Yes, many shareholders see your point. And of course having less...

Yes, many shareholders see your point. And of course having less options outstanding is better than having more & paying your CEO less is better than paying them more. However the $$$ that management gets is seldom a soul deciding factor in choosing a stock in an investment portfolio.

For the average shareholder owning a small piece of Nearmap, a YES or NO on the issue of options & bonuses is really not going to change any outcome. This is why having a "voice" in the AGM is so important. And for those who cannot attend this year's AGM, at least forward your questions to someone who will attend (or post them here) so that management can address these issues.

Judging by the outcomes of motions in past AGMs, the YES votes on option issues outweigh the NO vote by a HUGE margin, in fact the results were so skewed it makes small shareholders feel insignificant. So by voting NO if your goal is to voice a protest to the company then I truely believe it is far more effective to do it vocally in person (or through a representative) at the AGM than silently on paper.

Put yourself in the shoes of the CEO, are you more concern with a few small holders voting NO (knowing you have the numbers anyway) or are you more concern being embarrassed by the same individuals asking some pointed questions at the AGM?

I believe most investors will just go with a YES vote because they would rather have a CEO that is MORE incentivised in their company than LESS.

But look at it this way, with the base salary, bonuses and the many many incentives that Dr Newman is getting, at least competitors like Spookfish (SFI) will not be poaching him any time soon.