It's really not a matter of "SLR management have given themselves fat pays is sad but normal". I really have little objection to paying for performance. For example Bill Beament of NST is paid handsomely to his credit he has elected to take much of his remuneration as LTI's which is directly tied to the company's performance on credible hurdles and a peer group which is comparable. SLR say in their annual report pg 32 (2017) "When positioning base pay, the Company presently aims to position aggregate fixed remuneration at the 50th percentile of the industry benchmarking report." They then go on to say (same page) "Executive remuneration is benchmarked annually to ASX-listed companies of similar size (by market capitalisation), revenue base, employee numbers and complexity. Specific reference is also made to peer companies within the mining and exploration sectors" My problem with SLR is that the average market cap of their published peer group is many time greater than themselves (i.e ~5x), then the NED's pay themselves more than this peer group.
Also notice on pg 33
STI's included: » achievement of the FY2017 budget with particular emphasis on safety, cost management, production and cashflow; » development of a strategic exploration plan with prioritised targets and milestones; » development of base case and contingency business plans under different assumptions; and » execution of specified commercial strategies, including crystallising value from non-core assets.
However the achievement against these targets (NB these do not include NPAT, TSR or EPS) is:
It would be interesting to be told why Matthew O'Hara only got 55% and all the others got 82% falling short by 18%.
SLR Price at posting:
33.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
