With the benefit of hindsight, shareholders should never have voted through the performance milestones. They were vaguely expressed and open to interpretation as to how they were met. And it was the Board who decided on the interpretation of when and how they were met . And therein lies the problem which many of us are now coming to feel aggrieved by.
The investor call is not the forum to air these grievances. That is what an AGM is for. Furthermore, for this conference call, which is the first the new chairman Mr Schapera will participate in, he will not be interested in defending that part of the previous Board's legacy relating to previous directors milestones which he personally had nothing to do with. He will be forward looking though, so a question can be crafted which I think he should answer that addresses the corporate history that has generated so much distrust. I propose the following:
In the last several years, the Board under the stewardship of the previous chairman awarded directors a significant amount of performance shares. With the benefit of hindsight, it is the view of many shareholders that the Company has obviously not "performed" and that the directors were not deserving of the shares they claimed. A significant amount of shareholder distrust has been generated as a result. How does Mr Schapera propose to rebuild that trust?
OBJ Price at posting:
2.9¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)