Thank you Simon... I didn’t know that. And I don’t understand it...

Thank you Simon...
I didn’t know that.

And I don’t understand it either except as an act of malice (and why that should exist I don’t know although I developed a working theory).

As per the comments of Michael Arnett the vote was completely unreasonable based on :
1) incredible performance by management -as the last two years of results demonstrate clearly
2) previous pay cuts by Jules
3)the timing being coincident with leaders placing the company (and institutions supporting it) at new levels of security in a very insecure market.
4) affirmation the dividend stream is intended to be maintained
5) previous strong (near unaminous) institutional support from the institutions now back-treading .
6) the amounts - in the general scheme of things bring trivial.


I really didn’t like it - it seemed not only cruel and ill judged but self defeating .