Conflict of interest more disturbing than poor performance Past successes certainly are deserving of recognition. I had been a fan and made a lot of money with old and new Probe, but did not post much. In fact, after I started reading some of these posts, I was disturbed enough to start looking into this.
My Stockhouse ID had lapsed because I hadn't posted for so long, but rest assured, I know the story back from the Ring of Fire days.
This team was more than amply compensated when Probe Mines was taken over by Goldcorp; including a very generous buyout clause for their salaries.
When the new Probe was formed, they were again, very well compensated and continue to be with their extremely high salaries and millions of option grants as noted in previous posts.
Bonuses and options should be for a job well done including project advancement and ROI for investors. This stock has languished and performed poorly especially in comparison to "peers". The performance does not merit additional options let alone the proposed stock plan.
Probe has become an institutional darling to the detriment of the retail investor. The fat cats at the Sprotts, Canaccords, etc continue to benefit from their buddy buddy relationship with this management team and the high fees generated. The retail investors have not, especially those who are in over the dollar mark. And I bet there are quite a few.
The worst part of this is that this highly paid team is paid huge dollars to devote their time to advancing Probe Metals.
NOT ANGUS VENTURES.
As other posters have mentioned, take a close look at Angus Ventures and then prepare some questions for the Probe team at the AGM.
A full time VP of Corporate Development has no business taking a compensation package of over 300k, hundreds of thousands of options and then starting another junior exploration company and advancing it with a substantial number of acquisitions, funding activities as well as all of the day to day operations while still employed at a Probe. As an investor I am extremely disturbed by this.
Their IR girl gets paid a high salary to work at a Probe full time; yet she is CFO at Angus? I am extremely disturbed by this.
The Angus qualified geologist was and likely still is a geologist at Probe Metals - not sure of that but would be a question to be asked at the AGM. If this is the case, I am extremely disturbed by this.
David Palmer and Jamie Sokalsky are large shareholders of Angus - 16% each I believe...enough for them to take a very active role in the company. Neither are the hands-off type.
Does anyone seriously believe that Dave Palmer would not have had a hand in the evaluation of the project acquisitions that Angus has completed?
The corporate address of Angus was the same as Probe up until a few weeks ago, then it was mysteriously changed back to the Vancouver address the shell had before Langlois and company acquired it. Maybe due to some questions being asked? I wonder how much work gets done in Vancouver when the entire management team is located in the Temperance Street offices. I am extremely disturbed by this.
Probe Metals is not doing as well as the management team has obviously hoped for. Why are there no majors involved if it's such a good project? They are drilling all over the place and have yet to find a feasible resource. What is the cost per ounce of what they have found so far - look at the millions of dollars raised and spent so far. They have consolidated a large land package. That is the biggest accomplishment as far as I can see.
Why are all of the key players so involved in Angus?
This is not a gold producer.
This is a junior exploration company.
They do not produce revenues.
Management is not entitled to the types of perks that gold producing management teams get. Yet they seem to think they are...that's what this stock plan is all about.
It's unfortunate. I am no longer a fan and am extremely disappointed in this part time management team.
I believe the management team is actively planning their exit strategy from Probe Metals. They are doing so to the detriment of their shareholders and to their own personal enrichment. This is a massive conflict of interest and questions should be raised at a regulatory level as well as at the AGM.