Read all the LSE posts shared here - thanks for posting all the...

Read all the LSE posts shared here - thanks for posting all the views, it is great to read and pick-up the bits (non emotive) that I may have missed or misinterpreted

For transparency, I will vote No for performance shares as it is being offered in its current form.

I am all in favor for pay for performance schemes, but I would want to see more link to the actions being discussed and planned, not the potential SP from those actions.


If we incentives the output, in our case example SP sustained over a period of years, it is natural behavior to look for anyway possible to achieve the outcome - does this drive the right behavior and value for SH's?
And as we know the SP is simply a consequence of market cap / shares on issue. So for better SP simply increase the market cap -this we want, or the one we don't want reduce shares on issue (consolidation).

I would want to see performance shares for number of drills, drills completed on time, drills completed on budget, number of farm-out deals made by when, terms landed for farm-outs being bandied about - higher if a tier 1, lower if a tier 2 etc., This will demonstrate "performance" on the book (what they say they will do) vs the movie (what they actually do) so to speak.

The successful completion of the actions will drive market cap and lead to SP increasing