Share
clock Created with Sketch. 03/07/17
13:08
Share
Originally posted by muppet655
↑
I think it's reasonable and appropriate to question management on whether remuneration is proportionate to their endeavours, company success and the degree to which they've contributed to that success. Of course the big fish get listened to but in terms of shareholding neither GR or NC are substantial holders technically and thus are a long way from stakes that are so big that they can do as they please. If actions of any employee become so egregious that enough shareholders are peeved then of course they're under threat. This becomes more likely if directors fail self imposed milestones, fail to address areas they've taken responsibility for or through their actions harm the company overall. That the remuneration was set according to specifics that have now all fallen over (ASX300, company milestones, SP performance etc) means they have to be adjusted per their own analysis/logic. It also irks that the large holdings are increased due to overly generous remuneration on the one hand it is good that directors keep buying, but the company paying its own directors to own more of the company becomes somewhat circular and isn't a justification to pander to them even more.
Expand
"I fear the level of change required is larger than they will agree to but think that it is entirely reasonable to give them a courtesy we weren't afforded and wait and see what changes transpire rather than bay for blood now."
