I'm not sure if anybody remembers this …. I posted it after GP...

I'm not sure if anybody remembers this …. I posted it after GP left.

https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/35478565/single

The actual conversation was around empire building and treatment of various staff … as well as a few other things that I won't go into.

I'm not sure it deviates from what was said at the AGM; GP probably did get the company to the point he did with a high level of skill in that area. He also may have recognised the fact that new skills were needed to move the company onwards from there.

He may also be the standard sort of director that seems to prevail in Australia these days who wants to be paid in advance of company success to the levels that would be in place if the company had proven successful. I have seen way too much of that ...

I think that there was a fair amount of upheaval at the time of his departure, and I think that there could have been some level of "upselling" at certain times during his tenure to keep the sp high (to satisfy certain opaque  obligations?), and, of course, various option changes as noted in this thread.

Be that as it may, it is in the past … and I do think that Andrew and Mark did a fine job of keeping things going whilst they awaited a new CEO. I don't believe that there is any conspiracy to reduce dilution by sending the options "out of the money", it would be counterproductive for the company … and it would smack of the modus operandi of a particular broker whom I believe is no longer in a position of influence.

My honest opinion is that the comments from GW repeated here are the facts behind that matter - he is not going to artificially inflate the share price to get the options in the money, he is not going to skirt the disclosure rules, and he believes that tradeable options are generally abused; traded and converted for individual advantage rather than the original intent.

I do note that whilst there are some 2,500 shareholders, there are only some 700 options holders … so from the perspective of the majority, a stable sp is more desirable than the economics of the options. From that perspective, it appears that the board is doing what they are paid to do - looking after shareholders' interests. They have made good decisions with management appointments (such as Luc Kox), and stability and future positioning appears to be the course of action chosen.

I sympathise with all who are  holding options who feel like they have lost out - but I also think that it is not the role of the BOD to defend option holders who are not willing to back the company if the conversion costs more than the current par rate.

Paying 29c for shares on market gets the return those shares provide on the back of money previously paid. Paying 30c to convert  options invests new money to back the investment made by the share purchase, and has a greater return in the long run.  In a well run company, the option price + the conversion price will always yield a greater return than buying shares on market, as the conversion cost is invested in the company, not some ex-shareholder's back pocket.