The company asserts that because of the "limited base remuneration of the directors in assuming many executive responsibilities (at a significant saving to previous year operating expenses) has been accepted in the knowledge that outcome based rewards may be earned on achieving key progress milestones. It is likely that given the limited remuneration and the costs already saved, that the directors seeking election would be unable to proceed at the current levels of commitment if the options were not approved by the shareholders. "
From the Notice of Annual General Meeting and Explanatory Memorandum the Board of Diretors state the following.
The Options, if approved, will not form part of these Directors’ respective remuneration packages and will be in addition to their remuneration as Directors. The remuneration of each of the Directors is as follows:
• Mr Hart receives Directors fees of $100,000 per annum, as a Non-Executive Chairman, and a further $5,000 per month over the period 1 November 2020 to 31 January 2021.
• Messrs Little, Gregory and Huljich receive Directors’ fees of $60,000 per annum, as NonExecutive Directors.
• Messrs Boulton and Turvey are entitled to the same Non-Executive Director fees of $60,000 per annum through until the date of their retirement following this Annual General Meeting.
What is the extra $5,000 per month for if not compensation for undertaking executive responsibilities? Why do shareholders need to be held to ransom when suitable compensation is already being paid. Is not $100,000 per year plus an additional $15,000 for the chairman, and $60,000 for the other non-executive directors enough?
The cost of the options are not simply multiplying out their strike prices, it is way more complicated than that, try a modified Black-Scholes equation (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blackscholes.asp)
The Board of Directors have yet to explain the cost of the proposed options to shareholders, and yet they assert that they have saved the company money. So why won't the Board of Directors show this in a balance sheet you know cost vs benefit. Then shareholders would be fully informed about what they are voting for. Again we do not know what the cost of the options are so how can shareholders make an informed decision. So instead of informing shareholders the Board of Directors state "the directors seeking election would be unable to proceed at the current levels of commitment if the options were not approved by the shareholders". It just beggars belief.
I think those directors who have held shareholders to ransom should resign. It is atrocious behaviour and no shareholder should have to put up with this. Would you tolerate it from your children?
Expand
(20min delay)