(Total Views: 603)
Posted On: 09/15/2020 4:47:32 PM
Post# of 148870
Re: Bored Lawyer #55958
Hard "NO" from me as well.
We shareholders have given NP 10.8M options so far over 10 years. He has exercised and sold 4.8M. He has 6M left. At anywhere from our current price to $100 -- that is plenty of stock based compensation on top of his base salary.
The whole company should get standard, annual stock option incentive plans. Those are at least 10x lower in number of options than the 25M they are asking for. The executives should be getting between 100,000 and 300,000 options per year that vest over 4 years. And everyone below that gets an insignificant amount in comparison.
It would be one thing if they were just forming a start-up and were foregoing salaries -- but they are not. They are taking secure paychecks + asking for exorbitant stock option packages. There is no way this would fly if we had a truly independent BOD. It is the 'fox guarding the hen house'.
Everyone should vote NO. It is 'unjust enrichment' at the expense of shareholders.
If anyone is not well versed in these matters, then I would suggest trying to talk to someone at https://www.issgovernance.com/. If we had an independent opinion from them, it would be a resounding NO.
The only way we will get to at least reasonable corporate governance is if shareholders vote. And until we have institutional shareholders, which would undoubtedly vote NO -- that means that retail investors need to vote NO to outweigh the votes of the foxes.
We shareholders have given NP 10.8M options so far over 10 years. He has exercised and sold 4.8M. He has 6M left. At anywhere from our current price to $100 -- that is plenty of stock based compensation on top of his base salary.
The whole company should get standard, annual stock option incentive plans. Those are at least 10x lower in number of options than the 25M they are asking for. The executives should be getting between 100,000 and 300,000 options per year that vest over 4 years. And everyone below that gets an insignificant amount in comparison.
It would be one thing if they were just forming a start-up and were foregoing salaries -- but they are not. They are taking secure paychecks + asking for exorbitant stock option packages. There is no way this would fly if we had a truly independent BOD. It is the 'fox guarding the hen house'.
Everyone should vote NO. It is 'unjust enrichment' at the expense of shareholders.
If anyone is not well versed in these matters, then I would suggest trying to talk to someone at https://www.issgovernance.com/. If we had an independent opinion from them, it would be a resounding NO.
The only way we will get to at least reasonable corporate governance is if shareholders vote. And until we have institutional shareholders, which would undoubtedly vote NO -- that means that retail investors need to vote NO to outweigh the votes of the foxes.
(23)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
