Agree with your post, bourbasted,
Many of us who have held the stock over the last several years, now accept that breaking into industry with Anteo's technology has proven to be far more arduous than we had thought. There is no point crucifying the optimism of the past, where we were similarly optimistic. That's water under the bridge now.
My initial support for Matt Sanderson's position on the board remains firm. I met him through this forum, and then face to face on lab visits and at AGMs etc. He has always struck me as genuine, fair, even-tempered, intelligent and down to earth. Some posters seem to have expected that in his role on the Board he would be our conduit to significant information about Anteo's operations, but on reflection they would realise that his doing so would be highly improper, quite counter-productive in the release of commercially confidential information, and illegal in any selective release of market-sensitive information.
Much is touted about the qualifications and experience for Board membership. When I consider the Board oversight of various large public companies that have got themselves into some awful messes, I am inclined to the view that the qualifications were present, but the brain was not in gear, the attention was elsewhere, and the objectives were to agree with other Board members and not ask difficult questions, while collecting several director's fees from appointments to other Boards simply through being known, "one of us". Should optimists sometimes be cynical ? Well, this one is.
I want Anteo's Board members to be honest, smart, focussed, to understand and be committed to the technology and the company, to be thorough over budgets and expenditure, to exercise good strategic judgment, and to give good value for the fees they receive. I am convinced that Matt satisfies those criteria.
While I do not know Jack Hamilton apart from meeting him and watching him in operation at that presentation, I liked very much his down-to-earth and no-nonsense approach, his plain-speaking about making announcements only where they were significant, and his obvious grasp of Anteo's business and the best early opportunities. So he gets my vote as well.
I looked over the Remuneration Report (in the last Annual Report); In 2016-17 the total of base fees for all directors was $595k, which I think is far too large a proportion of Anteo's operating budget. I note that for the 2017-18 FY, a bit less than $120k has been the base fees for the current three directors (Matt and Jack have served for part only of that year). So next year we can expect the total base to be higher. Now Jack spent time since the presentation directly pursuing business opportunities in the battery field, and I'm pleased to see directors operating in this way when it makes good sense to do so. I'll give the Remuneration Report my vote as well, and the 10% placement facility.
Meanwhile, I look forward to this next quarterly report.
(20min delay)
