Re being in the wrong thread. I don't want to get, like, too technical or anything, but gattertop and I were engaged in dialog about ISX customers prior to my mentioning the revenue/performance shares & this formed part of the broader conversation (admittedly, it was a bit of a tangent on my part). It seems to me entirely impractical to have to pause the conversation, move it to another thread for this one point, and then move it back here afterwards? In any event, I will non the less be mindful to keep the substance of these posts primarily aligned with the topic of the thread.
At the risk of contradicting my promise above, I will politely respond to comments made by yourself & Gattertop about the revenue/performance targets in this post for completeness, and then move it to another thread should we wish to discuss it further? I trust this is a reasonable compromise.
@gattertop - re your response to the Audited financial statements for
12 months to 30 Jun'18 of
$6.34m, I would respectfully refer you to the wording in the 2014 prospectus (screenshot below key words in yellow). The bonus was issued on the basis of performance over the
6 month period to 30 June 2018 on an annualised basis,
not 12 month actuals.
This was not easily identifiable in the accounts, however a reconciliation using the full 12 months annual report less the interim 6 months shows the $5m passed by actually an even smaller margin than the $5,002,479 ISX disclosed in the revenue reconciliation that I posted earlier. See below.
@itzgr82balive re your comment on me being "deceitful" by omitting the interest income & the R&D tax incentive. I couldn't actually find the definition of "revenue" that they used for the purpose of calculating the performance shares (and I will stand corrected if someone points it out). But using interest on cash in bank + tax refund to justify a performance bonus would be kind of a smoking gun re "Governance issues" wouldn't it (ie if the issuance depended on these items, which it doesn't)? If we are incentivising managers to maximise the
performance of an enterprise, this point is self explanatory. Moreover using these items an
annualised basis (especially the tax) leads to an absurd outcome: namely, its a ONCE PER YEAR tax incentive, yet if it was included in the measurement of
6 month annualised revenue (as per the requirements of the performance shares), it would result in a figure that is twice the amount that is theoretically possible to ever be received.
