Canfor Pulp Products Inc T.CFX

The information in the AGM Notice is Scary

[jenkinjt]

Just looking through the notice for the Canfor AGM and astonished to see that only one director has more shares than I do !!!  ( and I am not a big investor!) It looks like the entire board is there to wring out compensation for the work they do by salary and incentives unrelated to business performance. The incentives are minimally based on the financial performance of the company (20%) as that is only one of five areas for managment performance evaluated. The others are Company Philosopy, Performance based plan design, designing Performance targets (not that they have to achieve them !), performance evaluations and work on arranging salary increases and incentives. 
Just not sure how directors who hold less than $50,000 in stock (some have none) and all list "Compensation" as an area of expertise, can really be looking to see the business become financially profitable. The only way directors will be paid is to get good salaries... They will see no benefit to seeing the stock price rise since they have no investment in the company. Looks like an insiders club to design their own salaries. 
I voted No to all the directors who hold minimal vested interest in the company. IMO it is necessary for a director to show faith in the company by owning shares and then seeking to improve on the value of those for shareholders as well as themselves.

[dosperros]

The governence black hole is alarming.  No Nasim Talib style skin in the game. Leading practices today are the "equity holding policy" that you see at outfits like West Fraser.  They stipulate that the BoD needs to own X times their annual retainer or they can ternder their resignation.  It's similar with the Exec... the CEO must own 3x his salary.... VPs 2x. Canfor

[claritas]

As Canfor controls the Company, management holdings are less of an indicator of 'no skin in the game'.

[dosperros]

And the same applies to Canfor, too. Not sure what point you're driving at.  It certainly is not a mitigating factor for CFX nor does it excuse any of the dismal performance (zero pulp M&A… like missing on WY’s NBSK mill in GP… trying to veer into biodiesel… etc).  It's quite unfortunate for shareholders not named Jimmy either entity.   The sheer fact CFX is still