We will see. It could just be a coincidence, but
Post# of 154759
(Total Views: 288)
Posted On: 02/23/2019 9:40:31 AM
Re: Evil Rabbit #328
We will see. It could just be a coincidence, but a bad one based on all the complaining on ihub last week about salary. RP making 600k, they moved NP as CEO to right about that price. If it is a coincidence, it should make for an interesting CC.
Over 50% of Lawman's post over the last 3 years have only been posts complaining about NP and his salary. A17 saying the committee does not care, because they it does not come out of their pocket.
The executive committee deciding consists of the largest shareholders with the most to lose, many participating in fund raising last year. This compensation plan was also the largest part of the pre14A, most of the pages were devoted to explaining the plan, and then asking shareholders to approve, 80% voting approved last year. They also vote each year, shareholders get to vote again in the fall. They will probably vote based on the progress over the next few months, which I'm expecting to be great.
If we are still waiting to submit the BLA and using paulson to raise funds this fall, I suspect many no votes. If, as I'm expecting, the BLA is done, TNBC numbers back, mono pivotal trial ongoing, then probably a 80%+ vote approval for this yesterday again.
It is either the ignorance or bad intentions with these guys. Lawman said in a previous post, complaining about the shareprice is not productive. Well complaining about NP salary constantly, even after shareholders approved their compensation, is not productive at this point. You get to vote again this fall.
Yet even with the largest shareholders on the committee deciding after putting it to a shareholder vote with 80% backing, some people are outraged. I will point out their salaries are a small total of the funds needed each year, $1-2M salary vs $60M total. If it was 90% versus 3%, I would be more concerned.
Going by posts on ihub, you would think the previous vote would be much closer than 80% for 20% against. I know though from surveys, even if it was 95+ positive, the 5% negative will always be loudest. If you go just by who is screaming lowest, you get a biased view of the group. The 80% that voted for it imo, either 1) believes NP deserves it or 2) don't care at this point or 3) seeing enough progress to give NP the benefit of the doubt.
Over 50% of Lawman's post over the last 3 years have only been posts complaining about NP and his salary. A17 saying the committee does not care, because they it does not come out of their pocket.
The executive committee deciding consists of the largest shareholders with the most to lose, many participating in fund raising last year. This compensation plan was also the largest part of the pre14A, most of the pages were devoted to explaining the plan, and then asking shareholders to approve, 80% voting approved last year. They also vote each year, shareholders get to vote again in the fall. They will probably vote based on the progress over the next few months, which I'm expecting to be great.
If we are still waiting to submit the BLA and using paulson to raise funds this fall, I suspect many no votes. If, as I'm expecting, the BLA is done, TNBC numbers back, mono pivotal trial ongoing, then probably a 80%+ vote approval for this yesterday again.
It is either the ignorance or bad intentions with these guys. Lawman said in a previous post, complaining about the shareprice is not productive. Well complaining about NP salary constantly, even after shareholders approved their compensation, is not productive at this point. You get to vote again this fall.
Yet even with the largest shareholders on the committee deciding after putting it to a shareholder vote with 80% backing, some people are outraged. I will point out their salaries are a small total of the funds needed each year, $1-2M salary vs $60M total. If it was 90% versus 3%, I would be more concerned.
Going by posts on ihub, you would think the previous vote would be much closer than 80% for 20% against. I know though from surveys, even if it was 95+ positive, the 5% negative will always be loudest. If you go just by who is screaming lowest, you get a biased view of the group. The 80% that voted for it imo, either 1) believes NP deserves it or 2) don't care at this point or 3) seeing enough progress to give NP the benefit of the doubt.
(0)
(0)