JP, I've worked for companies where the "all or nothing" bonus payout didn't motivate employees, where every single goal had to be met in order to get any bonus. It was especially difficult to achieve in the electric utility industry when one of the bonus goals was earnings per share. If you know anything about the utility industry, the earnings for any particular year are highly dependent on the weather. If you have a mild winter or a cooler than expected summer, even by a few degrees, the impact to the earnings is enough to miss the EPS target. Since this is something completely out of the employees control, it is moronic to tie their performance bonus to it. The company eventually realized how dumb this was and broke out the bonus payouts to individual goals, as is being done with Gerald.

In my opinion, it would be unrealistic to tie Gerald's bonus to meeting all of the stated goals. He could meet goals 2, 3, and 4 and elect for the benefit of shareholders to push the uplisting out to March 2015 instead of doing a large RS. Would it be fair to award him no bonus for the goals achieved in this scenario? An all-or-nothing bonus arrangement would entice a less scrupulous CEO to do the massive RS in order to hit the bonus target, while screwing shareholders in the process. It's clear to me some serious thought went into the bonus arrangement set for Gerald.

Now, let's see how many of those he hits. My expectations are high, but 2 or 3 out of 4 isn't the end of the world for this company as some have stated. "Heaven help us" doesn't fit here, unless you're investing money you're going to desperately need in the next 3-6 months.