of the organisation who is of course Charles Chen.
If the CEO is not a director the board can reward him with as much cash and as many shares as they want to. If he is a director they are not allowed to reward him with shares only cash. The shareholders don't have any say in it except that they get to vote for the remuneration policy once a year. Voting it down twice in a row causes a spill of the board and shareholders get the opportunity to vote in a new board.
If directors want to be rewarded in shares then that can only happen with shareholders approval. To ensure the small shareholders get the opportunity to have there say a resolution only passes if 75% vote in favour. At the last board meeting the Performance Share Awards were passed with 95.4% of votes cast being in favour. Only 2 % were cast against.
The board has absolutely no power to issue shares to directors and shareholders in VMT are overwhelmingly in favour of the performance rewards.
Is there any substance to the argument that the performance shares are the cause of the share price decline?
P.S.I was saddened to see that the review my earlier post had been deleted when I opened the thread today. A bit like someone stealing your gold medal.
(20min delay)