Not necessarily but I do like your thinking. I guess you have...

Not necessarily but I do like your thinking.

I guess you have seen, another example of, what happens when Board members have too many shares and a self interest.

It is in the hands of shareholders what they want to do but I have followed AHF for quite some time and am disheartened to see what has happened and where the company has landed at this point and do believe there are better alternatives and we (a small group of us) have one or two good ideas. If shareholders want to see what we have then it is up them at the upcoming AGM and then up to us whether we want to put an alternative up for consideration. For now I just sit and watch and take guidance as to whether there is an appetite for change but I certainly have a view that the current Board has not done the right thing by all shareholders and has shown clear intent to retain control and earnings within a small group of family members and related parties. TAU is its history of example as it is nigh on the same crowd and the behaviour is similar.

Impartiality and independence of significant holdings sometimes is a good thing but impartiality and independence of industry knowledge and capability is not. Payment of shares based on pure performance that is shareholder aligned is the right approach as has been shown by the revised remuneration plan for the new BAL incumbents for example.

If you think the current Board have it right then you are welcome to support them, that is your absolute right as a shareholder and I would support your right to have independence of choice.