RE: If I might be permitted...how much time does onc management (or their board) spend studying compensation packages? i remember a quote from a previous AGM where BT indicated they actually hired and paid an independent 3rd party consultant to conduct a study to ensure onc's executive compensation was "fair" compared to other biotechs.
isn't that a bit extreme and even bizarre for a company that has yet to complete a Cdn ph I trial entering its 3rd or 4th year (its been so long i've forgotten the exact number of years), cut off a ph II trial at 6 patients while waiting a year before issuing interim results as "final", is entering the 4th year of waiting for FDA approval to commence a US ph I trial, etc. why not simply look up some annual reports of small developmental biotechs with limited finances and compare to the average?
the difference between options and shares to shareholders is simple and extremely relevant to this discussion (as are all other questionable onc management moves)
while advancing cancer treatment and offering terminal patients of some of the most deadly cancers hope for a future is a noble and certainly worthwhile goal, it is not the only reason we are here.
ultimately in addition to any personal gratification of supporting such efforst, we want to also profit financially from seeing the successful achievemet of a breakthrough cancer treatment - like any other investment - ultimately it has to be about a return on investment.
management has no out of pocket investment or other financial commitment to onc with options unless you think that $150K plus bonuses annually isn't enough to pay for the mortgage, feed the kids and save for their college. (and i'm sure onc management would never think of repricing or extending the option period, or simply re-issue new lower priced ones, if the price went against them, considering the apparent sentiment and implicit trust of most of their shareholders, would they?)
shareholders are most certainly out of pocket for money used to buy their shares. the time value of money (ie dollars invested) matters & should matter to every reasonably intelligent investor.
the fact onc management has no out of pocket financial commitment
AND has failed to produce timely trial results or even a comprehendable or accountable timeline of their future plans for that matter is not acceptable.
management interests, in onc's case, are not directly aligned with shareholders - the royalty gets paid personally from amounts that would otherwise be available to the company & accordingly its shareholders.
theoretically & conceivably, onc share values could be hurt by excessive dilution (perhaps doing unecessary and/or untimely financings to help out certain shorts?), yet managemet will get their royalty if reolysin is proven, no matter what.
perhaps if they actually put some of their own money where their mouth is, they might be a bit more concerned about the timing of financings, the dilutive effects of slow development & unkept promises that brings their credibilty into question and serves to depress the stock price, while reducing the remaining commercial life & therefore value of their original & most important patent, which further dampens market value.
Here is another suggestion (in addition to bringing an independent credible, and reputable person like lievonen or a mellon reprsentative in as chair of the board).
perhaps the new chair's first act should be a new compensation study which recommends BT & MC to exchang their personal royalties (which in the case of BT he got for nothing thanks to being in a direct conflict of interest position) in return for current onc shares.
since they won't put any of their own money into the company even at these "depressed" prices thereby directly aligning their financial interest in their revolutionary cancer treatment with the rest of us shareholers, perhaps we shareholders can do it for them?
i know management would never voluntarily agree to it, but my question to proboscis, rjc, matdu, BIOEYE and other onc management apologists is this.
what conceptual reasons are there for opposing such an exchange of future royalties for current onc shares?
would it be that management now has an actual financial stake in all of their decisions regarding drug development, size & length of trials, trial sites, delays, funding, timing & dilution of financings, stock manipulation, make them question the optics of their association with organetix and ammacorp and the potential loss of credibility with the market or at least large institutions?
or would it cause their total compensation package to suffer?
i would certainly be interested in your thoughts, but given your apparent unwillingness to address such unseemly, controversial issues that i have raised in the past, i don't expect many if any responses.
(perhaps these issues are just beyond your area of expertise?
