Not sure I see the problem here. My take on all this:1. Instead...

Not sure I see the problem here. My take on all this:

1. Instead of the SIP the company could have paid cash salaries in line with the market for management of small cap companies. The cost of which would have been higher than $3k per year DP is paying. Potentially 10 thousands dollars higher. There are plenty of surveys around for company salaries if you want to do the analysis.

2. Management gave foregone market salaries in favour of the SIP. They are taking a punt on the future of the company. If management do not get the share price up through continuing operational success the shares are below cost and management have lost a chunk of their compensation permanently (if they chose not to take them up). Essentially if we do not make money through sp appreciation and operational success they lose money.

3. The shares are sitting in escrow. The “loan” is in part only - no money has actually changed hands. To access the shares management will have to pay share cost + interest. If they decide not to take up the shares the board can choose to cancel the shares and paper loan or if they need the capital issue them to market or use them again in the SIP in lieu of paying market salaries (see point 1). Sure we lose a bit of interest but it looks to be way less than the cost of paying market based salaries.

5. From a shareholder perspective we are paying less cash for salaries and ensuring management has significant “skin in the game”. It would not have sat well with me if the management team were sitting back collecting market salaries (like some other micro cap companies) without a significant amount of compensation depending on the future success of the company.

6. Nowhere does it say “2 big holders” as per scollymores post. The top 10 are a mix of investors and it is unsubstantiated to say only 2 were consulted.

Finally let accusations of “rose coloured glasses fly”. Also those only tend to get slung when I disagree with peoples view….