The manner in which the EBIT targets have been presented (i.e., wrt a FY15 base year) is highly unorthodox and the cynic in me tells me that it is designed that way to confound the less-diligent follower of the company.
Certainly, figures of "10% or 15% compared to base year" certainly come across a far more palatable at first glance than does "~5% pa".
PS. For context, I note that IFM has grown EBIT annual rates of by 8%, 29% and 13% pa over the past 3 financial years, so for the board to actively be designing a remuneration structure around a rate that is waaaaay below recent history begs a lot of questions.
At first pass, it smacks to me to being egregiously generous!
(And besides, a pure EBIT number - in isolation - is not a very useful determinant of shareholder wealth creation (management could simply acquire a whole swathe of EBIT at a silly multiple and they will get to where they want to be.)
I have some form in the past of operating in an activist capacity when the circumstances have warranted it.
To that end, I have built a financial model for IFM but I have not followed the executive travails of the business as well I sense you have.
When you have a moment, could you provide a thumbnail sketch of the sequence of events that led to the company coming to the position it currently finds itself, namely with the good guys seemingly sitting on the outside? I am assuming the founder stepped aside at some stage only to have the board morph into something he today finds incompatible with the interests of the company's shareholders.
IFM Price at posting:
77.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)