Originally posted by Trommel
Like I've said many times in this thread the figures used for remuneration come straight from the annual reports. I am simply copy/pasting the information into a spreadsheet. If the annual report remuneration table includes the value of share based payments/benefits to resources then that is what I'm using.
I am not deeply concerned about KNL directors, their pay or whatever.
The whole point of this exercise is to compare other companies (same jurisdiction peers) to MNS to see where MNS resources stand as far as remuneration is concerned. I wanted to see if I could get an idea of whether they were underpaid, overpaid or somewhere in the middle. From the data so far it seems they are somewhere in the middle.
As you mentioned the KNL resources seem very well remunerated compared to the others. The R&D rebate also seems high for KNL compared to the other 3 companies.
If the KNL figures bother you then perhaps take it up with management?
Hi Trommel,
Why don't you in include the 1,000,000 options to MNS directors?
Or the fact that KNL directors would have to pay money to KNL before their equity based payments are relevant (thus the actual sum is significantly less) - which is oh so clearly stated in the footnote of the annual report you have clearly ignored?
Or WKT directors performance shares?
The reason is this: your post is inaccurate and a sideshow from the failure of MNS.
MNS it's in the bag, MNS let's have a $2 boat party, MNS directors salaries.
(20min delay)
