(Total Views: 599)
Posted On: 09/16/2020 1:17:21 PM
Post# of 148870
"Pay for performance" -- we have given NP 10.8M options so far. If he thinks we are a $100 stock, then he gets over $1B. If that is not sufficient "pay for performance", then I don't know what is.
Not to mention that NP hasn't taken any personal risk. He gets his salary and the options. And he hasn't put any of his own money at risk.
Moreover, if you look at the past option grants, they are disproportionately toward the most senior executive and BOD members. They are not for "attracting and retaining talent" -- they are for enriching those at the very top. Who we have already given options to for their performance.
That is not to say that they shouldn't get standard annual grants. But those should be in the 100-300k option range. Therefore, we would not need anywhere near 25M shares.
And I don't like the fact they say they don't want to go back to shareholders for future allocations. We own the company. They should go to us. That is how reasonable corporate governance works.
My nearly 1M shares are still a very firm NO.
Not to mention that NP hasn't taken any personal risk. He gets his salary and the options. And he hasn't put any of his own money at risk.
Moreover, if you look at the past option grants, they are disproportionately toward the most senior executive and BOD members. They are not for "attracting and retaining talent" -- they are for enriching those at the very top. Who we have already given options to for their performance.
That is not to say that they shouldn't get standard annual grants. But those should be in the 100-300k option range. Therefore, we would not need anywhere near 25M shares.
And I don't like the fact they say they don't want to go back to shareholders for future allocations. We own the company. They should go to us. That is how reasonable corporate governance works.
My nearly 1M shares are still a very firm NO.
(11)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
