PB's remuneration, page-53

We talk about the Chinese sell-down as if it's the only factor in the SP not raising, which is a comfortable way to digest the lower-than-expected SP performance, but isn't a wholistic way of looking at things.

I don't propose that SP is a true reflection of a company at all times. But to write-off the SP languishing at low levels as an aberrancy due to a single seller is to overlook the overall lack of buy-side volume. In the history of SP rising, large holders have always needed to sell out at some point (that's why anyone invests in shares, to sell when the SP goes up) and there have always been buyers to soak up the sale. That's how SP rises.

The fact is, we had 1 large holder selling, and critically - NO ONE ELSE BUYING (single-handedly as a large buyer, or collectively as a bunch of buyers) to the keep the SP up.

In saying all this, I do agree that the board is doing a good job of progressing the project and deserve to be well paid. I just don't think they should be that well paid to the tune of a significant percentage of the company's cash reserves. It seems to me that you will need an annual CR just to pay the board if nobody lends us any money. If the board is confident of the company and the project, then all these options should be a true performance bonus contingent upon financing and SP. We should make all remuneration increases contingent upon performance - and in this case, obtaining finance.