'A board consisting of five members being remunerated the same as three. Now that’s impressive! Thanks Steve!'
Not so fast there SDJ.
SDJ, youself and Grumpy make some obviously compelling points, so well done to both of you for the reminder. Although all of your points have been covered by many others, including myself...many times over; maybe what we all need is a good session of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) to consciously forget the past of OBJ and literally most of the last 10 years. That would be beneficial for me at least.
I can understand why most of you are hesitant to comment on the Notice of General meeting released this afternoon. I will state the obvious as now that I know who my father is (thanks Kiwidub) and that I am Skywalker, I can now understand the sense of Knowing I have always had and I can more easily fend off any poison arrows with my light saber after this post.
RESOLUTION 1: ADOPTION OFREMUNERATION REPORT (NON-BINDING RESOLUTION)
'To consider and, if thought fit, to pass, with or without amendment, the following Resolution as a non-binding resolution: That, for the purposes of section 250R(2) of the Corporations Act and for all other purposes, the Remuneration Report as set out in the Annual Report dealing with the remuneration of the Company’s Directors and senior executives be adopted'
I'm confused by Resolution 1. What are we approving here and what does it mean 'with or without amendment'? I've read the Remuneration Report as set out in the 2018 Annual Report and it appears to have no changes. So what exactly are we voting on here? Thoughts appreciated.
RESOLUTION 2: ELECTION OF DIRECTOR – MR CAMERON REYNOLDS
No issues.
RESOLUTION 3: ELECTION OF DIRECTOR – MR ANTONIO (TONY) VARANO
No issues.
RESOLUTION 4: APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL 10% PLACEMENT FACILITY
No issues as a stale-mate here. In all likelihood, we will run out of money before decent revenues arrive. Let's hope they can raise @ 3.6 cents as opposed to 1.2 cents. If Resolution 5/Director pay increase is approved, it needs to be paid for somehow!
RESOLUTION 5 – APPROVAL TO INCREASE AGGREGATE FEE POOL FOR NONEXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
It's odd how ASX listed companies always refer to the need for more money as 'to remain competitive in order to continue to attract and retain competent and experienced directors.' This analogy is out-dated and archaic imo. They are effectively asking for a 60% pay increase and for it to be back-dated to 01/07/2018. If you are going to use archaic analogies for a pay-rise, how about using another archaic analogy where you actually achieve something tangible before you come to Shareholders with your hand out.
6 days ago, the BoD released the 2018 Annual Report, which has traveled nicely 'under the radar' as far as discussion goes. In that document, we discovered that our 2 new guys, who can technically be defined as 'part-time' by earning the following:
The above equates to around two hundred thousand a year. In fact our 5 person executive/non-executive team currently earn more than OBJ earns as a whole company...and that's before you pay any other staff or outgoings.
Since 01/08/2018 when Steve was appointed, until 30/06/2018 (11 months), Steve earned a total of $174,189 and OBJ's share-price dropped from 5.3 cents down to 2.2 cents:
As shareholders we can only assess what we have in front of us. I can't see anything tangible that has been positively achieved in the last 12 months that has had any kind of positive impact on our Investments. I guess the blunt question to ask is whether we all feel that a 65%-- drop in OBJ's share-price (again) is worth a 60%++ increase in Directors fees?
RESOLUTION 6 – HOLDING A SPILL MEETING (CONTINGENT RESOLUTION)
'Condition for Resolution 6: Resolution 6 will be considered at the Meeting only if at least 25% of the votes cast on Resolution 1 are against the adoption of the Remuneration Report.'
So my question is, as with Resolution 1, What are we approving here and what does it mean 'with or without amendment'? I've read the Remuneration Report as set out in the 2018 Annual Report and it appears to have no changes. So what exactly are we voting on here? Thoughts appreciated. If a Spill takes place, Directors plan to vote themselves straight back in as high-lighted in their recommendation: 'there are no voting exclusions applicable to the resolutions appointing Directors at the subsequent Spill Meeting. Accordingly there is no barrier for the existing major Shareholders exercising their voting rights to support the reappointment of the existing Directors at the subsequent Spill Meeting; and if the Spill Resolution is passed, each of the outgoing Directors intends to stand for reelection at the Spill Meeting and to vote their own shares in support of their re-appointment. The Board unanimously recommends that Shareholders vote against Resolution 6, if it is required to be put to the Meeting. The Chair of the Annual General Meeting intends to vote all undirected proxies against Resolution 6, if it is required to be put to the Meeting.
This comment: 'This course of action should therefore be considered extremely carefully by Shareholders', is reminiscent of the same voice that advised all Shareholders to shut-up on Hotcopper unless you have something positive to say. Hmmm.
I look forward to those who are capable of assimilating both light and dark, to participate in a conversation of neutrality, that relates to our collective investments. Sorry dad, I guess that rules you out.
.
(20min delay)