Do you think that a director should be 'incentivized' to do the best job he/she can? Surely, that is what they are being (well) paid for. And by doing their job well, they will benefit from the increased share price, anyway.
If you believe that this incentive is warranted, isn't it logical that they should also have to surrender some shares, if the SP falls below a certain threshold - say $0.50, in this instance?
What significance does the arbitrary $1.50 target have? A cynical person may suggest that it is a relatively easy number to achieve by manipulating a few announcements, so as to get a temporary boost in SP, without actually doing anything meaningful, or long term. As you have said, it's been well north of $1.50 before, with nothing of substance behind it - and later fell back accordingly.
I'm not a great believer in people being rewarded for doing their assigned job - perhaps if these targets are initially set during the IPO, but much less so when they pop up at arbitrary times during the course of operation, when punters have no say in the matter.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)